Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2020-09-20 Architectural Review Board Agenda Packet
_______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Architectural Review Board Regular Meeting Agenda: August 20, 2020 Virtual Meeting 8:30 AM ****BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY*** https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 932 2779 7046 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833 Pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, issued on March 17, 2020, to prevent the spread of Covid-19, this meeting will be held by virtual teleconference only, with no physical location. The meeting will be broadcast live on Cable TV and through Channel 26 of the Midpen Media Center at bit.ly/MidPenwatchnow. Members of the public may comment by sending an email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org or by attending the Zoom virtual meeting to give live comments. Instructions for the Zoom meeting can be found on the last page of this agenda. Visit bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plans and details. 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 _______________________ 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. 2.PUBLIC HEARING/ACTION ITEM 1310 Bryant Street, 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street [19PLN-00116]: Architectural Review of Castilleja School's Phased Campus Redevelopment Proposal for Site Modifications, Demolition, Construction of a Below Grade Parking Garage and a new Classroom Building, and Minor Alterations to one Facade of a Historic Inventory Category 3 Building on Campus. Redevelopment is Associated With a Request for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment and Variance for Gross Floor Area (GFA) Replacement. The Primary Project Also Includes Requests for a Tentative map With Exception and a Variance for Below-grade Setback Encroachment Into the Embarcadero Road Special Setback (the Alternate Project Does not Include These Requests). Zone District: R-1(10,000). Environmental Review: A Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was Published July 29, 2020. For More Information Contact Amy French, Chief Planning Official, at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org 3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 788 San Antonio Avenue [19PLN-00079]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Existing 12,000 Square Feet of Commercial Space and Construction of a Four-Story Mixed-use Building that Includes 102 Residential Units and 1,803 Square Feet of Commercial Space With a Two-level Basement Parking Garage. Sixteen of the Residential Units Would be Below Market Rate. The Project Also Requires a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment to Apply the Housing Incentive Program at This Location and a Variance From the Special Setback Along San Antonio Road for a Pedestrian Ramp. The Applicant Also Proposes to Subdivide the Property for Condominiums. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report was Circulated on July 31, 2020 Through September 14, 2020 and was 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 Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for July 2, 2020 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for July 16, 2020 Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Working Group Updates - Boardmember Lew Adjournment Public Comments Public Comments Material Board Storybook Aerial Photos _______________________ 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. Public comment is encouraged. Email the ARB at: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the ARB after distribution of the agenda packet is available for public inspection at bit.ly/paloaltoARB. 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. _______________________ 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. Public Comment Instructions Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below for the appropriate meeting to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. A. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in-browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. B. You will be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. C. When you wish to speak on an agenda item, click on “raise hand”. The moderator will activate and unmute attendees in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. The Zoom application will prompt you to unmute your microphone when it is your turn to speak. D. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. E. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow instructions B-E above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 932 2779 7046 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833 (you may need to exclude the initial “1” depending on your phone service) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 11530) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 8/20/2020 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 1 Packet Pg. 5 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. Attachments: • Attachment A: ARB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX) • Attachment B: Tentative Future Agendas (DOCX) 1 Packet Pg. 6 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 1/30/2020 9:00 AM Palo Alto Art Center Retreat 2/6/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/20/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 3/5/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/19/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 4/2/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 4/16/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular Lee excused 5/7/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 5/21/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 6/4/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Subcommittee 6/18/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled 7/2/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 7/16/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 8/6/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled 8/20/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 9/3/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled 9/17/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 10/1/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 10/15/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 11/5/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 11/19/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 12/3/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 12/17/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 2020 Subcommittee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair on the day of the hearing January February March April May June 1/16 – Hirsch/Lew 2/6 – Baltay/Lew 3/5 – Baltay/Lew 4/16 – Hirsch/Lew 5/21 – Thompson/Lew 6/4 – Thompson/Hirsch July August September October November December 7/2 – Thompson/Hirsch /Lew 1.a Packet Pg. 7 Architectural Review Board 2020 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics September 3, 2020 • Cancelled September 17, 2020 • 1310 Bryant (Castilleja School) 2nd Formal October 1, 2020 • ARB Review of Objective Standards 1.b Packet Pg. 8 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 11193) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/20/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 1310 Bryant, 1235 and 1263 Emerson: Castilleja First ARB Title: PUBLIC HEARING/ACTION ITEM 1310 Bryant Street, 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street [19PLN-00116]: Architectural Review of Castilleja School's Phased Campus Redevelopment Proposal for Site Modifications, Demolition, Construction of a Below Grade Parking Garage and a new Classroom Building, and Minor Alterations to one Facade of a Historic Inventory Category 3 Building on Campus. Redevelopment is Associated With a Request for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment and Variance for Gross Floor Area (GFA) Replacement. The Primary Project Also Includes Requests for a Tentative map With Exception and a Variance for Below-grade Setback Encroachment Into the Embarcadero Road Special Setback (the Alternate Project Does not Include These Requests). Zone District: R-1(10,000). Environmental Review: A Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was Published July 29, 2020. For More Information Contact Amy French, Chief Planning Official, at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Consider the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR)1 published July 29, 2020; particularly, sections focused on aesthetics and cultural resources, 2. Conduct a public hearing of the Architectural Review (AR) application (19PLN-00419) for phased redevelopment of Castilleja’s campus, and 1 Final EIR published July 29, 2020: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4823&TargetID=319 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 3. Continue the hearing to September 17th. Report Summary The applicant, the Castilleja School Foundation (Castilleja), seeks to redevelop portions of its campus and increase the school’s enrollment. Castilleja School is a private school providing education for girls from sixth grade through 12th grade. Founded in 1907 at 1121 Bryant Street, the school moved in 1910 to the 1310 Bryant Street campus. It is located within a single-family residential neighborhood zoned R-1(10,000). This staff report: • Supports the ARB’s consideration of the Final EIR, published pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); • Supports review of campus redevelopment proposals (Project and Project Alternative plans) associated with the CUP request for annual enrollment increases up to a 540- student cap; and • Clarifies the upcoming review process steps and purview of the ARB, HRB, and PTC for the Castilleja School project. The ARB is scheduled to consider the Project over at least two meetings; August 20 and September 17, 2020. This first ARB discussion will include the EIR presentation and a presentation by the applicant. The applicant’s presentation will include the Project plans and more recently submitted plans for a ‘Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative’; this is referred to as the “Project Alternative.” The ARB’s purview includes the physical changes to the campus, such as the site modifications, construction of a below grade parking garage and new classroom building. Staff asks for ARB comments regarding the Project and Project Alternative and requests a continuance of the public hearing to September 17, 2020. The September 17th staff report will include draft Architectural Review findings. Staff is now preparing these findings, as well as approval conditions tailored to the Project Alternative described in the Final EIR as the environmentally superior alternative. The applicant also seeks a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) amendment (file 16PLN-00238) to increase its student enrollment cap. The enrollment would occur in stages alongside the phased campus redevelopment and would also include an enhanced Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) will consider the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the CUP, and Variances on for gross floor area replacement and setback encroachment, and Tentative Map with Exceptions (17PLN-00234) August 26, 2020. Links to relevant documents are found on the City’s Castilleja School Project webpages: (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school/default.asp). EIR Consideration and Project Objectives 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 The ARB is asked to consider the EIR prepared for this project. The ARB members received notice of the 2019 Draft EIR 60-day public comment period. The July 15, 2019 Draft EIR addressed the planning entitlement applications associated with the Project, and • Noted the Applicant’s eight project objectives; • Identified the Project’s ‘significant and unavoidable’ CEQA traffic impacts; • Provided explanations and mitigation measures to address other impacts; • Evaluated two on-site alternatives to the Project; and • Discussed six other project alternatives, rejected from further analysis. On July 30, 2020, ARB members were notified of the Final EIR publication. The Final EIR: (i) Provides Master Responses (MRs) and Individual Responses to Draft EIR public comments received during the 60-day review period that ended September 16, 2019; (ii) Revises the Draft EIR with additional analysis, clarifies project alternatives, and adds two alternatives (in Revised Chapter 13) discussed in the Final EIR Chapter 2 (MRs 4 and 5); (iii) Describes the Project’s significant and unavoidable impact (SOI) under CEQA (the TIRE2 Index increase on Emerson Street); the increase in daily traffic on Emerson Street between Melville Avenue and Embarcadero Road (Impact 7-1 in the Draft EIR); and (iv) Describes the Project Alternative’s ability to avoid significant CEQA impacts, including the TIRE Index impact described above. Project Alternative The Project Alternative is considered the ‘environmentally superior alternative’ to the Project; it changes the level of significance of CEQA impacts and would not require Council to adopt a ‘Statement of Overriding Considerations’ to approve it. The Project Alternative, submitted in 2020, would enable achievement of all Project objectives, while addressing several community concerns; removing the significant and unavoidable CEQA traffic impact of the Project; and enabling withdrawal of the Tentative Map application and Variance request for a below grade garage encroachment into the Embarcadero Road Special Setback. If Council supports the Project Alternative, Council can: • Certify the Final EIR by Resolution; • Adopt the associated mitigation measures with a mitigation monitoring and reporting program; and • Approve a Record of Land Use Action containing approval findings and conditions for the CUP, the Variance for floor area replacement, and Architectural Review. Background Applicant’s Project Objectives The Applicant’s eight project objectives, as noted in the Draft and Final EIRs, are as follows: 2 TIRE = Traffic Intrusion into Residential Environments 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 1. Maintain a single integrated campus for the middle and upper school in the current location, while providing new structures that integrate state-of-the-art technology and teaching practices and retain flexibility to adapt to unanticipated changes. 2. Achieve better architectural compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods through a well- articulated building and improve site aesthetics and harmony with the surrounding neighborhoods through enhanced landscaping. 3. Increase enrollment to 540 students* to allow more young women the unique opportunity to receive an all-girls education. 4. Increase on-site parking via an underground parking garage in order to reduce both parking visibility and surface parking spaces. 5. Improve vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access for students and staff through design efficiencies and a robust Transportation Demand Management Plan. 6. Ensure no increase in vehicle trips to and from the campus during AM and PM peak hours relative to recent (baseline) traffic volumes. Reduce the number of service deliveries and relocate deliveries within the campus and below grade, to decrease nuisance effects to neighbors. 7. Improve the campus’s sustainability and energy efficiency by developing new facilities. 8. Phased development of the project to allow Castilleja School to continue to operate during construction and to reduce impacts on the neighborhood. *Note: Applicant request for a 540-student cap is associated with phased enrollment increases and special events limitations, alongside phased campus redevelopment over three years. Project Information Owner: Castilleja School Architect: WRNS Representative: Kathy Layendecker Legal Counsel: Mindie Romanowski Property Information Address: 1310 Bryant Street, and 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street (project site) located within R-1 (10,000) Zone District) See Attachment A map Neighborhood: Seale Addition (located south of Embarcadero Rd west of Alma St) Lot Dimensions & Area: Project site is 286,783 square foot (s.f.) comprised of three parcels. • 1310 Bryant (APN 124-12-034) frontages: 500’ on Kellogg; 406.6’ on Bryant; 429.4’ on Embarcadero Rd; 430’ on Emerson St • 1235 Emerson (APN 124-12-031) 75’ wide by 100’ deep, a rental housing unit on a 7,500 s.f. lot); • 1263 Emerson (APN 124-12-033) 105’ wide by 100’ deep, a 10,500 s.f. lot no longer used for housing). Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 Historic Resource(s): Yes. Local historic inventory Category 3 resource. Other Castilleja buildings more than 45 years old are not on the inventory and are not eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources. Existing Improvement(s): One-, two- and three-story buildings; oldest building is circa 1910 Existing Land Use(s): Private all-girls school and housing (Emerson address parcels) Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: single family residential; R-1(10,000) i.e. 10,000 sf min lot size West: Single family residential; R-1 i.e. 6,000 sf minimum lot size East: single family residential (R-1 10,000) South: single family residential (R-1 10,000) Special Setbacks: Embarcadero Road 24 feet Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Zoning Designation: R-1 (10,000), Single Family Residential with 10,000 sf min. lot size (enables replacement of school campus with 24 additional homes) Comp. Plan Designation: Single Family Residential Context-Based Design: Not Applicable in R-1 Zoning Code Regulations Downtown Urban Design: Not Applicable SOFA II CAP: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes, residences on project site and across all bounding streets Located w/in AIA (Airport Influence Area): Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: Council informational EIR scoping report/summary of comments June 2017 http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58246 PTC: PTC Scoping Session March 8, 2017 staff report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56245 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 PTC August 2019 Draft EIR hearing report3, excerpt minutes,4 and video5 links are provided in footnotes below. HRB: ARB: HRB September 12, 2019 Draft EIR hearing report6, excerpt minutes7 and video8 links are provided in footnotes below. None Enforcement: Case for exceedance of CUP 2000 cap: Enrollment reductions, TDM program monitoring9, penalty payment. Status: 430 students enrolled in 2019-20 school year; 426 students enrolled for 2020-21 school year. Enforcement agreement: TDM implementation; 2015 Embarcadero Road access study; 2016 CUP submittal/process while reducing enrollment annually, except City agreed to a pause in enrollment decrease for academic year 2017-18. Project Description The following applications will be presented to Council for consideration: • Architectural Review: The ARB’s recommendations on the Project and Project Alternative will be forwarded to the City Council for action on the Architectural Review application. • Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Amendment and GFA (FAR) Variance: Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.77 establishes the process for evaluating a CUP amendment application and a Variance request. Variance and CUP applications are evaluated to specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve these applications. The CUP phased enrollment increases are timed with phased campus modifications. The CUP includes an enhanced Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan. The GFA (FAR) Variance is a request to replace above ground gross floor area (GFA) on the existing campus parcel, exceeding the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The FAR, the ratio of the gross floor area to the lot area (campus parcel), is currently exceeded by existing building GFA. The GFA (FAR) Variance is requested for the Project Alternative, as well as for the project. • Encroachment Variance: A second Variance is requested for the Project, but not the Project Alternative. The Project’s subterranean garage would encroach into the Embarcadero Road special setback below grade; the Project Alternative’s reduced garage would be located outside this setback. 3 PTC August 19, 2019 staff report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72895 4 PTC August 19, 2019 excerpt minutes https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77794 5 PTC August 19, 2019 video https://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-63-8142019/ 6 HRB September 12, 2019 staff report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/73280 7 HRB September 12, 2019 excerpt minutes https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77795 8 HRB September 12, 2019 video https://midpenmedia.org/historic-resources-board-46-09122019/ 9 Project webpage news updates: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school/archived_news_updates.asp 2 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 • Tentative Map with Exception: The Tentative Map with Exception is associated with the Project, but not required or requested with the Project Alternative. The request is to increase the campus size to add the two Emerson Street parcels, coupled with demolishing the two houses on these lots. The application (incomplete) includes an Exception request, because this R-1 (10,000) zoned Campus parcel exceeds the maximum allowable lot size of 19,999 sf. The Final EIR provides descriptions of the Applicant’s Project and Project Alternative, and other alternatives to the Project. The Project and Project Alternative both include: • Demolishing five campus buildings (including the Leonard Ely Fine Arts Center fronting Emerson Street, classroom and campus center buildings along Bryant and Kellogg), • Replacing campus gross floor area (GFA) on the campus parcel in a new academic building that also increases below-grade, non-GFA space, • Constructing a subterranean garage accessed from the existing Bryant Street surface parking lot with a two-way access ramp with a one-way garage exit ramp; garage completion is associated with the phase 1 student enrollment increase. • Providing a below grade pedestrian passage from the garage to campus buildings, • Demolishing the at-grade pool and constructing a below-grade pool and pool sound wall, • Providing for below-grade delivery and trash enclosures/waste pick-up with reconstruction of the Circle in the center of the campus, and • Installing new landscaping and fences. Project - Brief Summary The Project is described fully in the Draft EIR10 as updated in the Final EIR. In addition to the common elements listed above, the Project: • Merges the two Castilleja-owned Emerson Street parcels (at 1235 and 1263 Emerson) with the campus parcel; • Demolishes the Emerson homes to create open space and a large subterranean garage; • Constructs a subterranean garage that: o Provides more than the required number of on-site parking spaces, o Extends beneath the Embarcadero Road special setback and beneath the two Emerson residential parcels, and o Receives all peak hour student drop offs; and • Removes 31 trees, relocates 34 trees, and retains 99 trees in place; of these trees, seven of the trees to be removed and five of the trees to be relocated are protected trees, and three of the trees to be removed and one tree to be relocated are street trees. Phases of Redevelopment 10 Link to Draft EIR published July 15, 2019 with revisions in Final EIR published July 29, 2020: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4823&TargetID=319 2 Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 8 The first phase of the Project is the demolition of two houses and merging these parcels to construct the subterranean garage. The below grade garage would extend beneath the two residential parcels and beneath the Embarcadero Road special setback (subject to Council approval of a Variance). The Project’s garage would: (1) increase on-site parking spaces beyond code requirement (taken together with surface spaces), and (2) modify campus circulation, re-routing drop-offs and pick-ups through the garage. Following the first phase completion, the enrollment level would increase annually, up to 490 students. Additional construction phases would be associated with requested student enrollment caps of 520 and 540 students, as follows: • Phase 2 relocates the pool and increases enrollment to a maximum of 520 students; and • Phase 3 relocates deliveries and waste pick-ups further from the street and below grade, reduces food service deliveries by 10%, and implements a sustainability plan; and • Phase 4 demolishes campus buildings, replaces removed GFA with the academic building GFA, and increases enrollment to a maximum of 540 students. Project Alternative - Brief Summary Final EIR describes the Project Alternative. The Project Alternative responds to and addresses several community concerns, while continuing to achieve the Project Objectives, proposed enrollment cap, and the number and frequency of special events. Compared to the original Project, the Project Alternative: • Reconfigures the subterranean garage footprint, reduces the overall size of the garage, and moves the underground structure outside the Embarcadero Road setback; • Retains two residential structures on Emerson Street and the row of six redwood trees at the western edge of Spieker Field; • Distributes school traffic to three drop-off/pick-up locations around the campus (retaining the Kellogg Avenue drop off driveway); • Removes the right-turn only restriction for vehicles exiting the garage, avoiding the Project’s TIRE Index impact on Emerson Street, subject to mitigations that would avoid creating any new TIRE Index impacts. • Provides on-site parking spaces meeting the code-required spaces; • Reduces the size of the Academic Building at the ground floor level by 754 square feet (offset by increasing the building’s below-grade level by 800 square feet); • Includes site modifications; namely, reconstruction of the existing loop driveway on Kellogg Avenue, in generally the same location; and • Retains 21 more trees than the original project. Construction Phases of Project Alternative The first phase of construction of the Project Alternative would include completion of the reduced subterranean garage and landscaping. Once concluded, this would enable an increase 2 Packet Pg. 16 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 9 of enrollment up to 490 students through an annual increase of 27 students. The subsequent phases for the Project Alternative are the same as the subsequent phases for the Project. Enhanced Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Traffic Increase The Project and Project Alternative rely on an enhanced TDM program to address an increase in daily vehicle trips to campus and maintain existing peak hour trips. The enhanced TDM plan would supplement the school’s existing TDM program. The Draft EIR included a Mitigation Measure (MM 7a) requiring Castilleja to implement TDM measures sufficient to reduce the daily trip rate to 2.4 trips per student. The measure is to reduce the number of vehicles accessing the proposed garage for drop-off and pick-up, thus reducing the projected maximum queues. The TDM plan and Mitigation Measure 7a allow some increase in total daily traffic trips but set a limit on the number of peak hour trips and the daily trip rate per student. Attachment B provides a brief summary on traffic (baseline, TDM, CEQA impacts and Council policies). Historic Resources Board Review Both the Project and Project Alternative propose minor modifications to the Gunn Administration Building, a Historic Inventory Category 3 resource on campus. The Draft EIR found Castilleja’s Emerson houses ineligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Registers. In September 2019, the HRB considered the Draft EIR and viewed potential changes to the Category 3 resource. Related content is provided in the Discussion report section. PTC Review The ARB’s review of the Project and Project Alternative designs will inform PTC review. The proposed Academic building is the physical manifestation of the requested gross floor area (GFA) replacement/FAR Variance. The ARB’s review of and comments on this design will help preparation of both AR and Variance findings. The ARB’s review of the garage design and related site modifications for the Project Alternative will also help focus the PTC’s Variance discussion. In addition, the PTC will recommend Council action on the CUP requesting enrollment increases and will discuss the proposal for special events. The existing CUP recognizes five major events held each year plus additional events with between 50 and 100 guests. The PTC will consider the CUP’s proposal for limits on campus events of between 50 and 100 people. In August 2019, the PTC conducted a meeting to receive public comments on the Draft EIR. Links to the staff report11 and minutes12 are provided in the footnotes for this page. Written comments to the PTC13 are also provided in the footnotes below. 11 PTC August 2019 staff report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72897 12 PTC meeting minutes https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/74495 13 Comments to PTC in August 14, 2019 packet https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72753 2 Packet Pg. 17 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 10 Discussion This report section assists the ARB and members of the public, focusing the discussion on seven topics: 1. Architectural Review (AR) Findings - provides the general AR findings and a brief note about Finding #1. 2. Request for Phased Development Construction - provides the language of PAMC 18.76.020 (g) for ARB and Council consideration of the request. 3. Final EIR’ is to assist the ARB navigate the EIR - including master responses to comments relevant to the ARB’s purview, and project alternatives. 4. Circulation and Parking Design - relates to AR Findings #2 and #4. 5. Compatibility of Building Design and EIR Aesthetics Section - relates to AR Findings #2D, #3, and #6. 6. Views, Trees, Landscaping, Fences, Lighting and Historic Preservation - relates to AR Findings #2B, #3 and #5. 7. Other Considerations - briefly discusses the retention and/or loss of the Emerson Street homes, sustainability and stormwater, and construction dust emissions. 1. Architectural Review Findings The ARB reviews development projects with respect to the Architectural Review (AR) Findings set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.76, Section 18.76.020, item (d). The Project Alternative plans will be evaluated with respect to the six AR findings below. Note, however, that not all AR Findings are applicable to the project. For instance, the R-1 districts do not have Context Based Design Criteria (which is cited in general AR finding #2c). The ARB may wish to comment on the project with respect to AR findings at this time – especially, to flag any AR findings staff should pay special attention to when crafting draft AR findings. As noted earlier, the September 17th report will include tailored, draft AR findings for ARB input. PAMC 18.76.020 (d) Findings: Neither the Director, nor the City Council on appeal, shall grant architectural review approval, unless it is found that each of the following applicable findings is met: (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. (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, 2 Packet Pg. 18 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 11 (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. (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. (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.). (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. (6) The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. a. AR Finding #1: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code AR Finding #1 is to compare the project with Zoning Code development standards and Comprehensive Plan policies. The content and analysis of the project with respect to these land use documents is found in the EIR. The Zoning Code enables the Applicant’s requests for CUP and Variances; therefore, AR Finding #1 will reference CUP and Variance findings in the draft Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) for Council action. b. RLUA A Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) citing applicable AR Findings will be prepared for the ARB’s meeting scheduled on September 17, 2020. Similarly, the RLUA prepared for the Planning and Transportation Commission’s second staff report will contain draft CUP and Variance findings. Not all AR Findings are applicable to the project; thus, the RLUA will cite AR Finding #2c as not applicable to the decision. 2. Request for Phased Development Construction a. Three Years Construction The ARB may wish to comment on the Applicant’s proposed three-year campus redevelopment plan, included in the Draft EIR project description. Phased developments up to five years are allowed via Phased Architectural Review approval. Ultimately, the Council will consider the Applicant’s request for phased development after reviewing and certifying the Final EIR. 2 Packet Pg. 19 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 12 The PAMC Chapter 18.76 section 18.76.020, Architectural Review, item (g) enables approval of phased development projects, as follows: PAMC 18.76.020 (g) Phased Projects and Enforcement of Approval Conditions An application for a phased project may be submitted and a specific development schedule may be considered and approved. In no event, however, shall such a development schedule exceed five years from the original date of approval. Approved project plans and conditions of approval imposed through the architectural review process shall be enforceable as approved unless the application is revised or withdrawn in accordance with this title. b. Modular Classrooms The ARB may wish to comment on or request additional information regarding the modular classroom proposal. During the three-year construction time frame, the Applicant would install modular classrooms temporarily on Spieker Field to enable continuation of educational programs. The design of the modular buildings is not detailed in the Project plans, but the EIR includes some description. 3. Final EIR The ARB is requested to consider the Final EIR as it reviews and provides comments on the Architectural Review application. Final EIR Introduction (Chapter 1) orients the reader. The revised Draft EIR/Final EIR include responses to comments on the Draft EIR, via individual Responses to Comments (Chapter 3) and Master Responses (Chapter 2). a. Chapter 2 - Master Responses There are 13 Master Response (MR) sections. Master responses related to Architectural Review topics are underlined below and include: • Alternatives and Circulation (MRs 1, 3, 4, 5, 11, and 12), • Compatibility of building design (MRs 4 and 6), and • Views, trees and landscaping/character (MRs 6, 7, and 8). 1. MR1, Project Description: garage circulation slight change, construction period/closure of Embarcadero, Embarcadero during operation, bike/pedestrian circulation. 2. MR2, CUP: past violations (code compliance issue rather than a CEQA issue); baseline is conditions at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued, current CUP terms and requirements, enforcement mechanisms, reporting for non-traffic issues. 3. MR3, Construction: traffic, noise, air quality. 4. MR4, Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage Alternative: description, impacts. 5. MR5, Project Alternatives: split campus, relocate, no garage, reduced enrollment, retain/replace housing, disbursed drop-off/pick-up. 6. MR 6 Land Use and Planning Impacts: building style, compatibility, external effects (traffic, noise) compatibility - special events, character of residential block, loss of housing in face of housing demand citywide, FAR including garage rules. 7. MR7 Tree Impacts and Mitigation: tree loss and mitigation. 2 Packet Pg. 20 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 13 8. MR8 Aesthetics: tree loss, Embarcadero as scenic corridor, views of garage exit. 9. MR9 Historical Resources: Dudek methodology/conclusions, Lockey house, historic district 10. MR10 Vehicle Transportation: Stanford Hospital, Stanford GUP, Signalization Kingsley, Churchill Closure, Surface Circulation - including Embarcadero issues, TDM - existing and proposed, effectiveness 11. MR11 Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety: accident history, traffic impacts on bike boulevard, proposed circulation routes 12. MR12 Garage Circulation: intended circulation, staff management, wheel stop time, queueing, emergency response 13. MR13 Noise: pool, special events, heavy trucks and buses b. Alternatives Staff recommend the ARB focus discussion on the Project Alternative as the environmentally superior alternative. Final EIR Chapter 2, Master Response 5, Project Alternatives provides further discussion of several alternatives and reasons for not carrying some alternatives forward in the EIR, or for providing further analysis. Some example alternatives are: • The alternative for Castilleja to create a second campus and the reasons for not carrying it forward for further evaluation in the EIR. • A ‘no garage’ alternative, initially considered but rejected from further analysis in the Draft EIR; this was looked at further in responses to comments (see Draft EIR Chapter 13, Alternatives, and Final EIR Chapter 2, Master Response 5). • An alternative requiring Castilleja to relocate, additional discussion and reasons for not carrying it forward for further evaluation in the EIR. 4. Circulation and Parking Design (AR Findings #2 and #4) AR Findings #2 and #4 • AR Finding #2 (E) is to ensure a unified and coherent design that enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. • AR Finding #4, in part, is to ensure a functional design allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. AR Finding #4 is also to ensure elements are provided to support the building's necessary operations. These include convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage. a. Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation On-Campus The ARB may review the bicycle and pedestrian circulation on the site as it relates to AR Finding #4. The Master Response, Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety (MR11), responds to comments regarding bicycle safety given traffic volumes on local streets and potential conflicts with vehicles at the project site frontages. The Project and Project Alternative differ with respect to curb cuts onto rights of way: • The Project would reduce driveway curb cuts, which would improve bicycle safety. • The Project Alternative would retain the two curb cuts on Kellogg Avenue. 2 Packet Pg. 21 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 14 Other proposed project features would have no impact on bike and pedestrian safety around the site. However, the ARB may wish to discuss bicycle circulation on site and adjacent frontages (Bryant, Emerson, Kellogg, Embarcadero) and pedestrian circulation, especially relating to below grade garage drop-offs and pick-ups. b. Garage Circulation - Vehicle Access and Queues The ARB can consider the site plans with respect to vehicle access and the functionality of the garage design and surface parking lots to remain. The garage’s two underground lanes will accommodate passenger vehicles and emergency response vehicles. That is, if one lane is blocked, emergency access would be maintained with the second lane. If both lanes are blocked at the Bryant entry, emergency vehicles would enter from the Emerson Street side. Some members of the public have expressed concerns about drop off queues spilling out onto local streets. The garage entrance queues are not expected to extend onto Bryant Street or Embarcadero Road (see Draft EIR pages 7-32 through 7-34 discussion). The Final EIR amended Mitigation Measure 7a to require monitoring and adjustment of the TDM plan, to ensure this does not occur. Master Response 12, Garage Circulation, and Response to Comment C27.4-1 provide additional discussion of queues at the garage entrance. c. Parking Design – Tandem Spaces The ARB may wish to discuss the proposals for tandem parking spaces. The existing campus staff surface lot currently includes six tandem spaces, located in the staff parking lot on the corner of Emerson and Kellogg. These six spaces do not count toward the existing spaces existing on campus. The Project and Project Alternative garage plans include tandem car parking spaces as well; the deeper space of the tandem pair is not counted toward the required parking spaces for a private school. • The Project plans show 131 parking spaces; of these, 121 non-EVSE parking spaces, with 95 below grade parking spaces and 26 surface lot spaces, plus ten EVSE parking spaces. Of the ten pair of tandem car spaces (20 parking spaces), the deeper ten spaces of the tandem pair are not counted toward meeting required parking spaces. That is because they cannot be accessed without coordination among the school staff. These ten deeper spaces are not required per the demand based on analysis; however, the City could enable their use for staff or event overflow parking associated with the CUP. Without the ten deeper spaces, the 131 spaces represent an increase of 49 car spaces over the existing 82 spaces on campus. • The Project Alternative plans show 104 on-site parking spaces, 78 below grade and 26 above grade. These numbers do not include the five deeper car spaces of five tandem pairs. The Project, the deep spaces are not counted toward meeting required parking. Without the deeper tandem spaces, the 104 spaces represent an increase of 22 spaces over the existing 82 spaces. The City could enable their use with the CUP. 2 Packet Pg. 22 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 15 d. Circulation - Construction Traffic Related to the request for phased construction, the ARB may wish to discuss issues related to proposed phases. The EIR contains analysis and measures to address issues that may arise during the four anticipated phases of construction. The issues addressed are: • construction traffic volumes, • traffic management, • potential noise disruption to students during construction, • impacts of construction traffic on bicycle safety, • construction encroachment into the public right-of-way that requires temporary lane closures, and • construction dust emissions. References: • Final EIR Chapter 2 MR describes anticipated construction phasing and schedule presented in Draft EIR Chapter 3, • Revised Draft EIR Chapters 3 and 7 demonstrate that construction would not adversely affect traffic conditions in the vicinity, and • The Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety responses (MR 11) address impacts of construction traffic on bicycle safety. e. Vehicular Circulation – Visibility at Embarcadero Curve The ARB may wish to consider the safety and visibility issues related to the Project’s proposal for traffic exiting the garage. The Project’s drop-off traffic would exit onto Emerson and turn right to access Embarcadero, which has a speed limit of 25 miles per hour. The curve in Embarcadero Road, approximately 150 feet west of Emerson Street, can obscure views of oncoming vehicles. The EIR notes that 150 feet of distance will meet the stopping sight distance requirements for Embarcadero Road. The EIR also notes the gaps in Embarcadero Road traffic would allow for right turns from Emerson Street. References: • Master Response 10, Vehicle Transportation, notes the updated TIS (Appendix E) includes an analysis of existing traffic flows on eastbound Embarcadero Road between Kingsley Avenue and Bryant Street that found traffic moves at an average speed of 29 to 30 miles per hour during the AM, School PM, and PM peak hours. • The TIS and Draft EIR Table 7-6 identify the Emerson/Embarcadero intersection operates at acceptable levels of service and that the project would not cause the level of service to degrade. • The EIR notes that while there would be some congestion from vehicles waiting to turn right onto Embarcadero Road, this approach to the intersection would continue to operate consistent with City policy and standards. 2 Packet Pg. 23 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 16 5. Compatibility of Building Design and EIR Aesthetics Section (AR Findings #2(D), #3, and #6) AR Findings #2(D), #3 and #6 • AR Finding #2(D) is to ensure harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations. • AR Finding #3 is to ensure buildings will have high aesthetic quality, use high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporate textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. • AR Finding #6 is to ensure the project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. a. Aesthetics The ARB may wish to review this chapter and responses to comments on the Draft EIR regarding aesthetics. The building materials, along with the landscaping design and fencing details, reflect materials and designs present in this residential setting. The EIR Aesthetics section (Chapter 5) analyzes the proposed site plan, buildings, and landscaping. The Aesthetics section notes that the campus’ compatibility with neighboring residences would be improved compared to the existing conditions and that proposed architectural features, fencing and walls will reduce the institutional character of the site. b. Academic Building The ARB’s attention on the Academic Building and garage and other aesthetic considerations is appreciated. The Applicant’s goal for the new Academic Building is to attain LEED Platinum standard; this includes a deconstruction approach in compliance with Castilleja School’s proposed Sustainability Road Map. The proposed building would be slightly smaller in scale and massing than the existing buildings along Kellogg and Bryant. The new building would comply with the R-1 zone height limit and incorporate more horizontal and vertical articulation than the existing buildings. The design includes large roof overhangs with exposed wood beams, trellised patios, and outdoor covered areas, and use of exterior materials that occur in the neighborhood. The ARB may wish to review Draft EIR pages 5-11 through 5-13 and MR 8, Aesthetics, pertaining to building design, including articulation, materials, and colors. In Draft EIR comments, some community members characterized the design as too modern and industrial, with a mix of siding materials that would not harmonize with the neighborhood. But as one commenter notes, “compatible does not mean matching; the Comprehensive Plan defines compatible as “capable of existing together without significant conflict or ill effects”.” Master Response (MR) 8 conveys that the proposed Academic Building would be slightly smaller in scale and mass than the existing buildings and Response to C3-15 notes: “the Academic building is proposed to consist of two wings, with the library wing oriented along Bryant Street and having a footprint of 8,237 square feet and the 2 Packet Pg. 24 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 17 classroom wing oriented along Kellogg Avenue with a footprint of 33,036 square feet. In contrast, the average size of a Walmart Supercenter (which offers both merchandise and groceries and is typically open 24-hours per day) is 179,000 square feet while the original big-box Walmart store is now called a Discount Store (which typically do not offer groceries and are open for 14 or 15 hours per day) and has an average size of 105,000 square feet (247wallst.com 2014). The above grade portion of the proposed Academic building would be smaller than a typical Walmart.” The requested Variance to replace existing gross floor area (GFA) lies within the PTC’s purview and findings. The Project and Project Alternative require Council approval for reconstruction. A comparison of the Project and Project Alternative GFA, as in the Final EIR, is excerpted below. Feature Project Project Alternative Demo GFA and above grade GFA 90,593 sf to be demolished (6,021 sf from two Emerson houses plus 84,572 sf on campus) replaced by above grade new construction (84,124 sf) New above grade construction (84,170 sf) is less than the existing above grade construction to be demolished (84,572 sf) on campus; 800 sf below grade is to be repurposed. Academic Building GFA 33,060 sf on the first floor and 31,082 sf second floors, plus 3,713 sf GFA below-grade GFA (because there is no interior building space above it at the ground level, as per Municipal Code Section 18.12.040). 32,683 sf on the first floor and 30,705 sf on second floor, plus 4,513 sf of below-grade GFA (because there is no interior building space above it at the ground level). Campus size Tentative Map to merge campus parcel with two parcels = 286,783 sf Campus parcel size remains 268,783. Two house parcels remain, 7,500 sf and 10,500 sf c. Garage Exit The ARB is requested to consider the aesthetics of the garage exit. The EIR Aesthetics chapter discusses the underground garage. Several members of the public expressed concern as to the garage’s size and compatibility with the surrounding context. The EIR Aesthetics chapter discusses the underground garage. Neighbors have expressed specific concerns about the garage exit at Emerson Street. The garage entrance would be located internal to the site and views of it would be filtered by landscaping. The garage exit would be set back 80 feet from Emerson Street, with trees and landscaping on either side of the garage exit ramp. Draft EIR images (figures) illustrate this. Draft EIR Figures 5-2 and 5-3 provide photographs of the existing visual conditions along Emerson Street. Draft EIR Figures 5-4 and 5-6 show the proposed gate at the parking garage exit ramp would be placed at the below-grade end of the ramp, immediately at the exit to the garage structure. The renderings and photo-simulated images show only the top of the gate would be visible from Emerson Street for the Project. The below excerpted plan clips show differences between the Project and Alternative: 2 Packet Pg. 25 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 18 • The Project’s garage exit driveway would be curvilinear leading to the street frontage, • The Project Alternative’s straight garage exit driveway just across from Melville Avenue. Project driveway Project Alternative The ARB’s comments on the visibility/screening of vehicular egress gate and ramps for the Project and Project Alternative would be helpful to the review. The Project’s curved driveway, fencing and landscaping are shown below in photographic simulation of the garage exit viewed from Melville. The simulation shows the brick wall, landscaping, and curve in the ramp would help the garage exit blend into the Castilleja campus, preventing visibility of the garage exit gate. Project Alternative’s straight-in driveway, fencing and landscaping, shown on figure 13-4 (clip below) viewed from Melville Avenue. The simulation shows that since the Project Alternative’s driveway is not curved, the retaining wall, fence and exit gate would be more visible from Melville than the Project’s exit gate. 2 Packet Pg. 26 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 19 6. Views, Trees, Landscaping, Fences, Lighting, Historic Preservation (AR Findings # 2(B), #3, #5) AR Findings #2B, 3 and 5 • AR Finding #2(B) is to ensure the project 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, • AR Finding #3 is to ensure 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. • AR Finding #5 is to ensure the landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site's functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. a. Tree Removals and Views The ARB’s purview includes review of proposed landscaping and views of the site from off- site vantage points, and this includes existing trees on the site. The Project removes 31 trees and relocates 34 trees. The Project would change the views of the site from each frontage, with changes in tree locations and canopy. However, following Project construction, the landscaping within and around the perimeter of the site would be similar to the existing landscaping on the project site. Analysis is found in Final EIR Master Response 8, which notes the visual impacts due to tree removal and construction impacts were evaluated in Impact 5-1 in Draft EIR Chapter 5, Aesthetics. The Project Alternative involves 21 fewer tree removals. b. Tree Canopy Increase The ARB purview includes review of replacement trees. The proposed tree replacement planting is shown on Sheet L.2.1 of the Project site plans. The plans for both the Project and Project Alternative provide for a replacement of tree canopy within the project site and an increase in the number of trees on site. The goal is a net increase in canopy, in the long term. The landscape plan (see Updated Figure 3-11 Final EIR) for the Project shows: • Several trees are proposed to be planted in the landscaped open space between Spieker Field and Emerson Street, and • Several trees are proposed to be planted in the northwestern corner of Spieker Field. The Project Alternative plans indicate retention of the Redwoods next to the Lockey House, as shown and discussed on the following report page. 2 Packet Pg. 27 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 20 c. Embarcadero Views The ARB may wish to discuss the anticipated views of the Project and Project Alternative from off site, including views from Embarcadero Road. The EIR included detailed discussion as to how the views of the site from each frontage would change as a result of the Project. This analysis identified changes in tree locations and canopy as well as proposed building demolition, landscaping, fencing, and building design. Views of the Project from Embarcadero Road, given the Project’s removal of Redwoods, were a key community concern. The Draft EIR concludes that the Project would not substantially change visual characteristics of the site as viewed from Embarcadero Road. A photographic simulation of views from Embarcadero Road is included in the Final EIR (Figure 5-6), showing the Project’s trees would provide similar visual resources as the existing Redwoods. Although the trees would be in different locations than the existing row of Redwood trees, they would be visible from the road which would preserve the general quality and character of existing views from Embarcadero Road. As shown in the above image, the Project Alternative would include preservation of the Redwoods adjacent to Castilleja’s two Emerson houses; these Redwoods are visible from Embarcadero Road. d. Tree Preservation and Management Regulations and Mitigation Measure 4b The ARB and community may wish to discuss the City’s regulations for tree preservation and removals. As noted in the Final EIR/responses to comments, the proposed tree removal and relocations are permitted under the City’s Tree Preservation and Management Regulations. Tree removals and relocations are subject to Mitigation Measure 4b, which was updated in the Final EIR. The Final EIR responses noted that the Tree Preservation and Management Regulations encourage preservation but also expressly allow for removal of protected trees. The classification of “designated” trees provides flexibility to interpret appropriate protection for particular trees or projects. For this project, staff deemed it appropriate to designate more trees, to allay neighbor concerns. The mitigation measure exceeds minimum protection requirements for trees and with conditions of approval and code requirements, staff anticipates a very high level of compliance. 2 Packet Pg. 28 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 21 e. Landscaping and Fences The ARB’s purview includes review of the landscape architectural design, theme, cohesiveness, and use of native plant materials. The ARB may wish to discuss the campus circle modifications in plans for the Project and Project Alternative. The functionality of the circle will be modified, with changes in access from buildings and proposal for vehicle access. The ARB may also wish to comment on the landscaping and fences proposed in the campus design with respect to the campus’ relationship to neighborhood setting and context. In addition to five types of fences, which appear to be compatible with the campus and neighborhood context, a concrete and cedar plank sound wall is proposed to be located 20 feet from Emerson Street right of way, to buffer the pool noise. The “Fence Section @ Pool” on Draft EIR Figure 5-5 shows the wall would have a height of six feet in relation to the sidewalk on Emerson Street. The wall above six feet, angled towards the interior of the pool area, would not be perceived as excessive when viewed from the sidewalk or street. Vegetation is proposed in the 20-foot wide buffer between the wall and property line. f. Lighting Design Lighting plans associated with construction phases 3 and 4 are shown on Project plan sheets LTB 100-104. Luminaire styles proposed for the site construction in Phases 3 and 4 are shown on plan sheet LTB.003. The plans show lighting fixtures would include: • bollards and ground-level fixtures along walkways and near building entrances, • building-mounted lighting around building perimeters and at entrances, • ground-level lighting in bicycle parking areas, • wall mounted lighting on steps and planter walls, • upward-directed spot lighting only to highlight specimen trees. The EIR Mitigation Measure 5a requires a lighting plan that: • identifies the specific light fixtures to be used and their proposed locations and the expected light levels within the property and at the property boundaries, • demonstrate compliance with the criteria identified in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.23.030. This includes requirements such as spillover reduction; use of high-pressure sodium and metal halide as permitted light sources; lighting limits of 0.5 foot-candle, as measured at the abutting residential property line; designing interior lighting to minimize nighttime glow; using low intensity lighting for building exteriors, parking areas, and pedestrian ways; and directing pedestrian and security lighting downward. Note that a 0.5 foot-candle is the amount of light generated by 1 candle at a distance of 1 foot. Light levels at the project site perimeter would be 0.5 foot-candle or less; thus, the project would not create substantial light spillover to adjacent public right-of-way or private property. 2 Packet Pg. 29 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 22 g. Historic Preservation - HRB Review of EIR and Historic Resources The Project and Project Alternative propose minor modifications to the Gunn Administration Building, a Historic Inventory Category 3 resource on campus. In September 2019, the HRB reviewed concepts for modifying this building after it is separated from the non-historic building to be demolished. At the meeting, the HRB also considered the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR found Castilleja’s Emerson Street houses ineligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Registers. The HRB briefly discussed the older of the two Castilleja-owned houses on Emerson Street. The HRB focused on potential impacts to cultural resources. One HRB member questioned whether retention of the Emerson houses was a project alternative. Regarding the Gunn Administration Building’s modifications, the HRB requested to see the final design considerations. The HRB also requested additional information regarding the Lockey House evaluation and historic district consideration (noting this is not the applicant’s responsibility). h. HRB Meeting 2019 Public Comments In September 2019, many of the eight public speakers (including the Castilleja applicant team, and speakers on behalf of Castilleja) also submitted individual written comments on the Draft EIR. The Final EIR addresses individual and meeting comments. Commenters’ concerns included: • Demolition of Castilleja’s two Emerson Street homes and removal of the six redwood trees next to the Emerson Street homes, to create the subterranean garage and landscaped open area, • Interest in retention of the Lockey House, • Aesthetics concerns/block character degradation, given the Emerson garage exit, • Interest in neighborhood historic homes and context for the home at 1215 Emerson, • Bike boulevard concern, • Liquefaction concern for historic buildings, due to the geologic report, and • Construction noise. Commenters also expressed support during the HRB meeting, noting: • The design would be compatible, given the proposed use of materials complimenting the campus’ historic building, and similar scale and massing as the existing building, • The value in separating the Gunn Building from the attached building, and • The new gates, fencing, and landscaping were appreciated. i. Proposed Modifications to Gunn Administration Building Plan sheet AB.303 shows the proposed façade treatment for the building wall to be exposed following demolition of the attached non-historic building. The facade on the right side of the below image would be the façade to receive architectural treatment that is necessary for safety and to meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (SOIS). Exposed sections of the wall would be covered with stucco on the first floor and wood shingles on the second 2 Packet Pg. 30 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 23 floor, consistent with the existing building materials and finishes. New doors would be installed on the first and second floors and new exterior stairs would be constructed to provide access to the second floor. j. Referral to HRB/AR Finding #2(B) Per PAMC 16.49, the ARB is not required to refer to the HRB proposals for alterations to ‘contributing’ resources – i.e., resources not identified as ‘significant’ unless they are within the Downtown area or a historic district. The Category 3 Gunn Building/Chapel is technically not a ‘significant’ structure by definition set forth in PAMC 16.49. A "Contributing building" is: “a good local example of architectural styles and which relate to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion or other factors. A contributing building may have had extensive or permanent changes made to the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of architectural details, or wooden facades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco.” Referral to the HRB enables review of the final design for the Gunn Family Administration Building. Removal of the attached building and SOIS compliant modifications could improve the building’s historic integrity. An HRB hearing September 10, 2020 would enable staff to refine draft wording regarding treatment of the historic resource for AR finding #2(B) for the ARB’s consideration on September 17. 7. Other Considerations The ARB discussion may include comments on Project and Project Alternative plans relating to: a. Emerson Street Houses Emerson Street’s existing character/Proposals for home demolition and retention: • Project’s demolition of two houses would be a noticeable change in visual conditions along the Emerson frontage. The Project includes a 0.33-acre landscaped open space area above a garage, instead of the two houses; open space is part of residential character; however, housing unit loss is a concern. • Alternative Project’s retention of two Emerson houses and adjacent redwoods is likely to be viewed more favorably by the community. 2 Packet Pg. 31 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 24 b. Sustainability, including stormwater considerations • Many community members are concerned about garage construction, including groundwater concerns. The garage floor would be approximately eight feet above the highest anticipated groundwater level, as reported in the Geotechnical Investigation. • The below-grade garage and all project site features have been designed to incorporate standard stormwater quality requirements. This includes routing all runoff to water quality treatment facilities, such as bioswales, flow-through planters, and sand/oil separators in drain inlets, as shown in the project site plans provided in Appendix B. • There would not be any untreated runoff from any developed portions of the project site, including the garage. c. Construction over a three-year period and dust emissions • Concerns regarding three years of construction include dust emissions. A mitigation measure requires all areas to be paved and building pads to be completed as soon as possible (Mitigation Measure 9a) and use of seeding or soil binders to minimize dust emissions from portions of the site that have been disturbed. • The measure requires materials stockpiles to be covered on days when they are not accessed, including any day on which construction does not occur. Notification, Outreach & Comments Notice of the Final EIR publication and ARB meeting was published in the Palo Alto Daily Post on July 28, 2020. The City’s webpage provides an announcement of the meeting. Staff mailed postcards on July 28, 2020, announcing the Final EIR publication and August hearings. Staff emailed notices to Council, PTC, ARB, and HRB. The Applicant provided information about the multiple outreach meetings Castilleja conducted over the past several years. A summary of outreach efforts prior to submittal of the application is found on the City’s website for this project: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/castilleja_school.asp. Additional outreach meetings took place after the application was submitted. Staff met with neighbors separately and shared neighbor comments with the applicant. The neighbors presented concerns to Council in early 2016; the neighbors’ comments are linked to the City’s project website. Staff attended one meeting Castilleja School held in October 2016 on campus in advance of the removal of an on-site Redwood Tree. Prior to the meeting, a tree removal permit was filed and approved, based on the applicant’s arborist report of September 2016 (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54272). Following the community meeting, a second arborist report was prepared for a neighbor to further study the tree; the study is found at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54449. 2 Packet Pg. 32 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 25 Many public comments on the project were collected and shared in reports to the HRB, PTC and Council 2017-2019. Comments on the IS and scope of the Draft EIR received were forwarded to the City’s consultant for consideration during preparation of the Draft EIR. With website posts alerting the community to news updates, comments were received after the late Spring 2018 completion of the CUP application, late Spring 2019 Architectural Review application submittal, and ARB application completion in March 2020. Just prior to packet preparation, staff received an email showing a neighbor’s suggestions for another alternative; it is attached to this report (Attachment D). Next Steps The Council is required to certify the Final EIR and take actions on all requested planning applications. The PTC will be tasked to provide recommendations on the project; reviews by the PTC will occur over at least two public hearings. On August 26, 2020, the PTC will receive presentations on the Final EIR, CUP and Gross Floor Area (GFA) Variance, applicable to both the Project and Project Alternative. The PTC, with its purview over land use and transportation, will also have an opportunity to make comments regarding the Tentative Map and Variance for encroachment associated with the primary Project (but not associated with the Project Alternative). The PTC will be invited to discuss the proposed enhanced Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, potential approval conditions, and compliance related to the requested CUP. As noted, staff has a placeholder September 10, 2020 for the HRB to review the modifications to the Category 3 resource on campus. Staff will return to the ARB September 17, 2020, with draft Architectural Review findings for the ARB’s consideration. At that time, the applicant will be able to present any modifications to the Project Alternative plans in response to the ARB’s comments. Environmental Review The PTC held a scoping meeting on March 8, 2017. The Draft EIR 60-Day Comment Period ran July 15, 2019 through September 13, 2019. The Draft EIR process enabled many public comments including in the first public DEIR hearing with the PTC on August 14, 2019. The HRB held a public hearing September 12, 2019, also during the public comment period. Process history prior to the DEIR hearings is captured in those reports. Public comments on the DEIR are indexed here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/73834. The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was published July 29 and 30, 2020. Report Author & Contact Information ARB14 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, Chief Planning Official Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2575 Amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org 14 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 33 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 26 Attachments: • Attachment A: Location Map (DOCX) • Attachment D: Comments Received After Final EIR (PDF) • Attachment C: Links to Plans and Final EIR (DOCX) 2 Packet Pg. 34 Location Map – Castilleja School 2.a Packet Pg. 35 August 4, 2020 Alternative plan to Castilleja’s proposed plan: The following alternative plan we propose has the ultimate goal of mitigating the extreme traffic environmental impacts stated in the FEIR and thereby benefiting the City, Castilleja, the neighborhood and bicycle riders. The plan is to create a “Castilleja Educational Village” with traffic flow into and out of the Village from Embarcadero. Plan Benefits - Immediate: The plan would dramatically improve bike safety along the Bryant Street Bike Boulevard adjacent to Castilleja by eliminating the interaction of cars with bicycles and pedestrians. The plan enhances Castilleja’s concept of preserving their historic presence and permits them to grow in a unified and self-contained 6 acre educational village, while being a congenial neighbor without adding massive traffic and parking issues. The plan leads to better traffic management, not more traffic, on Embarcadero Road, and would enhance safety for bicyclists and pedestrians crossing Embarcadero Road along Bryant Street. Implementation Plan: All of these benefits can readily and realistically be achieved with minimal adjustment to existing development plans by Castilleja and the City (e.g. future high speed rail). Castilleja: 1.Castilleja would adjust their design to incorporate a historic "Castilleja Gate” (i.e.similar to UC Berkeley’s Sather Gate) along Embarcadero Road thru which allCastilleja traffic would ingress and egress its Educational Village.2.Traffic entering the Village could be routed along an internal, extensive queueaccess route to accommodate cars and student drop-off/pick-up and give access toVillage parking. This can be done without any back-up of cars on Embarcadero.3.Parking in the Village could be accommodated in the current underground garageand potentially a larger underground garage under the Circle (new).4.Castilleja would revamp their design to eliminate entry to the Village fromsurrounding streets, thereby providing added space for buildings and campusactivities. City: 1.The City would close both sides of the Bryant Street intersection at Embarcadero toall cars, and would install a limited traffic signal at the current intersection. Onlybikes, pedestrians and emergency vehicles could cross Embarcadero along BryantStreet by using this on-demand triggered signal.2.A controlled signal would be installed at the “Castilleja Gate" entrance. This wouldbecome the dominant signal on Embarcadero between Waverley and Emerson.Streets.3.Additional speed control signage/monitoring would be put along Embarcadero toenhance safety at the Castilleja Gate intersection. 2.b Packet Pg. 36 August 4, 2020 Plan Benefits – Long term: 1.Improved quality of life: The plan would dramatically reduce traffic through theneighborhoods surrounding Castilleja thereby greatly enhancing quality of life inthese neighborhoods (compared to traffic in pre-Covid times and FEIRpredictions). Neighbors would not endure the projected 1000+ car trips/day alongwith shuttles and busses for Castilleja’s student pick-ups, drop-offs, faculty, staff,visitors and student trips, and daily garbage-truck pickups and 16-18 wheel truckdeliveries.2.Enhanced bicycle safety: The plan provides greater bike safety near Castilleja byeliminating the interaction of cars and bicycles at Bryant and Embarcadero. This isconsistent with the City’s stated goal of limiting traffic on the Bryant BicycleBoulevard. And, because residential streets would not be needed to access theCastilleja Village, this would dramatically improve bike safety on Emerson, Bryantand Kellogg streets3.Greater Castilleja autonomy: The plan would provide Castilleja greater flexibilityin their design, scheduling and handling of Village buildings, activities and events,with all Castilleja traffic flow and parking within the Village.4.Greater Embarcadero Traffic Safety: The plan would provide greater control oftraffic and safety for students and bicycles in the area around Castilleja with twoon demand signals. Traffic would flow more uniformly because signals would onlybe activated when needed. The Castilleja internal access road would be longenough to queue all student drop-offs and pick-ups to prevent back-up ontoEmbarcadero. Added Bonuses: 1.Bike safety improved for Palo Alto HS students: If the Alma bicycle crossing ismoved from Churchill Ave. to Kellogg Avenue with high speed rail, then thisKellogg underpass/interchange would dramatically improve bicycle safety, if thereis no Castilleja traffic on Kellogg Ave.2.Future Castilleja traffic impediments removed:The Churchill/Embarcadero/Caltrain High Speed Rail dilemma is currently understudy. By containing all of Castilleja’s traffic to its Village entrance on Embarcaderoand keeping car traffic within the boundaries of its campus, this plan wouldremove any future impediment that Castilleja’s traffic might have on the finaloutcome of resolving the Churchill/Embarcadero/Caltrain/High Speed Railconflicts.The attached diagram illustrates one possible surface traffic flow diagram for the Castilleja Educational Village, based on the current Castilleja plan drawings. Other flow patterns are possible. Thank you for your time and attention in considering this alternative. Tom Shannon - 256 Kellogg Ave.Alan Cooper - 270 Kellogg Ave.Carla Befera - 1404 Bryant St.Bruce McLeod - 1404 Bryant St. 2.b Packet Pg. 37 Red line shows one traffic flow possibility (i.e. like Sather Gate at US Berkeley) 2.b Packet Pg. 38 Attachment C Environmental Impact Report, and Project and Project Alternative Plans Project plans, Alternative Project plans and other documents including the Final EIR are viewable online at www.cityofpaloalto.org/castilleja Project plans are also viewable online as follows: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “1310 Bryant Street” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “project plans” 2.c Packet Pg. 39 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 11484) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 8/20/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 788 - 796 San Antonio Road Mixed-Use Project (3rd Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 788 San Antonio Avenue [19PLN-00079]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Existing 12,000 Square Feet of Commercial Space and Construction of a Four-Story Mixed-use Building that Includes 102 Residential Units and 1,803 Square Feet of Commercial Space With a Two-level Basement Parking Garage. Sixteen of the Residential Units Would be Below Market Rate. The Project Also Requires a Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Code Amendment to Apply the Housing Incentive Program at This Location and a Variance From the Special Setback Along San Antonio Road for a Pedestrian Ramp. The Applicant Also Proposes to Subdivide the Property for Condominiums. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report was Circulated on July 31, 2020 Through September 14, 2020 and was 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. Consider the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and 2. Recommend approval of the proposed Architectural Review project to the City Council based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. 3 Packet Pg. 40 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 Report Summary The ARB previously reviewed the subject project on two prior occasions. Prior staff reports include extensive background information, project analysis, and evaluation to city codes and policies as well as responses to ARB comments. The project includes two components: 1) A mixed-use development proposal for 788 – 796 San Antonio Road, and 2) A Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Zoning Text Amendments that affect Service Commercial (CS) zoned parcels along San Antonio Road, between Middlefield Road and East Charleston Road, allowing for the implementation of the development project. The mixed-use project involves three entitlement applications requesting: (1) Architectural Review, (2) a Variance, and (3) a Subdivision. The latter two applications are within the purview of the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC). The PTC considered the Draft EIR, Amendments and mixed-use project applications at its August 12, 2020 meeting. All project components are reviewed in the Draft EIR prepared in accordance with CEQA. The Draft EIR was published July 31, 2020 with the public comment period ending September 14, 2020. The purpose of this report is to facilitate the ARB’s consideration of the Draft EIR and review the applicant’s response to the ARB’s January 2020 comments. Background The project has been the subject of several prior public hearings, including two pre-screenings with the City Council, a Scoping Meeting and a project review meeting with the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC), and two prior ARB hearings. Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: October 15, 2018: tinyurl.com/788-San-Antonio-10-5-2018 May 20, 2019: bit.ly/788SA2ndPrescreening PTC: September 11, 2019: tinyurl.com/788-San-Antonio-PTC-9-11-2019 August 12 2020: bit.ly/788SanAntonioPTCAugust122020 HRB: None ARB: August 15, 2019: bit.ly/2OWv9qW January 16, 2020: tinyurl.com/788-San-Antonio-ARB-1-16-2020 Minutes: tinyurl.com/788-San-Antonio-1-16-20Minutes On January 16, 2020 the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the ARB meeting is available online: tinyurl.com/788-San-AntonioARBVideo1-16-20. The following table summarizes the ARB’s comments and the applicant’s response to those comments: ARB Comments/Direction Project Revisions by Applicant • A revised materials board displaying “warmer colors” – more joyful, inviting • Material board includes: o Smooth stucco 3 Packet Pg. 41 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 colors. o Clear-heart redwood o Grooved Equitone cement fiber panels o Corten steel o Redwood rain screen • Updated physical board to be presented See Sheets A3.0d (materials board) and Elevations (A3.0a-c) and other perspective views (A3.1a-c) and Attachment I. • The scale is too large at the residential lobby. • The lobby is 1/3 narrower • Height of the space appears lower since the shade structure at the roof terrace is pulled back. See Sheet A2.1b & A3.0a and analysis section for more discussion. • Frames of the building feel too monumental and busy. Consider changes to window frame at the entry, the roof terrace, and the garage. • Residential balconies frames are overhauled and simplified. Are now all clad in the same clear-heart redwood siding material. • The frames around the corner tower and the entries/lobby and retail areas are clad in corten steel. • The layout of the frames are redone. See Analysis section for more discussion. See Sheets A3.0a, A3.0b, A3.1a, and A3.1b. • The roof terrace soffits should be more than just stucco because they will be very visible from the ground floor. • Redesigned shade structure at the roof terrace to continue the “triangle” motif seen at other elements of the building (corner and other vertical elements). • Some of these wooden triangles have been omitted so that light can filter through to the roof terrace surface. • The shade structure is pulled back from the street so it is less visible from the street. 3 Packet Pg. 42 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 See Sheets A3.1c, A3.1d, and A3.2b. • Consider street drop offs for Transportation Network Companies (TNC) along San Antonio Road. • Two temporary parking spaces (44 feet in length) shown on San Antonio Road for TNC operators and temporary loading and unloading. See Sheets A1.1a and C2.1. • All facades need to be designed with the same level of design. The west, east and north elevations are revamped to similar level of detail as the San Antonio Road elevation. See Analysis section for more discussion. See Sheets A3.0a, A3.0b, A3.0c, A3.1a and A3.1b. • Explore breaking down the scale of the courtyard. Consider more attention to privacy planting at courtyard to screen lower level units. The inner courtyard is broken into three main functions: Seating areas with curved benches and movable bistro tables, fixed exercise stations, and a proposed bike wash area. These courtyard functions are filtered from view to the unit patios by means of long planters and seat walls. The shade-tolerant planting selection has taken into account the amount of light expected to hit the courtyard level. See Analysis section for more discussion. See Sheets A2.5a, A3.0c, A3.1c, A3.2a, A5.0a, and LA-1. • This is a 50-foot building with lower lying vegetation. • The building at the corner is 50 feet, however, at the opposite end, the roof top terrace reducing the massing to below 50 feet. • The site includes four oak trees along San Antonio Road. There are also five western redbud trees located on San Antonio Road and Leghorn Street. • Plantings are native except for two types of trees within the courtyard. 3 Packet Pg. 43 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 See Sheet A3.1d. • Consider flush header windows or windows going all the way to the floor. • Most units have floor to ceiling glass now. Most units also have glassy guardrails at the balcony to further open the units up to views and light. • The lower level units do have solid balcony rails though to provide more privacy from street level eyes. See Sheet A5.1. • Consider street parking along Leghorn Street to support corner retail space. • Leghorn Street frontage includes three parking spaces adjacent to the temporary loading zone. See Sheet C2.1. • Bike parking, within the building, should be secure and yet visible from the street. • The long-term bicycle parking is visible from the outside through a glass wall. On the interior, this area is broken into six rooms and a bike repair area. The entire area is secured from the lobby. See Sheet A2.1c and A3.1a. Analysis1 The project plans refined the designs for the building exterior and interior courtyard. These changes primarily affect the massing, symmetry, the roof terrace, materials, and the design and use of the interior courtyard. It appears that the revisions strengthen the project’s consistency with the required findings for an Architectural Review (Attachment B). Massing The ARB commented that the project’s lobby was too expansive and the framed elements (darker color ribbons) of the building were too monumental and busy. In response to the ARB comments, the applicant reduced the lobby frontage by a third. Continuous refinement in the project plans, as shown in Figure 1 below, indicates a less prominent roof terrace creating a noticeable step down in mass from the tower element at the 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. 3 Packet Pg. 44 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 Leghorn/San Antonio intersection. Revisions to the framed elements around residential areas include simplification by using the same redwood material. The framed element around the tower element, lobby and retail areas are clad in corten steel. Comparing the project plans to August 19 plans and initial ARB comments, the building now maintains less symmetry along San Antonio Road and includes more vertical elements along the all of the façades. The project maintains symmetry along the other sides of the building. The changes make the project more consistent with Findings #2 and #3. Figure 1: Front Elevation Comparison August 2019 January 2020 August 2020 Source: Studio S Squared Consistent design quality The ARB sought the same level of design quality for all sides of the building as was done for the San Antonio Road frontage. In response, the project’s elevations have significantly changed. The elevations other than San Antonio Road have more symmetry and use a lighter color palette creating an overall brighter theme. The revisions make the project more consistent with Findings #2, #4 and #5. Figure 2: Corner Perspective Comparisons August 2019 January 2020 3 Packet Pg. 45 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 August 2020 Source: Studio S Squared Figure 3: Elevation Opposite San Antonio Road August 2019 January 2020 August 2020 Source: Studio S Squared Figure 4: Elevation Opposite Leghorn August 2019 January 2020 August 2020 Source: Studio S Squared Courtyard 3 Packet Pg. 46 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 8 The ARB sought to break down the scale of the courtyard and requested the applicant consider privacy plantings at the courtyard to screen lower level units. In response, the applicant broke down the inner courtyard into three main functions: (1) Seating areas with curved benches and movable tables; (2) fixed exercise stations; and (3) a proposed bike wash area. These courtyard functions are filtered from view to the unit patios by means of long planters and seat walls. The shade-tolerant planting selections consider the amount of light expected to reach the courtyard level. Figure 5: Courtyard Comparisons January 2020 August 2020 Source: Studio S Squared The changes make the project more consistent with Findings #2, #4 and #6 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. City Council will be requested to certify a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Because the existing building at 788 San Antonio is eligible for listing on the California Register and the project proposes to demolish it, a ‘significant and unavoidable impact’ results. The City Council would need to adopt a ‘statement of overriding considerations’ to approve the mixed-use project. The Council will also consider the EIR for the Amendments applicable to the San Antonio Road properties along the south side of the roadway between Middlefield and E. Charleston Road. Notably, CEQA no longer considers Level of Service (transportation delay) as an impact as of July 1, 2020. Vehicle Miles Travelled is the methodology to determine traffic impacts under CEQA. The following sections provide more detail on this issue. Notice of Preparation and Scoping Meeting Pursuant to CEQA, the City posted a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for public comment on September 4, 2019 through October 7, 2019. The purpose of the NOP was to state the intent to 3 Packet Pg. 47 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 9 prepare an EIR for the project and to allow the public and other affected agencies to provide comment on topics that they thought should be covered by the EIR. This consultation period was for at least 30-days after the issuance of the NOP. The City received two written comments on the NOP and those were included in the Introduction section of the EIR for reference. Public Circulation The EIR is currently in circulation for public review and comment (July 31, 2020 through September 14, 2020). The City Council will consider certifying the EIR at a later public hearing. The EIR is considered a Program EIR in that is prepared on a series of actions that can be categorized as one large project and are related. The EIR provides sufficient information and analysis to cover Council legislative actions and entitlements proposed to approve the mixed- use project at 788-796 San Antonio Road. The contents and detail of the EIR can be found in Attachment F. Potential Impacts Environmental impacts are considered physical impacts on the environment and are separated into either construction (temporary) or operational (longer-term and ongoing) impacts based upon established thresholds of significance. If an impact is identified, then mitigation measures are required to reduce that impact to a level of less than significant. The EIR identified several potentially significant impacts but most were reduced to less than significant with mitigation, as further detailed in the Draft EIR. Cultural Resources/Historic is the one category where impacts are significant and unavoidable. In accordance with Chapter 18.31 of the PAMC, this issue will be considered by the City Council. Cultural Resources Impact CUL-1. The project would result in demolition and removal of two existing single-story commercial buildings at 788 and 790-796 San Antonio Road. Due to its retained integrity, one existing structure at 788 San Antonio Road may be eligible for individual listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and constitutes a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. Further, development in the rest of the program area under the HIP expansion could result in the demolition or modification of structures eligible for listing on the City’s Historic Inventory or CRHR. Therefore, impacts to historic resources for the 788 – 796 San Antonio development would be significant and unavoidable. The mitigation measures would reduce significant direct impacts to the eligible historic resource to the extent feasible; these measures include historic and photographic documentation and an interpretive website. However, the historic resource would be demolished and the impact to the 788 San Antonio Road property would not be reduced to less-than-significant levels under CEQA. Demolition by its nature is complete and results in total material impairment of the historical resource; no feasible mitigation measures are available to mitigate the demolition of the CEQA historical resources to a less-than-significant level. As a result, demolition of an individually eligible resource would be a significant and unavoidable adverse impact. 3 Packet Pg. 48 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 10 For the balance of the program area, where demolition or modifications are proposed to structures over 45 years in age, Historic Resources Evaluations would be required to determine these structures’ eligibility for listing as historic resources on the local or State historic registers. Historic Listing Eligible Structure The building at 788 San Antonio Road was constructed in 1953. As noted in the Page & Turnbull 788 San Antonio Road Historic Resources Report (Appendix D of the EIR), the building appears to be individually eligible for listing in the California Register under Criterion 1 (Events) for its association with the California Chrysanthemum Growers Association. The Association is a long- term representative of the important Japanese American floriculture and industrial cooperatives in the San Francisco Bay Area. This cooperative floriculture group provided Japanese American growers on the San Francisco Peninsula with shared access to growing technologies, shipping options, and stabilized markets from its founding in 1932 to the end of the twentieth century. The character-defining features of 788 San Antonio Road include the following features original to its 1953 construction: • Rectangular, one-story massing, including original building and 1958 eastern extension; • Side- and cross-gabled roof element at west building façade; • Concrete masonry unit construction; • Multi-light steel-frame windows on north, west, and south façades; • Vehicle utility openings on south façade; • Wood-plank shelves below windows on west façade. The building at 788 San Antonio Road retains integrity to the degree necessary to appear eligible for individual listing in the California Register under Criterion 1 (Events) with a period of significance of 1953-2002. Transportation Staff has provided a summary of the Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) methodology now used to determine traffic impacts (see Attachment G). The proposed project (both components) would provide housing growth in an area of the County that has a surplus of jobs relative to the supply of housing. By providing residences closer to employment centers in the Peninsula, additional housing in the City would help to reduce net VMT at a regional level. For the proposed mixed-use project, it was determined that the average daily home-based VMT for the six transportation analysis zones near San Antonio Road is 11.19 miles per resident. This means that, on average, each resident near San Antonio Road drives 11.19 miles per day to and from their home. Therefore, the VMT is below the established threshold and is considered a less than significant impact. 3 Packet Pg. 49 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 11 Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on August 7, 2020, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on August 4, 2020, which is 16 days in advance of the meeting. Community meeting The applicant facilitated a community meeting on August 6, 2020. Because of the current pandemic, the meeting was conducted online. The applicant sent notices to properties within 600 feet of 788 – 796 San Antonio Road and those specific properties within the program area. Public Comments Public comments were submitted before and after the PTC hearing on August 12, 2020. These comments are attached as Attachment H and viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=78007. There were seven commenters who spoke on this matter during the August 12, 2020 meeting. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended actions, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 2. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408)340-5642 x109 (650) 329-2575 sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • COI - To be deleted (DOCX) • Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) • Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX) • Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX) • Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) • Attachment E: Applicant's Response Letter (PDF) • Attachment F: Project Plans and Environmental Review (DOCX) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 50 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 4 -7 0 8 01 2 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 0 4 5- 1 4 -1 2 7 40 41 4 --1 2 7 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 0 4 91 5 --1 2 7 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 3 4 0 0 33 7 --1 2 7 0 0 23 7 --1 2 7 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 0 0 13 7 --1 2 7 1 2 7 - 3 7 - 0 1 6 0 4 31 7 -1 2 7- 0 4 21 7 --1 2 7 0 1 01 5 --1 2 7 0 0 91 5 --1 2 7 0 4 81 5 --1 2 7 0 0 31 5 --1 2 7 0 0 21 5 --1 2 7 0 0 61 5 --1 2 7 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 0 4 00 8 --1 4 7 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 0 8 -0 1 9-1 4 7 0 1 50 8 --1 4 7 0 1 60 8 --1 4 7 1 4 7 - 0 9 - 0 2 3 1 4 7 - 0 9 -0 6 4 0 6 30 9 --1 4 7 1 4 7 - 0 9 - 0 6 5 0 3 80 9 --1 4 7 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 70 8 --0 2 5 0 2 60 8 --1 4 7 0 2 70 8 --1 4 7 0 2 80 8 --1 4 7 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 8 --1 2 7 0 5 1 0 5 01 8 --1 2 7 1 8 -0 4 8-1 2 7 1 8 --1 2 7 0 4 9 0 5 21 8 -1 2 7 - 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 0 5 2- 1 7 -1 2 7 0 5 11 7 --1 2 7 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 5 0 - 1 7 -0 4 91 2 7 1 7 -0 5 4-1 2 7 1 7 -0 5 3-1 2 7 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 2 5 60 2-1 7 -1 2 7 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 0 8 --1 4 7 0 5 1 0 5 00 8 --1 4 7 0 3 30 8 --1 4 7 0 8 --1 4 7 0 2 3 -0 2 40 8 -1 4 7 -0 2 90 8 -1 4 7 1 4 7 - 0 8 - 0 3 0 1 4 7 - 0 8 - 0 3 1 0 8 -1 4 7 0 3 2- 1 4 7 0 3 60 8 -- 0 3 71 4 7 -0 8 - -0 8 -1 4 7 0 3 8 0 3 9-1 4 70 8 - 70 0- 1 6 -1 2 7 1 6 --1 2 7 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 0 1 56 1 -- 0 3 96 1 --1 2 7 1 2 7 6 1 --0 3 8 1 2 7 6 1 --0 3 7 1 2 7 0 3 66 1 --- 6 1 - 0 3 51 2 7 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 3 4 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 3 31 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 3 2 -721 0 1 76 1 - 1 2 7 0 1 66 1 -- 0 8 36 1 --1 2 7 6 1 -1 2 7-0 8 26 1 -1 2 7-0 8 1 -0 8 06 1 -1 2 7 -0 7 96 1 -1 2 7 -6 1 -1 2 7 0 7 8-6 1 -1 2 7 0 7 7 0 7 6-6 1 -1 2 7 0 7 5-6 1 -1 2 7 1 2 7-6 1 -0 7 41 2 7-6 1 -0 7 3 0 7 26 1 --1 2 7 0 7 16 1 --1 2 7 0706 1 --1 2 7 9606 1 --1 2 7 1 2 7 6 1 --0 6 81 2 7 6 1 --0 6 7 0 6 1-1 2 76 1 - 1 2 7 0 6 06 1 --1 2 7 0 5 96 1 -- 1 2 76 1 --0 5 81 2 7 6 1 --0 5 7 -1 2 7 6 1 -0 5 6-1 2 7 6 1 -0 5 5 -1 2 7 6 1 -0 5 430 5-1 2 7 6 1 - 6 1 - 0 5 2-1 2 7 6 1 - 0 5 1-1 2 7 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 0 2 31 2 7 - 6 1 -1 2 7 - 6 1 -0 2 4 6 1 - 0 2 5-1 2 7 6 1 - 0 2 6-1 2 7 0 2 71 2 7 - 6 1 -0 2 81 2 7 - 6 1 - 1 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 2 91 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 3 01 2 7 - 6 1 - 0 3 1 6 1 --1 2 7 0 4 4 6 1 --1 2 7 0 4 3 -1 2 7 6 1 -0 4 2 -1 2 7 6 1 -0 4 1 0 4 06 1 --1 2 7 1 2 7 -6 1 - 0 2 2 1 2 7 -0 2 16 1 -1 2 7-6 1 -0 2 0 0 1 96 1 -1 2 7-0 1 86 1 --1 2 7 1 2 7 6 1 --0 6 61 2 7 6 1 --0 6 5 6 1 --1 2 7 0 8 86 1 --1 2 7 0 8 7 6 1 --0 8 61 2 7 6 1 --0 8 51 2 7 0 8 46 1 --1 2 7 6 1 --1 2 7 0 6 46 1 --1 2 7 0 6 3 0 6 2-1 2 7 6 1 - 0 8 -0 4 4-1 4 7 0 4 30 8 --1 4 7 0 4 20 8 --1 4 7 0 0 91 6 --1 2 7 1 2 7 - 1 5 - 0 5 1 6 1 -0 1 0-1 2 7 6 1 -0 0 9-1 2 7 0 0 86 1 --1 2 7 0 0 76 1 --1 2 7 6 1 --0 0 61 2 7 6 1 --0 0 51 2 7 6 1 --0 0 41 2 7 6 1 --0 0 31 2 7 6 1 --1 2 7 0 0 2 6 1 --1 2 7 0 0 1 0 4 11 7 --1 2 7 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 4 7 0 4 61 7 -1 2 7- 0 3 5- 1 7 -1 2 7 0 3 61 7 --1 2 7 1 7 --1 2 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 0 4 01 7 --1 2 7 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 4 8 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 3 4 -1 6 -0 1 21 2 7 0 1 31 6 --1 2 7 1 6 --1 2 7 0 1 4 0 0 6-1 6 -1 2 7 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 0 1 7- 1 6 -1 2 7 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 1 6 1 6 -1 2 7-0 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 95 5 - 0 1 81 2 7 --1 2 7 5 5 - 0 1 7 1 2 7-5 5 -0 1 6 -5 5 -1 2 7 0 1 5 1 2 7-5 5 -0 1 4 5 5 --1 2 7 1 3 4 5 5 --1 2 7 1 3 5 1 3 6- 5 5 -1 2 7 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 3 7 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 3 8 5 5 --1 2 7 1 3 9 1 2 7 5 5 --1 4 0 - 5 5 -1 2 7 1 1 4 1 1 55 5 --1 2 7 1 1 65 5 --1 2 7 1 1 75 5 --1 2 7 1 1 85 5 --1 2 7 - 5 5 -1 2 7 1 1 9 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 2 0 5 5 --1 2 7 0 7 4 5 5 --1 2 7 0 7 5 5 5 --1 2 7 0 7 6 0 7 7-5 5 -1 2 7 5 5 --1 2 7 0 7 8 0 7 91 2 7 5 5 -- 0 9 45 5 --1 2 7 0 9 55 5 --1 2 7 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 9 61 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 9 7 0 9 85 5 --1 2 7 0 9 95 5 --1 2 7 1 0 05 5 --1 2 7 5 5 --1 2 7 080 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 5 41 2 7 - 5 5 -0 5 55 5 -0 5 61 2 7- 1 2 7 0 5 75 5 -- 5 5 --0 5 81 2 7 0 5 95 5 --1 2 7 5 5 --1 2 7 0 6 0 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 03 41 27 - 5 5 - 03 51 2 7-5 5 -0 3 6 0 3 75 5 --1 2 7 1 2 75 5 --0 3 8 0 3 95 5 --1 2 7 5 5 --1 2 7 0 4 0 0 0 11 2 7 - 5 5 -1 2 7 -5 5 - 0 0 2-1 2 75 5 - 0 0 3 0 1 35 5 --1 2 7 0 1 25 5 --1 2 7 721-5 5 -0 1 1 -5 5 -1 2 7 0 1 0 1 2 7-5 5 -0 0 9 0 0 81 2 7 - 5 5 -5 5 - 0 0 71 2 7 -1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 0 6-1 2 7 5 5 - 0 0 5-1 2 7 5 5 - 0 0 4 1 2 7 0 3 3- 5 5 -20 35 5 --1 2 7 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 03 11 2 0 3 05 5 -7 -1 2 7-5 5 -0 2 9 0 2 85 5 --1 2 7 0 2 75 5 --1 2 7 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 2 61 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 2 5 0 2 45 5 --1 2 7 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 2 31 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 2 2-1 2 7 5 5 - 0 2 1 0 5 35 5 --1 2 71 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 5 2 -1 2 7 5 5 - 0 5 15 5 --1 2 7 0 5 0 0 9 35 5 --1 2 7 0 7 35 5 --1 2 7 0 7 25 5 --1 2 7 5 5 --1 2 7 0 7 1 5 5 --1 2 7 0 7 0 0 9 21 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 9 1 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 1 31 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 1 2 0 9 01 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 2 7-5 5 - 0 8 91 2 7-5 5 - 0 8 8 5 5 --1 2 7 0 8 7 5 5 --1 2 7 0 6 9 1 2 7 0 6 85 5 -- 5 5 --0 6 71 2 7 0 6 65 5 --1 2 7 5 5 --1 2 7 0 6 5 5 5 --1 2 7 0 6 4 5 5 --1 2 7 0 6 3 -1 2 7 5 5 -0 4 9 1 2 7 0 4 85 5 -- 5 5 --1 2 7 0 6 1 5 5 --1 2 7 0 6 2 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 0 8 6 5 5 --1 2 7 0 8 5 0 8 4-5 5 -1 2 7 0 8 15 5 --1 2 7 0 8 21 2 7 5 5 -- 5 5 --1 2 7 0 8 3 1 2 7 5 5 --0 4 7 0 4 65 5 --1 2 7 5 5 --1 2 7 0 4 5 5 5 --0 4 41 2 7 0 4 35 5 --1 2 7 5 5 --0 4 11 2 7 0 4 25 5 --1 2 7 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 0 1 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 2 1 1 2 25 5 --1 2 7 5 5 --1 2 7 1 2 3 5 5 --1 2 41 2 7 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 0 21 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 1 1 1 3 3-1 2 7 5 5 - 1 2 7 1 3 25 5 -- 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 3 1 5 5 --1 2 7 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 75 5 --1 2 7 1 2 7-5 5 -1 2 6 1 2 7 5 5 --1 2 5 801-551 2 7 -5 5 - 1 0 7-1 2 75 5 - 1 0 6-1 2 7 501-551 2 7 -1 0 4-55-721 1 2 7 - 5 5 - 1 0 3 0 8 70 5 --1 4 7 1 4 7 - 0 5 - 0 8 6 0 9 00 5 -1 4 7 - 0 6 80 5 --1 4 7 0 5 --0 6 91 4 7 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 7 -0 3 01 2 7 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 2 9 -1 2 7 0 2 81 7 - 0 2 71 6 --1 2 7 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 2 6 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 2 5 0 2 4-1 6 -1 2 7 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 2 3 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 2 2 1 2 7 - 1 6 - 0 3 0 0 2 7-1 2 7 1 7 - 1 2 7 - 1 7 - 0 0 1 0 3 31 6 --1 2 7 - 1 6 -0 3 21 2 7 1 2 7 0 3 11 6 -- 0 2 91 6 --1 2 7 0 2 8- 1 6 -1 2 7 0 0 16 6 --1 2 7 0 0 26 6 --1 2 7 0 0 36 6 --1 2 7 0 0 46 6 --1 2 7 0 0 56 6 --1 2 7 0 0 66 6 --1 2 7 1 2 7 0 0 76 6 -- 0 0 86 6 --1 2 7 0 0 96 6 --1 2 7 6 6 -0 1 0-1 2 7 -1 2 7 0 1 16 6 - 0 1 26 6 --1 2 7 0 3 26 6 --1 2 7 0 3 16 6 --1 2 7 0 3 06 6 --1 2 7 0 2 96 6 --1 2 7 0 2 86 6 --1 2 7 0 2 76 6 -1 2 7- 0 2 6-1 2 7 6 6 - 6 6 --1 2 7 0 2 5 0 2 46 6 --1 2 7 0 2 36 6 --1 2 7 0 2 26 6 --1 2 7 0 2 16 6 --1 2 7 0 2 06 6 -1 2 7 -0 1 9- 6 6 -1 2 7 6 6-1 2 7 8- 0 1 0 1 7- 6 6 -1 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 1 61 2 7 1 2 7 - 6 6 - 0 1 5 0 1 46 6 --1 2 7 0 1 36 6 --1 2 7 0 4 2-1 2 7 1 5 - 0 4 31 5 --1 2 7 0 4 41 5 --1 2 7 1 2 7 - 1 5 - 0 4 6 1 5 -1 2 7 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 5 10 1 -- 0 2 90 1 --1 4 7 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 1 20 1 -1 4 7 1 0 20 1 --1 4 7 1 4 7 1 1 3- 0 1 - 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 0 5 20 1 --1 4 7 0 1 --1 4 7 -0 1 -1 4 7 1 2 7 - 1 5 - 0 0 5 1 2 7 - 1 5 - 0 0 4 0 6 50 3 --1 4 7 1 4 7 - 0 3 - 0 6 4 1 4 7 - 0 3 - 0 4 0 1 4 7 - 0 3 - 0 3 9 0 4 30 3 --1 4 7 0 3 80 3 --1 4 7 1 4 7 0 4 20 3 -- 1 4 7 0 4 10 3 -- 1 4 7 - 0 5 - 0 8 8 0 9 20 5 --1 4 7 1 4 7 - 0 5 - 1 0 2 1 4 7 - 0 5 - 0 1 2 -0 9 10 5 -1 4 7 0 5 --1 4 7 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 0 5 31 5 --1 2 7 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 9463 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 961 904 906 089 914 918 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 & Program 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 Program Area GM 3.b Packet Pg. 51 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. The project is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals/Policies: Comprehensive Plan Goal/Policy Consistency Service Commercial. Facilities providing citywide and regional services and relying on customers arriving by car. These uses do not necessarily benefit from being in high volume pedestrian areas such as shopping centers or Downtown. Typical uses include auto services and dealerships, motels, lumberyards, appliance stores and restaurants, including fast service types. In almost all cases, these uses require good automobile and service access so that customers can safely load and unload without impeding traffic. In some locations, residential and mixed-use projects may be appropriate in this land use category. Examples of Service Commercial areas include San Antonio Road, El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road northeast of the Bayshore Freeway. Non-residential FARs will range up to 0.4. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s encouragement of housing near transit centers, higher density multi-family housing may be allowed in specific locations. The project includes a mixed-use building with ground floor retail and 102 residential units on an approximately one acre site. The project is a considered in the context of the proposed broader zoning text amendment that would allow higher density housing for properties within the Service Commercial District along San Antonio Road. Policy L-1.3: Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. Developed urban uses surround the project site. All utilities can serve the site. The adjacent buildings are one-story in height, there are buildings that are five stories in height within the vicinity consistent with zoning development standards. 3.c Packet Pg. 52 Policy L-1.11: Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. The architectural review process includes findings and context-based design criteria necessary to develop the project. The project is subject to the Architectural Review process. Policy L-2.4: Use a variety of strategies to stimulate housing, near retail, employment, and transit, in a way that connects to and enhances existing neighborhoods. The project will be implemented using the Housing Incentive Program (HIP). The HIP is a part of the proposed broader zoning text amendment that would allow higher density housing for properties along San Antonio Road. Policy L-2.6: Create opportunities for new mixed use development consisting of housing and retail. The project would recreate 102 new residential units and approximately 1,700 square feet of retail space. Policy L-2.11: Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate greenery and natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas and rain gardens. The project includes a roof terrace area with plantings as well as an interior courtyard area with plantings. Policy L-3.1: Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. The adjacent and surrounding area includes much older buildings. The project has a very different design from the adjacent structures. However, there are two more recently developed projects that are similar in scale and design as the proposed project. The other projects went through the Architectural Review process. Policy L-4.2: Preserve ground-floor retail, limit the displacement of existing retail from neighborhood centers and explore opportunities to expand retail. The project will incorporate retail on the ground floor consistent in scale with the development and retail that promotes pedestrian activity. A certain amount of retail would be waived pursuant to the process allowed in the zoning code. Policy L-4.3: Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners in a way that enhances the pedestrian realm or that form corner plazas. Include trees and landscaping. The project creates a corner plaza area defined by landscaping a furniture such as outdoor seating and low walls. Policy T-5.1: All new development projects should manage parking demand generated by the project, without the use of on-street parking, consistent with the established parking regulations. As demonstrated parking The project provides all of its required parking onsite. 3.c Packet Pg. 53 demand decreases over time, parking requirements for new construction should decrease. Policy N-2.10: Preserve and protect Regulated Trees, such as native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property, including landscape trees approved as part of a development review process and consider strategies for expanding tree protection in Palo Alto. The project protects the existing oak trees. Any removed regulated tree is replaced pursuant to City requirements. H3.1.2 PROGRAM. Implement the BMR ordinance to reflect the City’s policy of requiring: a) At least 15 percent of all housing units in projects must be provided at below market rates to very low-, low-, and moderate- income households. The project includes 15% of the proposed units as below market rate. The project is consistent with Zoning Code requirements, except where the project seeks to amend the zoning code to allow the provisions of the Housing Incentive Program (HIP), and expansions to waivers to retail preservation requirements. 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 a residential mixed-use project. The project proposes a design with ground floor retail at the corner. This retail space is expected to be pedestrian-serving. The exterior of the space includes an outdoor plaza with a connection to the street corner. Elements of the existing historic building’s former association with nurseries are integrated into the stamped paving patterns of the plaza. The residential component of the project has a primary entry along San Antonio Road. At the double-height lobby level includes an extensive bicycle room where long- term bicycle parking is proposed. The lobby leads to the central interior courtyard that will serve as on-site open space for tenants. The same elements used at the corner plaza are also used in the interior courtyard. The architecture is very different from the existing adjacent architecture, however, it is designed to complement recent projects of similar scale in the vicinity. The project includes balconies for residential units and access to a roof-top terrace 3.c Packet Pg. 54 allowing users to a larger on-site outdoor amenity space in addition to the interior courtyard. 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 The project includes pedestrian-oriented retail with an outdoor plaza. Long-term bicycle parking is located adjacent to the double-height lobby. The lobby is accessible from the sidewalk via a ramp. Short-term bicycle parking is located along the building along San Antonio Road and Leghorn Street. 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements A glassy retail corner with a 12 foot ceiling topped by three residential units provides a focal point for the two intersecting street-facing elevations. From this corner high point, the building steps down in both directions, especially on the San Antonio Road side, where the rooftop terrace provides a common outdoor area with views towards the Bay and the East Bay hills. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks The building is taller than the adjacent single-story buildings. Variegated facades include recessed features such as balconies and windows, different color shades and use of different materials provide visual relief. 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties The project is located kitty-corner from the Greenhouse residential community. San Antonio Road is a divided road with four lanes and the Greenhouse community has a larger setback from San Antonio Road. Scale and privacy are not expected to be an issue given the location. 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site The project is subject to public park dedication or payment of an in-lieu fee. Given the difficulty in finding suitable park land within the vicinity of the project, the project applicant will pay the in-lieu fee. On-site private open space includes private balconies, the interior 3.c Packet Pg. 55 courtyard and the rooftop terrace. 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 project provides all of the required parking in two basement levels. The garage entry is off of the side street (Leghorn Street) as not to interfere with the pedestrian and bicycle movement along San Antonio Road. 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood The project proposes to merge to parcels, however, the aggregate size of the two parcels is under one-acre. 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 consistent with current Green Building codes (CalGreen) including Tier 2 measures shown on Sheets GB-1-R and GB-1-NR of the plans. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project includes a materials palette of smooth white and gray stucco, clear-heart redwood, Equitone cement fiber panels, and Corten Steel. These provide visual interest at all levels of the building. The Corten panels clad act as an architectural “ribbon”, which winds its way across the San Antonio Road and Leghorn Street elevations, demarcating private/public zones, and entry portals. Redwood is used as frames around certain residential balcony areas. A redwood rain screen relates to the walkways and structures of the nearby Baylands Nature Preserve and provides a warm tone at most of the residential balconies. 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.). Taking advantage of the ideal weather and the proximity of large employers in the area, the building will provide 102 indoor long-term bike parking spaces adjacent to the ground floor main lobby. Entry walkways are sized appropriately to accommodate cyclists, pedestrians and those with disabilities. The building will also feature indoor bike repair areas, and an outdoor 3.c Packet Pg. 56 bike wash area for residents. The property will also accommodate 18 guest and short-term bike spaces along San Antonio Road and Leghorn Street. Access to utilities are convenient to maintain and serve the building. Open space is purposely located in the central interior courtyard and on the rooftop. The building includes an architectural ribbon, which will be a location for signs. 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 design intent of the landscape is to: 1) reinforce the San Antonio Road and Leghorn Street frontages; 2) differentiate between the uses (residential and retail) with the proposed tree plantings; 3) provide recognizable entries for both the residential and retail uses; 4) address the privacy needs of future residents; and 5) provide varied open space opportunities for future residents and retail uses. All but two of the proposed plant species for the project are native plants (75% of the trees would be native). The plant palette includes trees, shrubs, perennials & annuals, and groundcover. 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 meet the current Green Building Code requirements. The majority of the proposed landscape palette is low to very low water use. 3.c Packet Pg. 57 Performance Criteria 788 San Antonio Road 19PLN-00079 Pursuant to PAMC 18.23, the following performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. Performance Criteria Project Consistency 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. The project includes its trash enclosure in the basement, where collection of trash and recycling would occur. The property management will bring the trash bins to the street level for servicing at a temporary staging area along Leghorn Street when the trash/recycling are scheduled for pick up. Once the bins are serviced, they are returned to the trash enclosures. 18.23.030 Lighting To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The lighting is designed to minimize glare upon neighboring properties and streets. 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting (either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage pick- up. No late night uses are proposed at this time. 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located Mechanical equipment screening adequately screens the roof from the 3.c Packet Pg. 58 Performance Criteria Project Consistency within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. right-of-way. Utilities and trash areas are screened from view. 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are intended to protect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residential properties. New equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be subject to these requirements. Mechanical equipment will conform to building code requirements for noise. Trash will be picked up along Leghorn Street. 18.23.070 Parking The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. The project includes two levels of underground parking with the driveway to the parking provided on Leghorn Street. 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project site. Vehicles access the site from Leghorn Street, service of trash and utilities will also be from Leghorn Street. Bicyclists and pedestrians may enter the site from adjacent sidewalks. 18.23.090 Air Quality The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. No odor producing uses are proposed for the site. 3.c Packet Pg. 59 Performance Criteria Project Consistency 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. The site does not propose a use that would store hazardous materials. 3.c Packet Pg. 60 ATTACHMENT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 788 San Antonio Road 19PLN-00079 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "788 San Antonio Housing,” stamped as received by the City on May 11, 2020 on file with the Planning and Development Services 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. All Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall automatically expire after two years from the original date of approval, if within such two year period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of 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)). 6. LANDSCAPE PLAN. Plantings shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan set and shall be permanently maintained and replaced as necessary. 7. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Development Impact Fees, currently estimated in the amount of $5,344,136.59 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 8. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90- DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM 3.d Packet Pg. 61 CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 9. INDEPENDENCE AVENUE / LEGHORN STREET INTERSECTION: Prior to issuance of an occupancy permit, with approval from the City of Mountain View, the owner or designee shall modify the intersection to include restriping of the westbound approach to the intersection to provide a westbound right-turn lane, or to provide a de facto right-turn lane by prohibiting curb-side parking during p.m. peak hours on weekdays. 10. TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS: To comply with Comprehensive Plan Policy N-5.4 the applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce exposure of proposed residences to toxic air contaminants emissions from vehicles on San Antonio Road: a. Submit to the City of Palo Alto a ventilation proposal prepared by a licensed design professional for all on-site buildings that describes the ventilation design and how that design ensures all dwelling units would be below the excess cancer risk level of 10 in one million established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. b. If the proposed buildings would use operable windows or other sources of infiltration of ambient air, the development shall install a central HVAC system that includes high efficiency particulate filters (a MERV rating of 13 or higher). These types of filters are capable of removing approximately 90 percent of the DPM emissions from air introduced into the HVAC system. The system may also include a carbon filter to remove other chemical matter. Filtration systems must operate to maintain positive pressure within the building interior to prevent entrainment of outdoor air indoors. c. If the development limits infiltration through non-operable windows, a suitable ventilation system shall include a ventilation system with filtration specifications equivalent to or better than the following: (1) American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers MERV-13 supply air filters, (2) greater than or equal to one air exchanges per hour of fresh outside filtered air, (3) greater than or equal to four air exchanges per hour recirculation, and (4) less than or equal to 0.25 air exchanges per hour in unfiltered infiltration. These types of filtration methods are capable of removing approximately 90 percent of the DPM emissions from air introduced into the HVAC system. d. Windows and doors shall be fully weatherproofed with caulking and weather-stripping that is rated to last at least 20 years. Weatherproof should be maintained and replaced by the property owner, as necessary, to ensure functionality for the lifetime of the project. e. Where appropriate, install passive (drop-in) electrostatic filtering systems, especially those with low air velocities (i.e., 1 mph). f. Ensure an ongoing maintenance plan for the HVAC and filtration systems. Manufacturers of these types of filters recommend that they be replaced after two to three months of use. 3.d Packet Pg. 62 g. The applicant shall inform occupants regarding the proper use of any installed air filtration system. 11. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) associated with the project and attached here as Exhibit 1 is 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. 12. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m- group.us to schedule this inspection. RECYCLING 13. It is the responsibility of the Site (788 San Antonio Road) to transport the refuse containers one to three times per week to the refuse staging area located along Leghorn Avenue. The refuse container lids must be kept closed to prevent rain and vermin from entering the bins. The Site is also responsible for transporting the refuse containers back to the refuse enclosure immediately after collection. The applicant has agreed that the property management will find the proper adaptable hitch (hook tow hitch) that can maneuver the waste hauler, GreenWaste of Palo Alto’s refuse bins. Please contact GreenWaste of Palo Alto at (650) 493-4894 or e-mail ecissna@greenwaste.com (Eric Cissna) for recommendations. WATERSHED PROTECTION 14. The applicant shall complete and submit the “PCBs Applicant Package,” including any required sampling reports (per the Applicant Package instructions), with the demolition permit application. The Applicant Package will outline PCBs sampling and reporting requirements that must be met if the project meets ALL of the following conditions: a. The project is a commercial, public, institutional, or industrial structure constructed or remodeled between January 1, 1950 and December 31, 1980. Single-family homes are exempt regardless of age. b. The framing of the building contains material other than wood. Wood-frame structures are exempt. c. The proposed demolition is a complete demolition of the building. Partial demolitions do not apply to the requirements. 15. If the project triggers polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) sampling as identified on the “PCBs Applicant Package,” then the project shall conduct representative sampling of PCBs concentration in accordance with the “Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition (2018).” a. If the representative sample results or records DO NOT indicate PCB concentrations ≥50 ppm in one or more “priority materials,” then the screening assessment is complete. Applicant submits screening form and the supporting sampling documentation with the demolition permit application. No additional action is required. 3.d Packet Pg. 63 b. If the representative sample results or records DO indicate PCBs concentrations ≥50 ppm in one or more “priority materials,” then the screening assessment is complete, but the Applicant MUST also contact applicable State and Federal Agencies to meet further requirements. Applicant submits screening form and the supporting sampling documentation with the demolition permit application, and also must contacts the State and Federal Agencies as indicated on Page 3 of the “PCBs Screening Assessment Form.” IMPORTANT: ADVANCED APPROVAL FROM THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (USEPA) OR OTHER STATE AGENCIES MAY BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO BUILDING DEMOLITION. IT IS RECOMMENEDED THAT APPLICANTS BEGIN THE PCBs ASSESSMENT WELL IN ADVANCE OF APPLYING FOR DEMOLITION PERMIT AS THE PROCESS CAN TAKE BETWEEN 1-3 MONTHS. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT: 16. Stormwater treatment measures a. All Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements shall be followed. b. 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. c. For all C.3 features, vendor specifications regarding installation and maintenance should be followed and provided to city staff. Copies must be submitted to Pam Boyle Rodriguez at mailto:mpamela.boylerodriguez@cityofpaloalto.org. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. d. Staff from Stormwater Program (Watershed Protection Division) may be present during installation of stormwater treatment measures. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 before installation. Add this bullet as a note to building plans on Stormwater Treatment (C.3) Plan. e. Bay-friendly Guidelines (rescapeca.org) f. 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/bayfriendly-landscape-guidelines- sustainable-practices-landscape-professional for guidance. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. g. Avoid compacting soil in areas that will be unpaved. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. 17. Stormwater quality protection a. Temporary and permanent waste, compost and recycling containers shall be covered to prohibit fly- away trash and having rainwater enter the containers. b. Drain downspouts to landscaping (outward from building as needed). c. Drain HVAC fluids from roofs and other areas to landscaping. TRANSPORTATION 18. SAN ANTONIO ROAD TWENTY-FOUR FOOT (24’) SETBACK. To guide and make reservations for future growth, in the event that future public mobility improvements along San Antonio Road are necessary, the property owner shall dedicate property within the 24’ setback for construction of public improvements. The access into the building shall be adaptable for future mobility improvements. 19. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM) PLAN. Pending submittal of the TIA memo, or if the applicant requests a reduction in parking requirement. The applicant shall prepare a TDM plan for review and approval by the Chief Transportation Official (CTO) or designee prior to the issuance of building 3.d Packet Pg. 64 permits. The TDM plan shall include measures and strategies to achieve the goal of reducing single- occupancy vehicle trips to the project site by a minimum of 20% in conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The TDM plan shall include an annual monitoring plan to document mode split and trips to the project site. Where the monitoring reports indicate that performance measures are not met through the measures and programs initially implemented, the City may require program modifications and may impose administrative penalties if identified deficiencies are not addressed within six months. UTILTIES – WASTE, WATER & GAS PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT: 20. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. FOR BUILDING PERMIT: 21. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). 22. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, backwater valve, sewer ejector pumps and any other required utilities. The plans must include complete profiles for the design of all gravity lines clearly identifying the minimum vertical clearances from existing underground facilities. 23. The applicant to verify crossing utilities and provide engineering profile drawings for the proposed sewer lateral, there are existing primary and secondary high voltage conduits running along the frontage of the building. 24. The residential development portion will be master metered by CPAU and each dwelling unit will be privately sub metered. See requirement below. The applicant needs to provide an estimated domestic water load in g.p.m. to design the water service and meter size. A 4" master water meter will require a 4'x8' water meter set with a 2" by-pass per DWG. # STD. WD-04. The vault shall be in private property inside a public utility easement (PUE). 5. Per SB7 (Water Code, Division 1, Chapter 8, Article 5, Section 537-537.5) requires new multifamily residential building to include a water sub-meter for each dwelling unit and to bill tenants accordingly for their water use per CPA Utilities rules and Regulations. Sub-meters shall comply with all laws and regulations governing their installation, maintenance, reading billing, and testing. Due to the extend of the frontage area along the streets, assuming a space constraint does not exist with the total number of meters, these dwelling units could be evaluated for the installation of individual City-owned meters in the Public City Right of Way and not on private property to avoid potential exposure in the event of leaks. 25. The residential will have set of meters and the retails will have another set of meters shown on the plans. 26. New HDPE water service and meter installation are required to furnish customer's demand for domestic. The water meter will be sized based on the water loads demands. 3.d Packet Pg. 65 27. A separate water meter and backflow preventer for the retail space is required. 28. New HDPE water service installation is required to furnish customer's demand for fire sprinkler system. The water service and connection will be sized based on the water fire protection load demands. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including all fire department's requirements prior to the actual approval of the service. 29. The existing unused water services and sewer lateral (s) will be disconnected and abandoned at the main per utilities standards by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. 30. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5’ (feet) of the property line or City Right of Way. 31. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly (RPDA backflow preventer device) is required for the new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. 32. There shall be no new gas service for this project. 33. The applicant is responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains/services/lateral as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains/services/lateral. 34. Per City of Palo Alto Ordinance 16.08.130 Amendment to CPC 710.1. Sewer backflow protection shall be installed for all new construction, remodels, sewer line repairs/ modifications, structures with sewer ejectors pumps and building floors. Where the elevation is at or below the invert of the city sanitary sewer main. Show the location of the backwater valve on the plans. 35. Sewer ejector pumps shall meet the CPA Utilities conditions limiting the wastewater discharge flow rate to the wastewater collection. Sewage ejector pumps shall meet the following conditions: a. The pump(s) shall be limited to a total 100 GPM capacity or b. The sewage line changes to a 4” gravity flow line at least 20’ from the City clean out. c. The tank and float is set up such that the pump run time not exceed 20 seconds each cycle. 36. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of new water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ of existing trees. 37. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 38. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the latest edition of C.P.A. Utility Standards for Water, 3.d Packet Pg. 66 Gas & Wastewater. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 39. 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 phase to certify that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. The C3 Data Form and a stamped and signed letter from the third party reviewer confirming which documents they reviewed and that the project complies with Provision C.3 and PAMC 16.11 must be provided prior to PWE approval of the planning application. Provide updated C3 Data Form stamp/signed by 3rd party and signed/stamped approval letter for Building permit set of plans. 40. SUBDIVISION: As this proposed project involves merging two lots and the creation of condominium units, a Tentative Map and a Final Map are required for the proposed development. The applicant shall submit a major subdivision application to the Department of Planning & Development Services. Show all existing and proposed dedications and easements on the map submitted as part of the application. Please be advised that the Final map shall be recorded with the Santa Clara County Clerk Recorder prior to Building and/or Grading and Excavation Permit issuance. A digital copy of the Parcel Map, in AutoCAD and DXF format, shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering and shall conform to North American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NGVD88 for vertical survey controls. Tentative/Final maps are submitted under a Major Subdivision application to the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Public Works will review and provide comments on the documents provided as part of the submittal. Please be advised that under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, off-site improvement plans are processed as an extension of the subdivision application process and the applicant may be required to enter into a subdivision improvement agreement and provide security for work shown in the plans. 41. EASEMENTS: All existing easements shall remain and not be removed. Above grade features such as building features shall not encroach into easement area. 42. 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(s) of the property and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter strip. In addition, any abandoned driveway approaches need to be replaced with City standard sidewalk, curb and gutter. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work. The plan must note that 3.d Packet Pg. 67 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. 43. 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. 44. 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. 45. DEWATERING: Proposed underground garage excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April 1 through October 31 due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level; if the proposed project will encounter groundwater, the applicant must provide all required dewatering submittals for Public Works review and approval prior to grading permit issuance. Public Works has dewatering submittal requirements and guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits/default.asp 46. GRADING & EXCAVATION PERMIT: An application for a grading & excavation permit must be submitted to Public Works when applying for a building permit. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 47. 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 48. SWPPP: The proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land. Accordingly, the applicant will be required to comply with the State of California’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. This entails filing a Notice of Intent to Comply (NOI), paying a filing fee, and preparing and implementing a site specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that addresses both construction-stage and post-construction BMP’s for storm water quality protection. The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. Also, include the City's standard "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet in the building permit plan set. Copies are available from Public Works at the Development Center. 49. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of 3.d Packet Pg. 68 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. Provide hard copy in submittal. 50. 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 any Building and/or Grading permit issuance. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. 51. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work. Please be sure to follow the City’s Logistics Plan Preparation Guidelines when preparing this plan. If separate demo, grading and/or building permits are submitted, a separate logistics plan will be required for each separate permit application specific to that phase of construction. 52. 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. 53. STREET OVERLAY. San Antonio Road and Leghorn Street were recently resurfaced and these streets are under a moratorium. Applicant will be required to grind and overlay the full width (from curb to curb) of San Antonio Road and Leghorn Street over the full project frontage per Public Works standards. Plans shall include a signage a striping plan. 54. Based on the City’s GIS there may be plume monitoring wells within the project site. Typically these wells are maintained by Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). The proposed work shall not destroy any of the monitoring well or affect the function and use of these. Contact SCVWD to verify the well location. Plot and label them on the plans and provide notes to protect wells as required by the district. 55. ROUGH GRADING PLAN. 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. 56. 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 3.d Packet Pg. 69 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. 57. STORM DRAIN LOGO: The applicant is required to paint the “No Dumping/Flows to Adobe Creek” logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to all onsite storm drain inlets. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. A deposit may be required to secure the return of the stencil. Include the directions to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. Include maintenance of these logos in the Hazardous Materials Management Plan, if such a plan is part of this project. For any new public catch basins in the public road right-of-way, applicant shall place medallions next to the inlets. Medallions are also available from Environmental Compliance Division. 58. Plans for proposed development show the entire site’s storm water runoff directed into the catch basin on Leghorn Street. Applicant will be required to provide Public Works Storm Drain Division a video of the storm drain line from that catch basin to the San Antonio manhole connection. If any of that storm drain line needs to be repaired or replaced, this project must complete that work as part of its offsite improvements. 59. The grading plan provided in the planning stage proposes overland release into the public right of way on San Antonio and Leghorn. This will only be allowed if applicant demonstrates that this matches existing drainage patterns and existing flow volume. 60. Civil plans submitted in the Building permit stage shall include detail sections at all locations where C.3 treatment devices are within 10’ of the property line. 61. Areas noted as self treating or self retaining on the SWMP will not be allowed to have area drains that ultimately connect to the City storm system without explicit third party C.3 reviewer approval and approval from the City’s storm drain division. This may include revising drainage calculations to factor in this additional discharge. UTILITIES - ELECTRIC 62. Applicant shall provide easement for the transformer. A signed easement shall be the final condition prior to energization of the building. The City reserves the right to shut the power to the building without a signed easement. 63. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. 64. The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the applicant shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 65. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 3.d Packet Pg. 70 66. If this project requires pad-mount transformers, the location of the transformers shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural Review Board. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16 (see detail comments below). 67. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing pad-mount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. 68. The location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 69. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer’s switchgear. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and shown on plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. 70. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the California Electric Code requirements and City standards. 71. Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. 72. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or reinforcement of offsite electric facilities will be at the customer’s expense and must be coordinated with the Electric Utility. 73. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property for City use. 74. Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested. 75. A completed Utility Service Application and a full set of plans must be included with all applications involving electrical work. The Application must be included with the preliminary submittal. 76. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. 77. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 78. Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. 3.d Packet Pg. 71 79. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be checked for underground facility marking shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 80. The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to California Electric Code requirements and no 1/2 – inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer’s expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. 81. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at the depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. 82. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. 83. For services larger than 1600 amps, a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility’s pad-mount transformer and the customer’s main switchgear may be required. See City of Palo Alto Utilities Standard Drawing SR-XF-E-1020. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Division for review and approval. 84. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct or x-flex cable must be used for connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of a transition cabinet will not be required. 85. The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the California Electric Code and the City Standards. 86. Meter and switchboard requirements shall be in accordance with Electric Utility Service Equipment Requirements Committee (EUSERC) drawings accepted by Utility and CPA standards for meter installations. 87. Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and greater) and associated hardware must be submitted for review and approval prior to installing the switchgear to: Tiffany Pagtulingan Power Engineer Utilities Engineering (Electrical) 1007 Elwell Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 88. For 400A switchboards only, catalog cut sheets may be substituted in place of factory drawings. 89. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection 3.d Packet Pg. 72 Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. 90. The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboards, conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and switch/transformer pads. 91. The follow must be completed before Utilities will make the connection to the utility system and energize the service: a. All fees must be paid. b. All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector. c. All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant. d. Easement documents must be completed. HOUSING The project as proposed includes 102 residential ownership units in a mixed-use development. The project is subject to the Below Market Rate requirement as set forth by Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) 16.65.060. 92. When the BMR requirement results in a fractional unit, an in-lieu payment to the Residential Housing Fund may be made for the fractional unit instead of providing an actual BMR unit, except that larger projects of 30 or more units must provide a whole BMR unit for any fractional unit of one-half (0.50) or larger. The proposed project – 102 ownership units is subject to a Below Market Rate (BMR) requirement of 15.3 units and is proposing 16 units. Of the 16 BMR units, at least 66% of units affordable to households of 80-100% area median income (AMI) and up to 33% affordable to households 100-120% AMI. 93. All BMR units constructed shall be in conformance with the City’s BMR Program rules and regulations. Failure to comply with the timing of this condition and any adopted BMR Program rules and regulations shall not waive its later enforcement. 94. A BMR Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney for the 16 BMR units shall be executed and recorded prior to final map approval or building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. Failure to comply with the timing of this condition and any adopted BMR Program rules and regulations shall not waive its later enforcement. URBAN FORESRTY TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE: 95. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 96. 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 3.d Packet Pg. 73 before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 97. 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. 98. 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. 99. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (c) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. 100. 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. 101. 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. 102. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on relevant plan sheets: 103. SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full-sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban Forestry/Contractor is mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: Insp. #1-7 applies) 104. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor, shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc) and added to the sheet index. 105. Plans to show protective tree fencing. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show the correct configuration of Type I, 3.d Packet Pg. 74 Type II or Type III fencing around each Regulated Tree, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T-1; City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans); or by using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. PUBLIC ART 106. If the applicant chooses to commission art on site, then they must complete both initial and final reviews and receive approval from the Public Art Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit. 107. If the applicant chooses to pay a contribution into the Public Art fund in-lieu of commissioning art on site, the contribution must be made prior to the issuance of a building permit. 3.d Packet Pg. 75 Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 788 San Antonio Road Table 1: CS ZONING DISTRICT COMPARISON TABLE (TITLE 18.16) Zoning District CS (Existing Zoning) Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Proposed Project if HIP approved Regulation Required Required Proposed Minimum Site Specifications Minimum Site Area (ft2) Site Width (ft) Site Depth (ft) None Required None Required None Required Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 43,390 sf (0.996 acres) 234-255 feet (varies) 147-187 feet (varies) Minimum Setbacks Min. Front Yard (Leghorn Street) (8) 0 – 10 feet to create an 8 – 12 feet effective sidewalk width (1) Not Applicable 25 feet with 7’ 6” sidewalk Min. Rear Yard 10 feet for residential portion; no requirement for commercial portion Not Applicable 10 feet – 1 inch Min. Interior Side Yard 10 feet (for lots abutting a residential zone district) Not Applicable 10 feet – 3 inch Min. Street Side Yard (San Antonio Road) 5 feet (superseded by special setback requirement) Not Applicable Building: 26 feet – 1 inch with 5 foot sidewalk Pedestrian Ramp: 10 feet Special Setback 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 along Leghorn Street Build-to-Lines (from Special Setback) 50 percent of frontage built to setback; 33 percent of side street built to setback (1) Not Applicable Not Applicable Maximum Site Coverage 50 percent May be waived by the Director of Planning 68 percent (29,467 sf) Minimum Site Open Space (percent) 30 percent Not Applicable 35.5 % (15,412.31 sf) Minimum Usable Open Space (sf per unit) 150 sf per unit (15,300 sf) (2) Not Applicable 155 sf per unit (15,823.86 sf) 3.e Packet Pg. 76 Page 2 of 3 Table 1: CS ZONING DISTRICT COMPARISON TABLE (TITLE 18.16) Zoning District CS (Existing Zoning) Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Proposed Project if HIP approved Maximum Height 50 feet Not Applicable 49 feet – 5 inches Maximum Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.6:1 May be waived by the Director of Planning 1.95:1 (84,812 sf) Maximum Non-Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.4:1 Not Applicable 0.04:1 (1,802.56 sf) Maximum Combined Residential and Commercial Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0:1 1.5:1 2.00:1 (86,614.75 sf) Minimum Mixed-Use Ground Floor Commercial FAR 0.15:1 (6,508.5 sf) (10) 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(3) 30 units/per acre, and no maximum for sites on El Camino Real Not Applicable 102.34 units per acre 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 except as provided below); (3) minimum private open space dimension six feet; and (4) minimum common open space dimension twelve feet. For CN and CS sites on El Camino Real and CC(2) sites that do not abut a single- or two-family residential use or zoning district, rooftop gardens may qualify as usable open space and may count as up to 60% of the required usable open space for the residential component of a project. In order to qualify as usable open space, the rooftop garden shall meet the requirements set forth in Section 18.40.230. (3) Residential density shall be computed based upon the total site area, irrespective of the percent of the site devoted to commercial use. (8) A 12-foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage. (10) In the CC(2) zone and on CN and CS zoned sites on El Camino Real, there shall be no minimum mixed use ground floor commercial FAR for a residential project, except to the extent that the retail preservation requirements of Section 18.40.180 or the retail shopping (R) combining district (Chapter 18.30(A)) applies. 3.e Packet Pg. 77 Page 3 of 3 Housing Incentive Program See Draft Ordinance for details. 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: 66 2-bedroom: 4 Total: 106 spaces 106 spaces Yes Commercial (Restaurant) 1 space per 60 square feet of dining & 1 space per 200 square feet of other areas. 930/60 = 15.5 spaces 873/200 = 4.4 spaces Total: 20 spaces 20 spaces Yes Bicycle Parking Residential Restaurant 1 space per unit/ 100% Long Term (LT) 1 space per 10 units short term for guests (ST) 1 space per 600 square feet (ST) & 1 space per 2,000 square feet (LT) 102 LT spaces 10.2 ST spaces 1.55 + 0.44 = 2 ST spaces Total: 102 LT and 12 ST spaces 102 LT Spaces 18 ST Spaces Yes 3.e Packet Pg. 78 Studio S Squared Architecture, Inc. 1000 S Winchester Blvd. San Jose, CA 95128 ph: (408) 998-0983 www.StudioS2arch.com March 30, 2020 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 second ARB review from January 16, 2020. 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 3.f Packet Pg. 79 Architectural Review Board Response Materials Board needed to better understand materials. There are concerns that the materials palette isn’t high quality. Response: The architecture has been designed to complement recent projects of similar scale along San Antonio Road, while also recalling older historic uses in the area. A glassy retail corner with an 11 ½ foot ceilings topped by 3 residential units provides a focal point for the two street-facing elevations. From this corner high point, the building steps down in both directions, especially on the San Antonio side, where the rooftop terrace provides a common outdoor space with views towards the Bay and the East Bay hills beyond. A double height residential lobby provides a grand sense of arrival for residents, and a refreshing view of our lushly landscaped courtyard for passers-by. A bright and rich exterior materials palette of smooth bright white and contrasting gray stucco, warm clear-heart redwood, heavily textured and grooved Equitone cement fiber panels, and Corten Steel provides visual interest at all levels of the building. The Corten panels clad a playful architectural “ribbon” which winds its way across the San Antonio and Leghorn elevations, demarcating private/public zones, entry portals, and glassy/solid areas of the facade as it travels. A redwood rain screen evokes the walkways and structures of the nearby Baylands Nature Preserve and provides a warm tone at most of the residential balconies. Recalling the historic use of the site as a wholesale flower mart for chrysanthemum distribution, a floral stamp pattern enlivens both the public retail plaza and the private residential courtyard Our larger format elevations (3/16“ = 1’-0”) on A3.0a, b, and c should help clarify where these different materials are proposed to be applied. Our easier to read Color + Materials Board on A3.0d should also make our proposed material palette easier to understand. Additional eye-level perspective views of these materials are shown on the following sheets A3.1a, b, and c. The scale is too large at the residential lobby Response: The residential lobby has been redesigned to be about one-third narrower, while still allowing for inviting looks through the lobby to the courtyard space beyond. The height of the lobby also appears to be much shorter now since we’re no longer proposing to have the shade structure at the roof terrace as an additional frame element above the lobby. Now that the roof terrace shade structure is pulled back away from San Antonio, and now that the lobby is much narrower, we have drastically reduced the scale of the lobby, while still achieving our desired effects. Frames of the building feel too monumental, busy, and dissident. One frame type too many. Window frame at the entry with the window frame of the roof terrace above it need some work. Same at the garage RE: 788 San Antonio Road; 19PLN-00079 03/30/2020 Pg. 3 3.f Packet Pg. 80 Response: The frames at the residential balconies have been overhauled and simplified. The frames are now all clad in the same clear-heart redwood siding material. The rhythm of the frames has been rethought as well, and the resulting elevations look more thoughtful and clearly organized. The roof terrace soffits shouldn’t just be stucco since they’ll be very visible from the ground floor Response: The shade structure at the roof terrace has been redesigned to continue the “triangle” motif seen at other elements of the building. Some of these wooden triangles have been omitted so that light can playfully punctuate the roof terrace. The shade structure has also been pulled back from the street so it’s somewhat less prominently visible from the street. Site planning, we need a dropoff (uber lyft) on San Antonio, not just off Leghorn. They’re going to stop on SA, not want to do a u-turn on busy Leghorn Response: Proposed street parking has been clarified on our plans now. Our plans show four parking spaces dedicated to commercial and passenger loading: two spaces on San Antonio centered in front of the residential lobby, as well as two spaces on Leghorn. These spaces can be used for moving trucks, package delivery, doordash, uber, lyft, etc. The two spaces along Leghorn will also be used temporarily for refuse bin collection. All facades need to be designed with the same level of design. Side and the back of the building, the most important, is the west elevation. The side of the elevation WILL be seen and needs some love. Needs to be carefully designed along its entire length. Response: All elevations of the proposed building have been more carefully and consistently designed. Break down the scale of the courtyard. More attention to privacy planting at courtyard to screen lower level units Response: The inner courtyard is currently shown to be broken into 3 main functions including: seating areas with curved benches and movable bistro tables, fixed exercise stations, and a proposed bike wash area. These courtyard functions are filtered from view to the unit patios by means of long planters and seat walls. The shade-tolerant planting selection has taken into account the amount of light expected to hit the courtyard level. 50 foot tall building with no trees Response: The corner of the building at San Antonio and Leghorn approaches the maximum height limit, but the long northern sections of the building along San Antonio steps down a full level to provide more visual interest and a variety of scales. The roof terrace parapet is broken into sections of full height planters, and glassy guardrails to provide visual interest. The shade structure at the roof terrace has been pulled back from the street to The three other elevations are designed as 4-levels of units, but the scale of the 4th level is broken up by having open-to-sky balconies as well as varied maximum parapet heights to provide more visual variety. Finally, the proposed trees and plantings have been added to the elevations and perspective views, though in some instances, some trees (oaks RE: 788 San Antonio Road; 19PLN-00079 03/30/2020 Pg. 4 3.f Packet Pg. 81 at street) have been hidden to not confuse or obscure the building elevations. A vast majority of the plantings are California natives, except for the courtyard trees, in which case a more shade-tolerant species was selected. Retail at corner OK, no need to move lobby Response: We are glad the ARB approves of the overall building parti and organization. Flush header windows or windows going all the way to the floor makes a critical difference to little shoebox units Response: Most units have floor to ceiling glass now. Most units also have glassy guardrails at the balcony to further open the units up to views and light. The lower level units do have solid balcony rails though to provide more privacy from street level eyes. End of Architectural Review Board Section RE: 788 San Antonio Road; 19PLN-00079 03/30/2020 Pg. 5 3.f Packet Pg. 82 Attachment F Project Plans and Environmental Impact Report Due to shelter-in-place, these documents are only available online. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll 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, Initial Study and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4575&TargetID=319 3.g Packet Pg. 83 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 11528) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 8/20/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes of July 2, 2020 Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for July 2, 2020 From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the July 2, 2020 Architectural Review Board (ARB) are available in Attachment A. Draft and Approved Minutes are made available on the ARB webpage at bit.ly/paloaltoARB Attachments: • Attachment A: July 2, 2020 Draft Minutes (DOCX) 4 Packet Pg. 84 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Peter Baltay, Vice Chair Osma Thompson, Board Members Alexander Lew, Grace Lee and David Hirsch. Absent: None. Chair Baltay: Good morning everybody. I'm Peter Baltay, Chair of the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board. At the beginning of the meeting, I’d to read this statement. [Reading] Pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, this meeting will be held by virtual teleconference only, with no physical location. Spoken comments via a computer will be accepted through the Zoom teleconference meeting. To address the Board, go to zoom.us/join. Meeting ID is 937 9255 2500. When you wish to speak on an agenda item, click on “Raise Hand.” The moderator will activate and unmute speakers in turn. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. Spoken public comments using a smartphone will also be accepted through the Zoom mobile application. To offer comments using a regular phone call Call 1-669-900-6833, and enter Meeting ID 937 9255 2500. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. [Roll Call] Oral Communications Chair Baltay: Good morning, everybody. Next item on our agenda is oral communications. If there’s any member of the public who wishes to address an item not on the agenda. Do we have any speaker cards for that? Vinh Nguyen, Administrative Associate: We currently do not have any speakers. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Baltay: Okay. We’ll move on to the next item, Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions. Do we have any Changes, Additions and Deletions to our agenda, staff? Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: No changes at this time. 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: Okay. Next item, City Official Reports, Transmittal of the Schedule, Attendance Record and Future Agenda Items and recent Project Decisions. Jodie? ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES: July 2, 2020 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM 4.a Packet Pg. 85 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, thank you for whoever is pulling this up the screen. We have our meeting today. Our next meeting will be July 16. If we go down the screen a little bit more you'll see that on July 16 we’re going to be hearing the 656 Lytton Avenue, which is a façade renovation, and I believe that is Emily’s project as well. We’ll just have one project for the next hearing. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Just as a notice to everybody, if you're planning to take a vacation or time off be sure to let Jodie know for scheduling purposes. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, thank you. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4260 El Camino Real [19PLN-00142]: Consideration of a Minor Architectural Review to Allow for Façade Renovation to an Existing Structure. Scope of Work Includes Removing Existing Wood Siding and Replacing it With new Stucco and Metal Siding, new Paint and Metal Cable Railing Along all Stairways. Environmental Assessment: Exempt. Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Foley at emily.foley@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Baltay: With that, we’ll move on to our first action item. It is action item number two, public hearing/quasi-judicial for 4260 El Camino Real: consideration of a minor architectural review to allow for façade renovation to an existing structure. The scope of work includes removing existing wood siding and replacing it with new stucco and metal siding, new paint and metal cable railing along all the stairways. Before we start I’d like to go through disclosures. Does anyone have any disclosures to make? Let’s start with David. Board Member Hirsch: No disclosures. I visited the site, however, yesterday. Chair Baltay: Well, that is a disclosure. Thank you, David. Osma, any disclosures? Vice Chair Thompson: I visited the material board yesterday. Chair Baltay: Very good. Grace? Board Member Lee: I too visited the material board as well as the site. Chair Baltay: Okay. And Alex. Board Member Lew: Yes, I visited the site and looked at the materials board at City Hall. Chair Baltay: Okay. I disclose that I also visited the site earlier this week and also looked at the materials board. Okay. With that, staff, can we have your report, please? Emily Faley, Project Planner: Okay, I will go ahead and share my screen. As we stated, this is the façade change project for 4260 El Camino. The project is located on El Camino and the South El Camino Design Guideline District in the hotel area. It is to the left of the recently approved 4260 El Camino Real hotel project and it is a neighbor to the rear of the Palo Alto Redwoods residential area. Both of those neighbors have been notified. I did not receive any comments but they were made aware that the project was going to hearing today. As you can see this is the existing building. It is 4,854 square feet of existing office. There is no change proposed to the floor area. The building has a parking garage as the first level. The second level is the office and there are no proposed changes to the height. The existing materials include wood siding. It is brown with yellow accents and there is a shingle roof. As a part of the proposed project, they propose to use two colors of gray metal panels on the front, side, and rear facades. As well as a corrugated metal red accent in the gable and a red shingle roof. The accents in the gable area will be painted black as well as the other trim, which is consistent with the existing. There are no proposed changes to the doors or windows. The stair enclosures at the front of the 4.a Packet Pg. 86 City of Palo Alto Page 3 building will be replaced with open railing. This is just a slightly larger view since it was a little small on the last slide. Key considerations for this project would include the appropriateness of the materials as well as that none of the doors or windows will be changing, including the garage kind of grate gate. Another item to consider is the open railing on the front. It is required to be changed from the currently enclosed to open by Transportation for visibility coming in and out of the driveway. However, along the sides, if the sides of the stair area are within ten feet of the property line, which was not information that was provided in the plans, then the sides that are parallel to the lot line will need to be fire-rated solid walls per the Building Department. The recommended motion is to approve the proposed project based on the findings and subject to conditions of approval. However, we recognize that there are items that may require additional review and we recommend that those become subcommittee items. And that’s my brief presentation. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, Emily. Does anyone on the Board have a question for staff? Certainly, Emily, I’d like to know are there more material samples available? What I saw at City Hall… Maybe I didn’t see everything but it was just one piece of metal sort of silver color. Ms. Faley: Yes, the piece of metal was what the applicant has provided at the time of submitting the project, which, you know, at this point was some time ago. However, they have included some additional pictures of materials in the presentation that they have prepared. Chair Baltay: One second question for you, Emily, is that this is right next to a new hotel that’s going in just to the right of this building. Have you had any representations of what this building will look like next to the proposed hotel? Is it possible to look at that? Ms. Faley: The applicant has also prepared that as a part of their presentation. Chair Baltay: I see. We can expect to see that in a few minutes? Ms. Faley: Yes. Chair Baltay: Okay. Does anyone else on the Board have any questions for staff? Okay. With that, let’s turn this over to the applicant if they’d like to make a presentation. They’ll have ten minutes to speak. [Setting up presentation.] Rucha Shah: Good morning, Board Members. My name is Rucha Shah. [spells name] Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. [Adjusting Audio.] Rucha Shah: I'm the designer for the project 4260 El Camino Real. Before I start, I would like to thank all Board Members and Emily for helping us and guiding us throughout the process. This is the street view of the proposed project. The next-door building is the NewLeaf Apartment and Hotel. The (inaudible) building is what we are proposing. The (inaudible) existing structure as (inaudible) on each side. You can see we have made sure in the design that the (inaudible) of the building. The existing and proposed use of the building remains the same. What we are proposing here is the changes of the existing wood siding to the metal panel. The purpose of it is the existing siding is weathering off. It is deteriorating and (inaudible). That’s the main purpose. For the roof upgrade and the siding upgrade. The structure occupies the entire lot. Only just a few areas in the front has the driveway and the walkway. The project fits from property line to property line. The metal panels we are using here are (inaudible) for all four sides. They are light and dark gray in color. The color palette we used here is very familiar around the neighborhood. The structure opposite to this proposed property have the same color scheme and it got approved in 2017 or ’18. The metal accent in the front wall will have dark gray color, same as the siding. The siding under the accent is metal fastener panel and it is crimson red in 4.a Packet Pg. 87 City of Palo Alto Page 4 color. We’ll keep the color scheme flooring. We are using the same colors for the shingles. The shingles are also upgrade because it needs maintenance and it has been weathered off. We are upgrading the stair rails to the metal cable railing. For the connection of the metal panel, we are going to use the same color crimson (inaudible) so it looks seamless from outside. The indoor/outdoor (inaudible) everything will have the same gray color (inaudible). The sizes of the panels will be five feet by five feet for all four sides. We are using ten foot (inaudible). The panels have (inaudible) which is (inaudible) light finish which will not at all be reflective and will not create glare to the hotel or to the passers. We have taken into consideration that it should not glare. We are repainting all the trees around the property. It is very interesting that even though the property sits on the entire site there are a lot of trees around and we are going to be doing the landscape around it. This is another view from the right side from the hotel side. This site also has some trees. This is from the left side. These are some of the features for the railing. These are (inaudible) and also because (inaudible). We are (inaudible). We are working with David [phonetic] who is the building officer from the Building Department, and he has asked us to make the side of the surface fireproof. We are fireproofing all four sides along the sides of the surface as well. These are more views with the fire hydrant (inaudible) not touching anything. They are not touching the floor area or (inaudible). That is it. Thank you. Ms. Gerhardt: Thank you, Rucha. Chair Baltay: Are we finished, Rucha? Was that your presentation completely? Rucha Shah: Yes, yes. Chair Baltay: Okay. Thank you very much for that presentation. Do we have any members of the public who wish to address us on this matter? Vinh, do we have any speaker cards? Mr. Nguyen: Chair Baltay, we still do not have any public speakers at this time. Chair Baltay: Okay. Very well Ms. Gerhardt: Vinh, we have one attendee, Kyle [phonetic]. Do we know…? Mr. Nguyen: Yeah, but we don’t have any raised hands. Kyle, if you want to speak can you indicate so by raising your hand. There should be a raised hand at the bottom of your screen and if you're calling in you can raise your hand by pressing *9. Chair Baltay: Okay. Well, it seems like we have no speaker comments on this. Let’s bring it back to the Board. Who would like to address this project first? Maybe David? How are you feeling about this? Board Member Hirsch: Yes, okay. Chair Baltay: Let’s hear what your thoughts are. Board Member Hirsch: Thank you to the applicant. I think it’s a nice presentation and clarified much of it. The drawings that we have of it are a little bit premature in some ways although I think the project will mature well mostly because, actually, the original building is quite nice, I think, the way it’s put together. The original materials certainly haven’t held up very well and I think that the idea of the metal paneling and the inserts and color scheme brings me to the conclusion of what it should have been in the first place. I think the decisions about the two-tone metal panels on the outside look much better than the ones that I was looking at earlier than the white element that I'm looking at now here on the drawing because it certainly will be toned done. The exciting part about this building, of course, is really the façade and the way the solid form with the industrial-looking ends of this building. I think that the elements that have been added to it enclosing the staircases -- which are a little confusing to me. Looking at something that is covering up the base of the stair and then opening (inaudible) at the top. I'm not clear as to what that all is. How that inhabitants the other work. Although I tried to look at the drawing I didn’t see enough detail to make any kind of statement about it. Some of the areas that I 4.a Packet Pg. 88 City of Palo Alto Page 5 think need work are certainly the way in which the planting is taken. The building isn’t falling apart at the moment. Nobody seems to be worrying or anything. I think it will be fine. But there are levels of planting. Is the ground level is it going to be in the ground the way it’s shown? Is it going to have a curved element to it that’s really going to define? Is it going to sit the way it is? What kind of planting is proposed for the perimeter of the building? Are the remaining trees that are there able to remain? I'm curious to whether the trees are healthy to remain. I’d like to talk about the variety of tree, you know, whether it’s appropriate or not. I think it’s an issue that still needs work. The railing drawings looked a little confusing but I guess I'm clear about it now. These plans are a little bit better. They show the cable rail. The stucco at the front of the building, it showed stucco in the front. Isn’t that really an aerated setback (inaudible) behind the tree and you don’t show where th… In the original drawing it said stucco and (inaudible) doesn’t appear to be stucco looking. I'm not sure as to how it cultivates to the drawing in the front that really works with the staircases on either side and what is stucco and what is not. And the electrical box that is exposed in the front I tend to feel that there is a kind of industrial look to the building and so in some way you could accept that but I think it needs to be dealt with in some way. You could maybe paint color the box itself or some kind of enclosure, if that’s possible. I'm not opposed to the idea of having some sort of a paint color. One of the elements that actually isn’t dealt with here is the front lighting. I didn’t see anything significant but this building ought to be lit (inaudible) somehow. Now it’s an exciting building to look at so it would be nice if it could be lit rather dramatically. I think that would add over to the three-dimensionality of the building and (inaudible). I don’t see anything as to that effect at all. (Inaudible) where the lighting comes (inaudible). I felt that the shingle roofing, that somehow or another ought to have a metal roof but (inaudible) shingle type of roof there. However, no doubt the red color will make a difference and certainly the (inaudible). Let’s see. In terms of the planting and as you go up the staircase and get to the top of it and you’re looking at it what is it at the top? Is that going to be another planter? It would be nice if it was. It is somehow I think the intention of it to be (inaudible) right now of course it’s not well cared for and needs to be dealt with. In some detail it really ought to show it up even if it becomes a metal enclosure that has some planting in it, you know what I mean. Probably treated but not properly described so far. I think it’s an opportunity on that one staircase on the right-hand side to do something with that area that will make it a lot more pleasant, leading up the stairs and leading to that landing and soften the effect of the entry into the building. I like the idea of the way in which it’s squared off in the front and the lower, whatever, staircase to kind of make it separate. I'm not understanding exactly what the transportation issue is here in terms of openness of the staircase. I think that is should really be squared off the way it’s shown with some kind of transparency to the railing as you go up the staircase and to the landing and get a (inaudible). The building which is closing itself off from this side yard and it is interesting the way it is shown right now. Is our hotel building is really that far away? Ms. Gerhardt: No, that’s actually not the case. I think this is, you know, they had to sort of force in a 2-D image into this plan set. We have the porte-cochère of the hotel. There is an opening underneath but that third floor closest to this subject building is pulled pretty much all the way forward. Board Member Hirsch: All the way to this building. Ms. Gerhardt: Pulled forward to the street, yeah. Board Member Hirsch: Forward to the street? Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah. There is maybe a ten-foot setback to the hotel. Between the buildings, there's about a ten-foot separation but the third floor is pulled all the way to the street. Board Member Hirsch: What I'm concerned about is where is the hotel? Is there a side yard between this building and the hotel? What we’re looking at is a pretty big space there. Ms. Gerhardt: There is the side separation, yes, just not as much front separation as you’re seeing in this drawing. 4.a Packet Pg. 89 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Board Member Hirsch: Okay, prospectively. What would be the distance, you know, approximately between -- is there a walkway that’s possible on that side yard or no? Ms. Gerhardt: That side yard is all hotel property. Board Member Hirsch: I thought so. But is it open like that? I mean, is a piece of it going to be open? I think we need to see that somehow to understand that. It is kind of a missing piece there. We’re looking at something with a tree in the back, you know, looking all the way to the back of the building with a tree back there. I think we couldn’t really see back there at all. Yes, of course, we’re at a high viewpoint. Okay. It’s just not a realistic view from this perspective at this time. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, I can pull up the hotel plans if need be. Rucha Shah: Can I speak? Chair Baltay: David, does that conclude your comments? Board Member Hirsch: Yes, I think, you know… Chair Baltay: For now, at least. Just to get started on this. Alex, do you want to take us the next step? What do you think? Board Member Lew: Sure. Rucha, thank you for the presentation. I think the presentation drawings were a lot better than the submitted packet of drawings. Based solely on the drawings I was thinking this was not ready to be approved and many of the issues have been resolved in your current presentation, which is that you had two panel sizes shown. The front and the side façades had different panel sizes. The color board was not complete. There were a lot of building elements where no color or material was shown. There were multiple different types of railings shown. There was a wood railing detail, a cable detail. I think there's an existing metal pipe rail show on the side facing the Cabana Hotel. I was unclear as what the red roof was in terms of materials on the drawings. Then, also, too, the stucco that was show on the drawings had like a horizontal texture but it wasn’t really clear what that was. I think the final element, which was unresolved to me, was the rear façade. I did look at that onsite and it seems to have a trellis element that’s similar to what’s on the existing front stairs. The detail for that was showing that there's an alternate material of T1-11 plywood siding shown as an alternate. I think that we need to look at that more carefully, the rear façade, and how it faces the Palo Alto Redwoods Condominium project. I think that the T1-11 siding is not acceptable under any circumstances in my book. For durability it’s even worse that the existing wood siding. I have concerns about the metal siding. I think that it may not be capability with the existing wood fence and the Palo Alto Redwoods shingle style. That’s where I am on this one. I think coming into the meeting I was thinking this needed to come back to the full Board. I think the current drawings shows that it’s much improved. I think I'm comfortable with this coming back to subcommittee. That’s all I've got. Thanks Peter. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. Thanks for those comments. Grace, how would you like to go next, please? Board Member Lee: Sure, happy to do so. Thank you to the applicant for sharing this with us and thank you to planning staff for, kind of, ushering in. My comments will be brief because they're very similar to my colleague Alex who just spoke. First off, I really appreciate the iterations. I saw the first iteration that came through months ago and then this one and just going to that existing building one of the strengths I think, though, it does need maintenance and the wood siding doesn’t last forever. I’m a big fan. I think Board Member Hirsch also mentioned that the building has really grown on me over the years, and one of the things that I think is a strength is that it holds together as a building so well. There are pieces to this building in different planes, and what is really great about that existing building, perhaps even that dark brown color, for me, is that it holds together so well and it doesn’t step forward in a way. It actually sits back. I understand the need for change and for maintenance concerns and this 4.a Packet Pg. 90 City of Palo Alto Page 7 new future. My concern really was the set in terms of the size of the panels, not understanding really what the colors were and how they were outlined. Like Board Member Lew, I agree that it could come back. I think we could approve it if it came back to a subcommittee with another iteration based on comments today. In terms of the metal panel, I really appreciate that now the panel size is consistent. One of the things that I saw was that you have the two-tones of the light gray and the what you call dark in the set. I see it outlined here. The open railing, for example, that sits kind of further towards the sidewalk and towards the El Camino I think is fine. Then as you move back towards the building and that gable roof mass, one of the things I'm seeing and what’s right here on screen is I'm a little concerned about that light gray color in the large panel size on all sides of the building and how that really disconnects from the gable piece. It’s quite light and I'm worried about glare or that feeling that this building isn’t holding together as a whole. I wonder if maybe if there’s -- and the board I’d love to hear your thoughts and maybe it is just the way the rendering is and, you know, it is not true. It is only now in the presentation we see with its existing context but when I look at this rendering I'm a little concerned about how that mass, that light gray is gleaming white. I guess that was my concern when I saw the panel at City Hall in the exhibit that it’s a light gray and there’s a lot of it. A lot of it on that side elevation and on the front all in one plane. There’s a contrast to what sits behind it, which is really this terrific gable roof and that mass of glass on the front. I don’t know, maybe there's another iteration where the tonal gradation or the scale of gray is actually revisited so that it is maybe thought out a little bit more in terms of that color template of gray tones. Then, also, taking cues from what’s around it a little more; the new building that’s going in next-door and just looking along the context of El Camino. I know that it’s not white and that’s not what you're proposing, but that’s what I’m seeing here in this presentation. I'm just reacting to that. The other piece, I just want to make sure, it sounds like you're going to just re-landscape, is what I heard in your presentation, and not introduce new plants. If you are introducing new plants, I didn’t see that in the set. That could be discussed at the subcommittee. I do have some concerns about the side but, you know, the proximity of the existing of the building next door on either side and just future growth maybe it’s not such a concern that it is a long blank wall but the rear, I do agree with Board Member Lew, that perhaps there can be some thought given to that rear elevation. I’ll leave it there. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Grace. Very insightful. Osma, would you care to go next? Vice Chair Thompson: Thank you. Thanks to the applicant, thanks to staff. Thanks to my Board members for starting a good conversation. I'm perhaps a little less forgiving of, sort of, of all the discrepancies that I ended up seeing in the drawing set. I think I saw two different designs, three different designs for the stair rails in different parts of the drawing package, which is pretty confusing. I think that is a problem that that design is not well defined. On A2.4 we see that the screen actually has a chamfer in it. The rendering in front of us we see that it’s full size, like a big square. Then in the details there’s no actual detail of which part of which design is actually being manifested here. And I think that is a problem. I would say the treatment of the stair is not defined in the drawings enough for me to comment on whether it is appropriate for this area just because I'm not sure quite what it is. Then I’ll move to the colors and the siding because I think that is also another big problem. I should have mentioned I have been to the site and when we were reviewing the project adjacent to this we had a chance to go into one of the units. We saw the backside of what this building looks like from one of those units and there is a trellis there, and I think there is so much greenery, so many trees. This choice of palette is not compatible with the context at all. We spent a lot of time on the hotel adjacent to make it much more warm and compatible with the area. There’s a building across the street that has warm wood tones. This building I understand it needs maintenance, it always does, but this change in design for the façade I think is completely incompatible with the context. I can’t make finding, I think it’s finding number two on this project. I think even finding number three, the material choice. I'm also concerned about glare. Also, the five by five rhythm of the panel, if that is what it is, is not very human-scaled. What’s nice about the current building is that we have siding at a pretty tiny scale, and so even though that wall that goes along is really long it’s got this scale to it that makes it really palatable and really nice. That will completely be lost if we go with the scheme in front of us. I’d really encourage the applicant to consider that human scale is really important on the street level. I don’t think that these things are light enough that they could come back to subcommittee. This is the whole project, basically. I am definitely not ready to approve it. I think there is a lot of rethinking that needs to be done here. It is true, the 4.a Packet Pg. 91 City of Palo Alto Page 8 renderings look like that upper color is white, but we saw the material sample; it’s not white. It’s a gray color. I am wondering if that was actually supposed to be the bottom color or the top color. Lack of clarity is concerning. I agree with Board Member Hirsch that a lighting plan would be really helpful here. We’ve asked other applicants to do that. Yes, lots of problems, I'm afraid. I’ll end my review there. Chair Baltay: Very good. Thank you, Osma. Well, I'm going to chime in as well then. I think I feel perhaps even more strongly than Osma that this project is far from ready to be approved. I think the application is just incomplete. There are just too many missing holes, missing parts. I’ll list a couple but the detailing is incomplete and really not specific to this building. Those are standard details which don’t apply to how the panels might join or meet the roof in particular. The stair railings are all over the place. We don’t really know what's going on. The materials are extremely incomplete. We don’t have a material board. This bright red roofing I doubt meets CALGreen standards for cool roof materials. We’d be faced with the substitution in midstream. That’s a dramatic difference even if the red were acceptable, which I question. I think on the second level the building is really not compatible. It doesn’t seem to have any sense of taking design cues from its neighbors and that’s unfortunate, especially as we’ve pushed this hotel to be very compatible and to be very cognizant in that. I think Grace’s comments about the building are quite spot-on about how there is some character quality to that building that is quite attractive. I think Osma was pointing out a part of it might have to do with that horizontal wood siding at a human scale. Certainly, there’s something that’s just being lost with the application of these metal panels. That doesn’t work for me very well either. I need to see how the hotel relates to this building. The rendering provided is grossly inaccurate and there’s two or three different heights and how close is it really to this building. We just don’t have enough information. It’s really just not ready for review, to be honest, in my opinion. I would strongly encourage the applicant to consider something else than the metal panels. They’re tricky to put on in the best of times. You have to really design it carefully when you have variety of different sizes, as you'll be forced to do on this building. It’s going to be really tough to make it work. It’s really important to detail out how the corners, the roof eaves, the openings, interaction with the stairs, all those things come together. Metal panels are not forgiving. You’ve can’t just figure that out in the field. It looks really hacked on when you do that. The back elevation is critically important. That’s really staring right at the apartment complex behind it and the glare from this light-colored panel will be significant in the sun. It’ll be probably more than significant. We’ll be getting letters about it. It’s just inappropriate to have something that reflective right next to the hotel and the apartment building behind it. It seems to me that it really hasn’t been considered yet what happens with that. The back elevations also just not accurate; that’s not what’s there now. We need to see that. For those reason and variety of things like that I cannot support recommending approval at this time for this project. Does anybody else have anything to chime in on after we’ve all spoken about this? Board Member Lee: I can chime in briefly. Chair Baltay: Sure. Board Member Lee: I really appreciate everyone's comments. I just wanted to advise, you know, hopefully when this project comes back again, and I think I agree with everyone who has spoken here to a large extent, it would be wonderful and perhaps you could work with the staff planner Emily in terms of the actual set being very much consistent with a full material sample board with colors. The presentation needs to be consistent as well so there aren’t new things that come into the presentation. It’s difficult for our Board to digest it in this forum. We review the materials, we go see the materials board and when there are missing pieces and consistencies, I just wanted to note like Osma, I wrote down in my notes all these pages numbers on your set where there was a question marked and circled where I just could connect the dots. We want to encourage applicants, however, all the pieces -- if you could just be consistent for the date of the hearing that would be great. Board Member Hirsch: Since you're asking, I wouldn’t mind jumping in as well. I agree pretty much with what everybody has been saying, but I’d like to add that I think the way in which the building reads so well is with the block elements that create the frontal surround within the building sits on behind it need to be defined, but certainly not the way they look here. It’s the strength of this building that it has those 4.a Packet Pg. 92 City of Palo Alto Page 9 elements that pull forward, the staircases and the way of getting in which I think is such a successful piece there. I disagree a bit with the idea of looking for it to fit in with the context because it’s just never going to be able to do that. But I do think in terms of tone and texture and material it needs a lot of work. Certainly, the detail wasn’t there in all the drawings. I had a problem reading it all. I think the concept is there but the materials aren’t there. You really do need to tone down the whole element of the blocking piece of it that support the structure behind it. But in a sense, those are the strengths of this building and so I don’t think we should be looking to see anything other than the shape of this building the way it’s done and the material detail of it. I agree that the rendition of the metal parts needs to be designed and it hasn’t really been thought through yet. What Chair Baltay was saying is correct. Metal isn’t an answer unless it’s detailed properly. The scale of it is a question because it is intended to support the shape of these blocky elements. How you do that and the scale of how it breaks down from that point is very critical. It maybe should be redone a little bit more in a blocky way the way the building really is and some smaller scale on the surface. It won’t detract from the mass idea of the building supporting the structure behind the (inaudible). I agree that this presentation isn’t ready yet and I agree with everybody commenting on that. We need to see the detail of it and we need to look the (inaudible). And then look at the back of the building carefully enough to (inaudible). It sounds to me the like the comments are correct. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Before we try to move on this can we quickly cover what level of landscaping we’d liked to see them come back with? What kind of a landscape plan? I forget who made the comments about whether the plants are in the ground or not but I do think that it’d be nice to what kind of landscaping should be done. What does everybody else think? I'm just trying to think. We want to give them clear direction. Any other comments about the landscaping? Board Member Hirsch: I did originally, and I think it needs a landscape plan and we need a lighting plan. Chair Baltay: Yes, and a lighting plan as well. Jodie, have we given clear enough guidance? Do we need to reiterate all of this or is this pretty well heard do you think? Can we just make a motion to continue? Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, I do think if the applicant maybe has one or two questions of classification that might be helpful. I think it sounds like we need a lot more details on the metal panels if we’re going to stay with that material. Chair Baltay: Absolutely. Ms. Gerhardt: We also need a good color and materials board with all of the colors and materials that we can put in the display case so you can see that. The stair railing, we need to figure out if that’s within the ten feet; if it needs to be solid or not. We need to finalize that question. Then I hear, you know, a landscape and lighting plan. Chair Baltay: All right. Ms. Gerhardt: I believe those are the main things. Chair Baltay: Yes, the rear elevation needs to be considered. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. Chair Baltay: Several comments were made about the glare, the lightness of the material as far as it reflects towards the neighbors. Board Member Lee: I would just add a drawing in the set that actually shows the adjacent building or a partial elevation of the existing building so we see the full streetscape. Chair Baltay: I think it’s fair to say, Grace, we need a complete application and the standards require showing adjacent properties. 4.a Packet Pg. 93 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Board Member Lee: And I want to be sensitive and understand that the applicant is working with planning staff on a minor application submittal and those requirements are probably not the same as what we’re used to in a major. I would direct the applicant to just work closely with staff and… Chair Baltay: Yeah, that sounds good. Would you care to make our motion today, Grace? Do you think you could do that? MOTION Board Member Lee: Sure. I move that we continue this application to -- should I say a future hearing or a date that’s … Chair Baltay: A date uncertain. Board Member Lee: A date uncertain. Chair Baltay: Yeah. Board Member Hirsch: I second that. Vice Chair Thompson: I second. Chair Baltay: Okay, so it’s moved and seconded. I wonder if we can now ask the applicant if they have any questions of us. We have a motion on the table. Vinh, could you check and see if the applicant has any comments, please? Mr. Nguyen: Yes. Ms. Gerhardt: I think she’s here already. Rucha Shah: I'm here. Thank you so much for all the comments. I just wanted to add that for the landscaping these are all existing trees. We are not proposing anything new. We are just going to (inaudible) everything because it was very small. We just changed the siding and nothing more but we are still upgrading. On the floor plans we have mentioned the lighting is just for the exterior. Nothing interior. Not for the façade but for the planters and the focus on (inaudible) upgraded. About the electric box, which is in the front, it sits on the concrete so there -- to cover it or to plant something -- a hedging around it is actually not possible because it is very close to the neighbor’s property line and the sidewalk and its concrete. We actually decided not to disturb that portion by the planters but just leave it and that’s fine. About the railing, the drawing which I think you have was the previous submission where were applying for the wooden railing but now we have two inches and no stucco. There is no stucco in the scope of work. Everything is metal panels and only cable railing, not the wood one. Chair Baltay: Okay. To the applicant, please, if you could we were asking if you have any questions about the decision we’re passing for you on this. Do you have any questions? Rucha Shah: No. Chair Baltay: No, okay. With that let’s take a vote on that. Vinh, could we have a roll call vote, please? Aye: Baltay, Hirsch, Lee, Lew, Thompson (5) No: (0) MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSES 5-0. Study session/Preliminary review 4.a Packet Pg. 94 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Chair Baltay: Thank you very much to the applicant and the staff. Let’s move right along then. Rucha Shah: Thank you. Chair Baltay: Next item is a study session. Do we have a study session, Jodie? Ms. Gerhardt: Actually, we should have our minutes first, I believe. Chair Baltay: I'm just reading from the list here but we can go to the minutes if that’s… Ms. Gerhardt: There is no study session. We are on to minutes. Approval of Minutes 3. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 7, 2020 Chair Baltay: Okay, approval of the minutes. The first one is Draft Architectural Review Board Minutes for May 7, 2020. Do we have any comments on those? Vice Chair Thompson: I noticed that there was a lot of distortion. There was a lot of distortion. I think a lot of the messages were not well transcribed. Ms. Gerhardt: There was distortion in the video you mean? Vice Chair Thompson: No, in the transcript. On page 36 I noticed that we can’t really tell what Chair Baltay is saying because every other word says distortion. Ms. Gerhardt: Oh. Vice Chair Thompson: Did you guys notice that there's a lot of -- I feel like a lot of the intent of somebody saying something is lost because of that. I'm not sure how to fix that. Ms. Gerhardt: Well, I’ll take a look. I think the transcriber’s doing that somehow if the video’s shaking or something they're wanting to record that but as long as the… When you read the sentence without that, does it…? Is that what people said? Vice Chair Thompson: Maybe, but I feel like the complete thought is gone because I think the distortion is supposed to be maybe like an audio distortion. Ms. Gerhardt: But I think there are some missing words. That’s what I'm wondering. Vice Chair Thompson: Yes. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. We need to see if we can fill in some of the missing words. Chair Baltay: Jodie, do you guys subcontract out to a service to do these minutes. Is that how it works? Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. Chair Baltay: And in the past, we’ve not had problems with the technical part of it and they’ve been doing it from some sort of recording as well. Is this is a different recording they're using now that we’re online? Ms. Gerhardt: I don’t believe so because there’s still the Midpen Media recording our sessions. It’s the same sort of service as far as the video goes. We’ll just have to see. I mean, I haven’t seen this in other minutes. I wonder if it’s specific to this hearing and maybe there really was some distortion on the video 4.a Packet Pg. 95 City of Palo Alto Page 12 and there really were words missing. I’ll have to just go back to the video and see and maybe if we want to… maybe we need to put this off for one hearing. We can talk about it next time. Chair Baltay: Anybody else have any opinion about this issue? Board Member Hirsch: I'm really bothered by it because it didn’t (inaudible) the meeting and a lot of what was said. Chair Baltay: I think I'm for trying to reduce the workload on staff at these times and not try to push too hard unless we really feel it’s just not capturing the intent of what we were saying. But Osma’s bringing up a very good point. I mean, we do want to have a record of what we said. That’s what the point of these things are. Any other comments on the Review Board Minutes from May 7? Osma, do you feel you want to make a motion to continue this or to approve it? It’s your choice. You make a motion. Vice Chair Thompson: In all fairness, I mean, some of it is my text but most of it is actually your text. MOTION Chair Baltay: I’ll move that we approve the minutes for May 7. Board Member Hirsch: I’ll second that. Chair Baltay: It’s been moved and seconded. All those in favor. Vinh, can we have a roll call vote, please? Aye: Baltay, Hirsch, Lee, Lew, Thompson (5) No: (0) MOTION TO APPROVE PASSES 5-0. Chair Baltay: Motion carries four and a half to zero. Okay, fine. Ms. Gerhardt: Four-and-a-half, I love it. 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 21, 2020 Chair Baltay: Okay. We’re going to move on to the next item which is Draft Architectural Review Board Minutes for May 21, 2020. Any comments on those? Board Member Lew: Peter, I have three phonetic spellings. I don’t know if you want to do those now or I can send them by email to staff. Chair Baltay: Why don’t you quickly say what they are, Alex, if it’s only three. Board Member Lew: On package page 78 Sheldon was speaking and there’s something in there about CMDA. I don’t know what he said but I think the intent was the CN zone, like neighborhood commercial zone and Housing Incentive Program. Sometimes we call it the HIP. Chair Baltay: That needs to be clarified, certainly. What else? Board Member Lew: Yeah. On packet page 84 this was Ms. Shah from Paloma’s [phonetic] office was mentioning a caulking called singleplex and I think that’s a brand name which is Sikaflex, which is S-I-K- A-F-L-E-X. Chair Baltay: Good catch, Alex. Yes. 4.a Packet Pg. 96 City of Palo Alto Page 13 Board Member Lew: Packet page 90, I was speaking and I was talking about a plant and it’s transcribed as Rivese and I was intending to say Ribes, R-I-B-E-S. It’s a native plant. Chair Baltay: Fair enough. Any other comments on these minutes? Alex, why don’t you make a motion for us? MOTION Board Member Lew: I will move that we approve the minutes for May 21, 2020. Chair Baltay: Subject to the comments you just made. Board Member Lew: Yes. Chair Baltay: I’ll second. Vinh, roll call vote, please. Aye: Baltay, Hirsch, Lee, Lew, Thompson (5) No: (0) MOTION TO APPROVE PASSES 5-0. Mr. Nguyen: Alex, if you could email me those changes after the meeting that would be much appreciated. 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Subcommittee Meeting Minutes for June 4, 2020 Chair Baltay: Thank you. Next item is number 5, Draft Architectural Review Board Subcommittee Meeting Minutes for June 4. What do we have on that? Any comments? Mr. Nguyen: Should we abstain if we weren’t on the subcommittee? And then if we’re on the subcommittee there’d be only two Board Members to vote for the… Chair Baltay: That’s a good point. Two of us can’t carry the day and yet only two of us were there. No, I think everybody should listen to the minutes and we should vote whether we think they're an accurate transcription based on a report we’re going to get back from the subcommittee itself. The two who are on that subcommittee what were those minutes to you? Do we have any information on that? Ms. Gerhardt: The subcommittee was Board Member Thompson and Board Member Hirsch. Chair Baltay: Osma and David, do you think those minutes are accurate? Ms. Gerhardt: The minutes are just saying that there were revisions agreed to -- the subcommittee agreed with the revisions presented. The applicant shall ensure these changes are incorporated into the design. I think it was really just whatever plans were presented the subcommittee agreed to. Vice Chair Thompson: What page is this noted? Ms. Gerhardt: Are you on the agenda or are you on the… Vice Chair Thompson: Yes. Ms. Gerhardt: On the agenda, there’s just the second page that has all the minutes and you should be able to click on the June 4 Minutes. Vice Chair Thompson: Sorry, I'm in the .pdf. 4.a Packet Pg. 97 City of Palo Alto Page 14 Ms. Gerhardt: Vinh? Mr. Nguyen: Do you want me to project the minutes? Is that what’s going on? Vice Chair Thompson: I thought the subcommittee review was in the packet that was sent to us. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, just what packet page number. I’m pulling it up here also. We’ll see who gets there first. Vice Chair Thompson: I think that is right. We did agree to the revisions. I don’t remember disagreeing. Ms. Gerhardt: Packet page number 120. Vice Chair Thompson: Okay, I see it. Yeah, I think that’s right. MOTION Chair Baltay: We don’t have any comments on these minutes. I’ll move that we approve the minutes as presented. Do we have a second for that? Osma or David, please? Vice Chair Thompson: I’ll second. Chair Baltay: We’re going to have a vote on this and I can understand if Alex and Grace want to abstain because they weren’t there and I'm going to vote for it just because we have to pass it. Jodie, you’re putting us in a very difficult position when you bring us minutes like this only two people can vote on it. Vinh, let’s have a roll call vote, please. Aye: Baltay, Hirsch, Thompson (3) No: (0) Abstain: Lee, Lew (2) MOTION TO APPROVE PASSES 3-0-2. Chair Baltay: Three to two to three zero, fair enough. Ms. Gerhardt: Three, zero, two. Chair Baltay: Three, zero, two. Okay, thank you very much. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Baltay: Our next item is Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements. Do we have anything formal, Jodie, that you want us to hear about? Ms. Gerhardt: I don’t have anything specific. I believe there was an NVCAP Subcommittee although I don’t know if Alex has information about that. Board Member Lew: We’ve had two NVCAP meetings this week and we’re in the sausage making process and it’s going to continue for the next month. Chair Baltay: Can you tell us what flavor you're looking for? Board Member Lew: I know. It’s going to be tutti-frutti multi-flavored. 4.a Packet Pg. 98 City of Palo Alto Page 15 Chair Baltay: The kind where you don’t really have a chef. You just put it all in the mix. Board Member Lew: Yes. Chair Baltay: Okay. Any other questions for Alex, gang? This is the North Ventura Plan. I did notice a few emails, and to move on regarding the other committee we have going, where David and Osma are working on about the zoning prescriptive standards I think it is. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. Chair Baltay: Do we have any feedback, anything appropriate to come back to the Board with on that? Board Member Hirsch: All of you guys should have been forward the piece of work (inaudible) incorrect in doing that and withdraw at this point. Chair Baltay: Okay. If you two don’t feel you have anything to report that’s fine. I just want to give you the opportunity if you do. Vice Chair Thompson: I didn’t hear what Board Member Hirsch said. Sorry, the audio wasn’t… [Adjusting Audio.] Board Member Hirsch: Withdrawing. I had the transmittal which I could have never really sent at this time; too early. Yes, I mean, I think we could say a little something. [Distortion]. Can you hear that? Sorry? And we have a lot more to do. I am concerned personally that the two meetings that we might have will hardly give us an opportunity to review the entire study, only to do pieces of it. I'm not quite sure how we will be able to participate effectively in the entire study. I raise that kind of an issue which could be raised again when we (inaudible) after as well. After the first two pieces to determine that and report later. I’d be curious to know what Osma thinks about that. Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, it’s a lot to go through. When it comes to you guys it’s a lot to go through. Board Member Hirsch makes a good point. I mean, I think we’ve had a couple of meetings. Well, one real meeting just trying to go over everything and we barely made it to 20 percent of it. I mean, it’s a big undertaking. Just fair warning that there is a lot going to come your way for review. I do hope that we have more than just one other meeting to go over it but I also don’t quite know what the timeline is. Jodie, do you know when this is supposed to come back to the Board? Ms. Gerhardt: Well, we were trying to come back to the Board -- we were going to back to a joint meeting between the ARB and the PTC. We were hoping to do that on August 20, but I agree with you that, you know, it feels like we only, kind of, got through 20 percent of it. We may try and rethink that. We are trying to complete this by the end of the year. We just have to, kind of, balance those two objectives. The one thing I can say to the rest of the Board is that if you could please take a look at the existing criteria that we have. The design criteria is spaced out between all the different chapters, you know multi-family, commercial, that sort of thing. But if you could take a look at those maybe ahead of time that’ll give us a jump start because really what we’re trying to do is take those existing criteria and go from subjective criteria to objective. Trying to put numbers to those sorts of things if we can or in other places where we maybe put a menu of ideas that makes it more objective. Those are the things that David and Osma are wrestling with. We’re also wrestling with just, you know, making sure that we can present it in a coherent manner because it’s a big task. How we present it is just as important as how we change it. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Jodie. Yeah, I think it’s a big task and the Board is at your disposal if you'd like to bring things on our agenda or whatnot or though the committee. We’re all more than happy to help, especially at some of our meetings. It seems like the next one, at least, we don’t have a lot else on the agenda. I can react to something you just said about hoping to bring this to a joint meeting with the ARB and the Planning Commission. I'm not sure I think that’s a very strong way to get a good 4.a Packet Pg. 99 City of Palo Alto Page 16 recommendation from us. It’s a complex group bit of information and the more people involved in one of these meetings the more difficult it is to really get anything done. Unless you're just looking for sort a blanket approval I don’t think a joint meeting is a good way to go about it. Just for the record so you hear that. Any other Board Member Questions, Comments, or Announcements? Okay, with that we’re adjourned. Thank you, everybody. And we have two subcommittee items. Board Member Thompson and Lew on the first and Thompson and Hirsch will handle the second. David, you might want to either stay on the line or communicate with Vinh so you can handle all that. Thank you very much, everybody. We are adjourned. Adjournment Subcommittee Items 6. 620 Emerson Street (19PLN-0326): Subcommittee Review of Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return with Details on the Design, Pattern, and Material Samples for the Bronze Metal Gates and Grate Proposed Along the Front Façade. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: CD-C(GF)(P) (Downtown Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. 7. 3215 Porter Drive [19PLN-00220]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Additional Details Related to Building Facade Materials and the Rear Stairway/Balcony. Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration. Zoning District: RP (Research Park). For More 4.a Packet Pg. 100 City of Palo Alto Page 17 PLANNER’S SIGNATURE Architectural Review Board Subcommittee Review Memo Greg Stutheit, Montalbe Architects, 2525 Michigan Ave, Building T4, Santa Monica, CA 90404 620 Emerson St [19PLN-00326] July 2, 2020 Samuel Gutierrez, Planner On April 16, 2020, the ARB recommended approval to the Director of Planning & Development Services for the subject project while conditioning that certain project elements return for review by a subcommittee of the ARB. On July 2, 2020, the ARB Subcommittee comprised of Vice-Chair Osma Thomson and Board Member Alex Lew, reviewed the plans and material samples dated received on June 5, 2020, in accordance with ARB conditioned items below that were to return to the ARB Subcommittee: A. A detailed design/pattern, and material samples, shall be provided for the bronze metal gates and grate proposed along the front façade. At the meeting, the Subcommittee reviewed the following revisions presented by the applicant. 1. The applicant provided plans and images to provide greater detail for the decorative bronze screen at the facade of 620 Emerson Street. Page 1 of the subcommittee plans shows the approved overall view of the facade. Page 2 shows a rendering taken from the sidewalk that displays the depth and rhythm of the bronze screen. The planting images have been faded so the screen can more clearly be seen in the diagrammatic view. Page 3 is a drawing (A5.13) that offers more information on the layout and dimensions of the screen. Page 4 shows images of the proposed oil-rubbed bronze material. Included in the plan set are photographs of the bronze to show the materials in lieu of being physically present. The Subcommittee found the plans to be acceptable as submitted with no additional changes required and recommended approval of the submitted subcommittee plans to the Director. The applicant shall ensure these changes are incorporated into the final construction design and this Subcommittee Review Memo shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit(s) along with the approval letter for the project. TO: SUBJECT: DATE: FROM: 4.a Packet Pg. 101 City of Palo Alto Page 18 DocuSign Envelope ID: 6B75DB2A-A496-40F3-B950-5917E9F47038 PLANNER’S SIGNATURE Architectural Review Board Subcommittee Review On May 7, 2020, the ARB recommended approval to the Director of Planning & Development Services for the subject project while conditioning that certain project elements return for review by a subcommittee of the ARB. On July 2, 2020, the ARB Subcommittee comprised of Vice-Chair Osma Thomson and Board Member David Hirsch, reviewed the plans and material samples dated received on June 4, 2020, in accordance with ARB conditioned items below that were to return to the ARB Subcommittee: A. Make the color and materials board available to the ARB Subcommittee and the public. B. Provide additional details of the rear stairs, showing drainage details, railing detail, and connections between different materials. C. Provide a detail for the edge of the metal panels to show how they join together. D. Provide details of how different materials join/come together, especially where the facia meets the windows. The Subcommittee found the plans to be acceptable as submitted with no additional changes required and recommended approval of the submitted subcommittee plans to the Director. The applicant shall ensure these changes are incorporated into the final construction design and this Subcommittee Review Memo shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit(s) along with the approval letter for the project. TO: Lisa Lu, Stanford University, 415 Broadway MC 8873, Redwood City CA 94063 SUBJECT: 3215 Porter Drive [19PLN-00237] DATE: July 21, 2020 FROM: Garrett Sauls, Associate Planner 4.a Packet Pg. 102 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 11529) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 8/20/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes of July 16, 2020 Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for July 16, 2020 From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the July 16, 2020 Architectural Review Board (ARB) are available in Attachment A. Draft and Approved Minutes are made available on the ARB webpage at bit.ly/paloaltoARB Attachments: • Attachment A: July 16, 2020 Draft Minutes (DOCX) 5 Packet Pg. 103 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Peter Baltay, Vice Chair Osma Thompson, Board Members Alexander Lew, Grace Lee and David Hirsch. Absent: None. Chair Baltay: Good morning. I'm Peter Baltay, Chair of the Architectural Review Board. This is the July 16, 2020, meeting of the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board. Before starting, I’d like to read a statement. [Reading] Pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, this meeting will be held by virtual teleconference only, with no physical location. Spoken comments via a computer will be accepted through the Zoom teleconference meeting. To address the Board, go to zoom.us/join. Meeting ID is 970 9873 4671. When you wish to speak on an agenda item, click on “Raise Hand.” The moderator will activate and unmute speakers in turn. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. Spoken public comments using a Smartphone will also be accepted through the Zoom meeting application. To offer comments using a regular phone, call 1-669-900-6833, and enter Meeting ID 970 9873 4671. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. [Roll Call] Oral Communications Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Next item on our agenda is Oral Communications. Do we have any members of the public wishing to address any item not on our agenda? Do we have any speakers, Vinh? Vinh Nguyen, Administrative Associate: Chair Baltay, we do not have any speakers this morning. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you very much. We’ll go on to the next item Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions. Staff, can we have a report on that, please? Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: No changes at this time. 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 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: July 16, 2020 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM 5.a Packet Pg. 104 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Chair Baltay: Very well. Let’s move on to City Official Reports. Again, we have an upcoming ARB schedule and attendance record. Anything coming for us, Jodie? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning. Thank you for bringing up this screen. You do see that the August 6th meeting is going to be canceled. If you go to the next page you will see that August 20th we do have some hefty items, though. We will have 788 San Antonio and we will also have 1310 Bryant, which is the Castilleja School. The first one is an important housing project. Both of those projects have EIRs and those will be out soon for the public to review and then those projects will come to you on August 20th. The objective standards we will delay given the size of this agenda. Objective Standards will go on the early September agenda. Chair Baltay: All right, board members not able to make this meeting? It seems like an important one for everybody. Okay. Is that it, Jodie? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, thank you. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 656 Lytton Avenue [19PLN-00040]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Minor Board Level Architectural Review to Allow for Revisions to the Facade of Existing Multi-Family Affordable Senior Housing Facilities and Other Minor Site Revisions. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. Zoning District: PC-2649 for Lytton Gardens I and PC-2698 for Lytton Gardens II (Planned Community). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Foley at emily.foley@cityofpaloalto.org Chair Baltay: All Right. We’re going to move on to our first action item. Item number two is a public hearing/quasi-judicial for 656 Lytton Avenue. Recommendation on applicant’s request for approval of a minor board-level architectural review to allow for revisions to the facade of existing multi-family affordable senior housing facilities and other minor site revisions. Before we get started, do we have any disclosures to make? Anybody want to do something? Alex, any disclosures? Board Member Lew: Yes, I visited the site and I looked at the color board at City Hall. Chair Baltay: Thank you. David, any disclosures? Board Member Hirsch: The same visited the site and City Hall. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Grace, any disclosures? Board Member Lee: The same ob my side. Visited the site and say the samples. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Osma? Vice Chair Thompson: I have no disclosures. I did not have access to anything. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. I will disclose that I also visited the site and looked at the color board in City Hall. Thank you. With that, can we have a staff report, please? Emily Faley, Project Planner: Good morning. I will pull up the presentation in a second. I also received an email from the applicant saying she was having trouble joining the meeting. Vinh, do you know if Edwina Jean-Louis is currently on the call? Mr. Nguyen: I do not see them. [Setting up presentation.] 5.a Packet Pg. 105 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Vice Chair Thompson: In the meantime, I know that we received an updated set of drawings. Is it possible that we could, kind of, let each other know the differences that we saw between the updated set of drawings? Chair Baltay: Osma, I’d rather just follow the normal process here. Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. Chair Baltay: It’s important to do that. Ms. Faley: Yeah, the drawings that I received were intended to be presented by the applicant. Chair Baltay: Let’s give them maybe another minute, Jodie, and then we get started. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay, I was just able to send off the email a second ago. Chair Baltay: Emily, I think you should get started. They’ll sign in as they do. Ms. Faley: Okay. This is the application for 656 Lytton Avenue. It is a façade change and updates and improvements to Lytton Gardens I. The project location takes up most of the block with frontages on Lytton Avenue, Middlefield Road, and University Avenue. What is outlined shows Lytton Gardens I, however, Lytton Gardens II is this area below it. That has been removed from this application with the expectation that it would be improved similarly to Lytton Gardens I at a later date. In terms of the context, Lytton Gardens is similar to the surrounding residential three to five-story -- many other senior home -- type of buildings. Also in the area, there are one to two-story medical offices. Lytton Gardens is a significantly larger building in terms of massing than the surrounding buildings. For background, this project went to preliminary review in front of the Architectural Review Board on August 16, 2018. Some notes from that meeting includes that the Board preferred the existing shingle to the proposed smooth hardie board and additional details were needed for how that material would be joined at the corners. There was concern that the colors were too bright and that the existing shingles had a warmer tone than the proposed board colors. It was noted that the entrance should be emphasized as the design entrance, kind of, blended in with the rest of the building. It was preferred that mini-split units for A/C and heating were used instead of the previously proposed wall-mounted exterior condensers to reduce visual impact. The project overview includes the façade change from the existing siding to fiber cement board siding, new rooftop condensing units with in-unit mini-split, replacement of the existing transformer, lighting and landscape improvements, reconfiguration of the drop-off zone, which includes a minor loss of parking, ADA improvements to parking and to interior residential units. This also leads to a loss of two parking spaces and addition of flood gates to the parking garage and ground floor entryways. This shows the elevations including the emphasis added to the entrance in the brick red color. The top is the Lytton Avenue facade. Elevation two is along Middlefield. Elevation three is along University Avenue. It is partially blocked by Lytton Gardens II. The fourth elevation is the interior side elevation. Some key considerations are the colors and materials. The proposed siding is Allura wood-textured board siding. The colors are mainly brown and neutral. The siding will be paint grade and painted with the colors that are on the materials board and are posted on the board at City Hall. Brick Red flat siding is used to emphasize the entrance and the Ebony Slate color is used for the window and door trim. Compared to the existing façade, the three colors break up the façade more than the existing shingles, which are just the one natural shingle color. The trim color is similar to the existing which is a dark green. This is a dark bluish-gray. As I stated earlier, the brick red is used to emphasize the entrance on Lytton Avenue. Another key consideration is the air conditioning units. They will be rooftop mounted and they will be screened from the street by the existing four-foot parapet wall. The image in the upper right corner shows what the units will look like inside of the building and one of the changes that the applicant is expected to talk about during her presentation is that the vents are not needed for this type of unit. The vents that are shown in the plans as being in the exterior upper corners of the windows and as shown in this detail are actually not required. The recommended motion for this project is to recommend appeal based on the findings and subject to conditions of approval. That concludes my brief presentation. 5.a Packet Pg. 106 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Chair Baltay: Thank you, Emily. Ms. Gerhardt: Jodie, do we have the applicant online yet? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, if Vinh can bring them over. Edwina for sure and, Emily, I don’t know who else. Maybe Edwina can let us know. Ms. Faley: Yeah, I think we were expecting the landscape architect but I don’t know their name, actually. Chair Baltay: To my colleagues on the Board, typically we go through a round of questions and I could see quite a few here; however, I’d like to push this along quickly so Osma has a chance to comment after the applicant’s presentation. With everybody’s consent let’s move directly to the applicant presentation if they’re… [Setting up presentation.] Edwina Jean-Louis, Architect: I will not be giving a presentation. Stuart Lyle will be giving a presentation. He is the President of SGPA. I think he is on the call Ms. Gerhardt: Okay, is there anyone else? Ms. Lewis: I think Karim, the owner, is on the call and I think that’s about it. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. Stuart, the floor is yours. Ms. Lewis: I'm sorry; Sarah Denig is on the call also. She’s our landscape architect. Stuart Lyle: Thank you, everyone. My name’s Stuart Lyle. I'm the President for SGPA and I wanted to thank Emily for her presentation and for all of her help in pulling this meeting together and getting us to this point. Thanks to all the members of the Board for their time today. A quick overview of the project, not to be too repetitive but on the next slide, there is an overview site plan with some data on the project. This project was originally built in 1974. It contains 219 affordable apartments for low-income seniors plus the accessory spaces and staff offices on the first floor. The scope of the building renovation on the next page talks about the siding replacement throughout the building exterior, new landscaping around the reconfigured drop-off zone as well as in the courtyards. We’re also doing a complete interior refurbishment with new casework in the units, new flooring, paint, new plumbing fixtures, and new energy-efficient lighting. In addition, five percent of the units are going to be converted to fully accessible. The mechanical scope for the project includes those new mini-split heating and cooling systems in all the apartments and new corridor ventilation. Electrically we’re also replacing the undersized emergency generator, new electrical panels that are up to code, new switchgear, upgraded electrical service to the building, and new energy-efficient lighting throughout. On the next slide, are some pictures. The building’s located in a residential neighborhood, I think you're all familiar with it, fronting on Lytton Avenue, Middlefield Road, and University Avenue. Currently, the main entrance is on Lytton with the entrance to the garage for the residents and staff is also on Lytton along with the drop-off area which allows for direct access for residents and visitors to the main office space as well as the lobby. The next slide shows some pictures of the current wood shingle siding which has a limited useful life of approximately five to seven years, which necessitates frequent replacement. Additionally, the siding has ongoing issues with water infiltration resulting in some dry rot in the walls and some active leaks and it is prone to warping and rotting. In addition, the existing balconies have some dry rot issues and those are being retrofitted to provide some additional structural support. On the next slide, it will show some examples of the premium fiber cement siding that we’re proposing, the Allura Timber Series, in the three colors Taupe, Pony Brown, and Wheatfield. These have a useful life of 30 years allowing for significantly less ongoing maintenance and reducing moisture infiltration and help stabilize the temperature inside the walls to stop the dry rot and reducing heat loss from the interior. At the main entry, we’re planning on using a smooth fiber cement siding. You can see in the lower right-hand corner 5.a Packet Pg. 107 City of Palo Alto Page 5 that’s the brick red color to emphasize the entry and to help provide visual clues for the residents and others that this is the main entrance to the building and break up some of that façade. The ebony slate color, color four up in the top right corner, is used for the metal coping for window frames and for the balcony railings and balcony posts. The next slide includes some pictures of homes in the neighborhood that we used to help select those colors. We tried to find colors that had some basis in the neighborhood and that would fit in. I think the next slide is just the color board one more time with all of those. Emily presented those as well showing the three types of wood-grain lap siding, the trim color Ebony Slate, and then the Brick Red that would be used for the smooth fiber cement panels at the entry. Next slide. Emily described the elevations and it is, you know, a relatively long linear building. We’re trying to emphasize some of the different planes. If you see the building footprint down in the lower right-hand corner there are a lot of ins and outs on the building. We’re trying to emphasize those different planes with different colors as we go around. I think the next slide is just the interior courtyard elevations. Trying to break up the mass and make it a little more visually interesting and less monochromatic than it is now. I guess one more to get to the entry. This shows the exception to that where we are proposing to use the smooth fiber cement siding in a larger size panel in four-foot modules that would help to draw attention to the entry; distinguish it from the remainder of the building. We’re also conscious to how seniors react to color and how they see color and we want this to be a visual wayfinding clue for everyone that this is the main entrance to the building. The next page shows some of the details. There were questions about how the corners were going to be detailed. All of those ins and outs on this building resulted in a lot of interior and exterior corners. The exterior corners are going to be detailed with a laced prairie-style corner. Instead of a corner trimmed board that those die into they're going to be overlapped alternatively on alternate courses and then trimmed to fit. We’ve included details for the interior corners as well, as well as how the trim works around the windows up at the coping and for the guard rails on the balconies. All right. The next slide shows some before and after perspectives of the existing entry showing how the red color and the different types of siding helps to accentuate that. It shows the reconfigured drop-off and we’re trying to be a little more conscious of separating the pedestrian and the vehicular traffic. The next slide shows another view of that drop-off and how we’re using different paving as well as striping to help designate the difference between pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Then we start to show some of the courtyard interior photos and how we’re trying to designate -- let’s go to the next couple to show those interior courtyards. Sarah, our landscape architect, is here and she’ll be able to talk a little bit more about the landscaping and so on in the courtyard but we’re trying to create, you know, a design that’s appealing to seniors that provides stimulation for the senses, supports memory, areas for walking, contemplation, gathering and other recreational opportunities that are appropriate for seniors. The next slide. I think there’s maybe one more of the courtyard aerial views. Chair Baltay: Excuse me, Stuart, could I interrupt you for a second, please? This is Peter, the Chair. You have ten minutes to speak. You’ve been at it for nine. I think we’ll have more questions so you could finish your presentation that way but I’d like you to wrap it up within a minute so Osma Thompson can have a chance to offer her opinion. Mr. Lyle: Absolutely. Okay. Then the last piece that I will talk about is -- we just have some pictures of the light fixtures but I think on slide 25 talks to about some flood barriers. These are some temporary barriers that are required by Public Works because we are within 12 inches of the base flood elevation at certain locations: the entrance to the parking garage and the main entrance and potentially a few more along Lytton. These will be temporary modular units that are put in place by building support personnel during or before a flood event and then they’ll be removed. They won’t be visible or part of the design. The brackets and support for those will be just along the doorframes and/or the edges of the entrance of the parking garage. Those will be painted out and detailed to minimize their appearance. Chair Baltay: Stuart, if we could with that, you're at your ten-minute limit. I would like to move this quickly to fit in comments from other Board Members who may have to leave. Before we do that, however, I want to be sure we’re not skipping any public testimony. Vinh, do we have anyone from the public who wishes to address us on this issue. 5.a Packet Pg. 108 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Mr. Nguyen: Chair Peter, we only have one attendee but it looks like it’s the architect. We don’t have any public comments for this item. Chair Baltay: Okay. We are opening and closing the meeting to public comments. Then I’d like the Board to chime in on this. Osma, if you're with me here are you really leaving in five minutes? Vice Chair Thompson: I do need to, yes, but I do think it’s important if the Board has questions to ask them. Chair Baltay: I think there are a lot of questions to ask. If we do that you won’t be able to comment then. Are you okay with that? Vice Chair Thompson: Is it okay if I comment really quickly and then the Board can… Chair Baltay: What I would like for you to do is comment right now. Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. Chair Baltay: We will take your comment into account and then we will go back. I would like to hear from the landscape architect and I'm sure my colleagues have questions. Osma, the floor is yours for a moment, please. Vice Chair Thompson: Okay, thank you. Thank you for accommodating my need to leave soon. In general, I think the project is much improved from what we saw last time. I think the textural panels and siding do add a lot more visual interest than what was proposed previously and I think that is really great. I think it will be a really good looking project. I did have questions. I didn’t quite notice what the changes were in the drop-off. I was going to leave that to my Board Members to maybe ask and sort of investigate that a little bit more. It seemed a little unclear. I'm not quite sure what’s happening with the drop-off because I thought this was mainly just a façade change. That’s a question. These flood barriers; I understand that they will be detailed to be minimal. I had a question on if this extra channel that’s getting added. Does that happen on the inside of the door or the outside of the door in terms of visibility? Otherwise, I do think that the color palette seems like a really nice choice and, in general, I think the design update will work really nicely in this area. I will leave it at that for now. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, Osma, for your comments. We have no public comment. Stuart the applicant, can you tell me what else were you hoping to present or cover here? Did you have a landscape architect with you to speak? Mr. Lyle: We do, Sarah Denig is here. Sarah Denig, Landscape Architect: Hi. Mr. Lyle: She’s able to speak to landscaping. I had covered the flood panels. That was the last piece of my presentation. Chair Baltay: Okay. With my colleague’s acknowledgment, what I’d like to do is open questions from the Board. My question first will be to the landscape architect. Could you please present to us your design? Ms. Denig: Sure. Chair Baltay: I’ll give you, say, a three-minute time limit. Is that reasonable? Ms. Denig. Sure. Yeah. Chair Baltay: Go ahead. 5.a Packet Pg. 109 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Ms. Denig: Okay. The whole project is relatively shady and we need to have shade tolerant and native planting. It is mostly that but we kept the rose garden in the center. We’re just updating the steps to the rose garden to make them compliant. In the courtyard, we have a large circular bench with a fountain for gathering and then benches along the paths. We are removing a few trees and the trees that we’re removing are high water and not native and we’re replacing them with native trees throughout the project but there’s not a whole lot of space for more trees anyway because there are so many trees. Yeah. This courtyard, the corner courtyard we call it, there is only one plant in this courtyard that is not native. It’s called Lomandra but it’s on the property next door. It’s a zero maintenance grass-like plant that can tolerate shade or sun or a lot of water or no water. It’s just a good bullet-proof plant. A sitting area at the entry and lots of bike parking for staff or the seniors that live there. Any questions? Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, Sarah. To the other colleagues, do we have any questions for the applicant or the staff on this? We’ve rushed very fast I think. I have a bunch of questions but whom else? Board Member Lee: I do have a question. Chair Baltay: Great. Go ahead, please. Board Member Lee: I'm wondering about signage, particularly at the front entry, and if that is going to be part of the application that would be submitted and reviewed through planning and would the Board be seeing that signage proposal. Chair Baltay: Grace, that’s to staff or to the applicant? Board Member Lee: I'm happy to hear from both. I just didn’t see a signage. I saw in the rendering it said drop-off and then the existing conflicts. I'm just not sure if that hasn’t been designed yet or how that will come to the Board. Ms. Jean-Louis: I think we’re just going to keep the existing signage. If you're looking at the landscape plan right now on the corner bottom left corner you see that little rectangle that’s existing signage that we’re moving. Then the building has a couple pin signs on them that say Lytton Gardens and we’re basically keeping that and adding it on to the new siding. It’s stainless steel pin-mounted signs that are throughout the front entrance. There’s one basically a little bit further to the right that you can’t see right now because the plan is cut off but it’s basically above an entryway to the door. Chair Baltay: Emily, is that stuff shown on the plans? The changes to the signage? Ms. Faley: Signage was not included as part of the project scope. Chair Baltay: And changes… Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, so I think at this point the signage would need to come back as a separate application. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Jodie. Grace, is that a satisfactory answer? Grace, does that answer your question? Board Member Lee: Sorry, I was nodding yes. That’s the question that I had for them. Thank you. Chair Baltay: I was looking at the mute button too closely. I didn’t see you. Ms. Gerhardt: The only other option is that if the applicant wanted to add in signage it sounds like it might be minor in nature we could make that a subcommittee item if they so choose. 5.a Packet Pg. 110 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Ms. Jean-Louis: If we’re using a signage do we have to resubmit because basically it’s the same signs that we have right now and we’re just moving the location or we’re keeping in at the same location that it is? Ms. Gerhardt: If you're moving locations in needs a permit. Ms. Jean-Louis: Okay. If we’re keeping then we don’t need a permit and we don’t have to go through the process of having planning? Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. Ms. Jean-Louis: I think the option is just to keep the existing signage and that’s what we’re showing currently in our construction plans. Chair Baltay: That’s right. That’s why Grace is asking the question because frequently applicants like to change the signage. Ms. Jean-Louis: No, we’re not changing it. The bottom left-hand corner is existing and that’s basically where it is now and we have a signage in front at the drop-off area. We’ll be keeping the same sign. Taking it off and reinstalling it. Chair Baltay: Okay. I don’t think you're looking at a big deal if you want to change it, speaking for myself. I don’t see anything objectionable or an issue but you do need to follow the process. Ms. Jean-Louis: Okay. Chair Baltay: Any other questions from the Board? Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Chair Baltay: David, go ahead. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, on the University side there are presently, I think, two paths to the gate at the entry. One of them is removed, I believe. It’s the one that goes downtown going towards the center. Is that a plan here? I realize that one of them is likely to be handicap accessible. The other one may not be. Am I making a mistake in what I recall being the pathways to that gateway entry on University? Ms. Denig: I believe that, yeah. I took over the project after this layout was made and I would have to look at the original topo plan but I can’t remember why that was removed, maybe because it required steps, so it was too steep and maybe just a cost issue. Let me look and see. Let’s see here. Ms. Gerhardt: Peter, do we want to come back to the question in a minute? Chair Baltay: Sure. Ms. Denig: Yeah, you can come back to me. Chair Baltay: That’s fine to come back to that if you'd like. David, any other questions? Board Member Hirsch: Yes, as Osma brought up the issue, the Lytton parking is significant here. I happen to be a neighbor pretty close by and was even sent a card to note that this hearing was going to take place. I have a lot of familiarity with the Lytton entry and I would ask Lyle to talk about that a bit because there’s a conflict there between the Lytton Avenue traffic and entry and egress and sidewalk access on that side. It’s very severe. Could you talk about what mitigating methods are going to be used to prevent a conflict at that corner? 5.a Packet Pg. 111 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Chair Baltay: David, let me interrupt you for one second. I'm concerned. You mentioned that you live very close to this project. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. Chair Baltay: Are you sure you’re not within the range where you should be recusing yourself? Jodie, have we checked that out? Ms. Gerhardt: That’s what I'm double-checking right this second. I just need a few minutes. I mean, I think we can continue. The main thing would be can David vote and I will find that out soon. Chair Baltay: I think it’s important that he also just -- David, it’s just so important that we don’t get ourselves in trouble here. Board Member Hirsch: I'm aware. Chair Baltay: Have you checked for yourself because you’re the one who makes the decision on these things? How close you are to this property. Board Member Hirsch: I'm within the announcing distance. What is it? Six hundred feet or something like that or 800 feet? I'm within that dimension. I'm across Middlefield and a couple blocks away. Chair Baltay: A couple of blocks you should be fine. Board Member Hirsch: I got an announcement in the mail. Chair Baltay: That’s because the staff is doing their job and that’s not the legal determination. I think its 500 feet or something. Jodie, is that right? Board Member Hirsch: I'm not an immediate neighbor. Chair Baltay: Look, it’s your determination, David. I'm okay with you continuing your line of questions. Board Member Hirsch: Okay, thank you. Thanks a lot, Peter. Chair Baltay: Jodie, please let us know if you determine that he is an issue. Okay, go ahead, David. Finish the question, please. Board Member Hirsch: I think I pretty much stated it. Since there have been changes to Middlefield traffic just so that you know this intersection has become significantly more busy traffic both going into town, you know, and coming from town going to Willow, Willow Market where they turn onto Willow Street down to 101 and continue to Redwood City or to, you know, neighboring areas. This corner is… Chair Baltay: Questions, David, questions. Board Member Hirsch: …constantly busy during busy hours. Traffic in and out of Lytton Gardens comes only to this location. I'm concerned that there’s a conflict with Lytton Avenue. Chair Baltay: David, with respect, what is your question to the applicant? Board Member Hirsch: I asked it before. What mitigating measures are being used to make this workable at that Lytton Street corner? Chair Baltay: Okay. To the applicant, can you answer that, please? 5.a Packet Pg. 112 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Mr. Lyle: We haven’t been able to change the location of the drop-off or the location of the curb cuts, which are in their existing location. We’re trying to more clearly delineate areas for drop-off and pedestrian. I think right now it’s a singular plain of pavement and that sometimes there is an overlap between the pedestrian sidewalk and the parking area as well as the loading zone. We’re trying to delineate those more clearly to eliminate those conflicts. We can’t address the volume of traffic and drop- off. What we do know is that typically the staff changes and resident traffic is not coinciding with rush hour traffic and the management has worked to try and schedule deliveries and those types of added traffic to off-hours, again, to avoid the rush hour traffic. But that’s the extent of the mitigation that we can accomplish with this design. Chair Baltay: Can you be clearer please when you say you're going to change the markings on the pavement. Are you planning to do something to delineate the sidewalk from the roadway in a more specific fashion? Mr. Lyle: Yes, the sidewalk is clearly scored and done with a separate type of paving versus the paving for the vehicles. Then we do have the striped area for loading and unloading so that the cars are not pulling up too close to the curb and avoiding conflicts with residents. There’s more room for people to wait and/or load along the entire length of the loading area as opposed to just in front of the main entrance to the building. We’re extending that to allow more efficient loading. Chair Baltay: The change is to increase the striping where the loading takes place. Is that right? Mr. Lyle: Correct. That’s correct. Chair Baltay: But there’s no change to the demarcation between the sidewalk and the pavement of the roadway of the drive alley? Mr. Lyle: Just the change in the scoring. It’s just a material or a visual change that delineates different sidewalk pattern versus the driving pattern. That’s correct. Chair Baltay: Isn’t that the way it is now? Mr. Lyle: If that’s the case then we’re just going to work to try and emphasize that. We’re going to try and, you know, use color or use some type of other material or visual cue to separate the sidewalk from the vehicles. Chair Baltay: Is there anything in this application though that’s stating what you're going to do? Mr. Lyle: I don’t believe that there is other than what’s shown in the renderings. Chair Baltay: Then to the staff, the striped area shown in the rendering on the screen now that’s what’s going to be new? The paining of the striped area? Mr. Lyle: That’s correct. Ms. Faley: Yes. Currently what is shown as the striped area is currently, I believe, is non-conforming handicap parking spaces. Those parking spaces are being removed in favor of making it a more functional loading zone. I believe there may also be some street parking, kind of, on the sidewalk that kind of takes place in practice now and that would hopefully be decreased with this plan. Chair Baltay: Okay, but I'm just trying -- this is a question. The change in this application is to provide the striping and remove the ADA parking spaces on either side of the front door. Ms. Faley: Yes. 5.a Packet Pg. 113 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Mr. Lyle: The walkway that extends around the tree that goes down to the lower part of the screen is also new. Again, just to expand that ability for people to spread out along the loading and not all congregate at the entry trellis. Chair Baltay: Okay, it sounds like you’ve answered that question. Any other questions, David? Board Member Hirsch: Yes, I mean the reality of the use of the space from my experience is that, of course, residents coming here are dropped off so that you can really have a place… for the striped area would likely take a resident who is getting out of a car who is potentially a handicapped person getting onto a wheelchair or chair or whatever moving whatever they need. Then entering, that’s an improvement to put that entry where it is but the reality is that the cars will be parked outside of the striped zone so that a person could access that area from the passenger seat of a car. You know, I think you need… Chair Baltay: David, excuse me. I'm trying to go through a round of questions. We’ll come back to this as an issue. I think you're bringing up some very valid points but… Board Member Hirsch: (Crosstalk) Chair Baltay: …the application right now. Are there any other questions about this loading and changes imposed? Board Member Hirsch: Is that the intention of the way the roadway and the striped area is intending to work? Then I have one other question on this and that is has the Traffic Department ever seen how this is being presented? It’s a significant traffic issue. Jodie, is there any response on traffic on this application? Ms. Gerhardt: I think, Emily, I'm sure we routed this to Transportation but given that it is an existing configuration generally that would be allowed to continue. There isn’t a significant, I mean, there isn’t enough of a change to this project to require them to change the driveways. Chair Baltay: Regardless, Jodie, his question was has the Transportation Department taken a look at this, and do you know for sure that you’ve sent these drawings to them? Ms. Gerhardt: Emily? Ms. Faley: I mean, I would have to stop sharing the screen to completely confirm that but projects of this type generally are routed to transportation. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay, I will go look because, yeah, when you're sharing your screen you have limited ability to do other things. Back to the conflict of interest, luckily I had noticed this issue about a week ago. I had talked to the attorneys at that time. I also confirmed with them this morning that David is far enough away and also the impact of this project is so limited that our attorney does not believe there is a conflict but, of course, David has the ultimate decision that. Chair Baltay: Okay, well thank you for checking. David, I’ll assume you want to stay in with this review then? Board Member Hirsch: I’d like to stay in it. Chair Baltay: Okay. Then, Jodie, David’s question stands. If you could check and see if you guys submitted this to Transportation for any comments that may have. Let’s move along. Are there any other questions? Alex, you’ve been very quiet today so far. Board Member Lew: I don’t have any questions. 5.a Packet Pg. 114 City of Palo Alto Page 12 Chair Baltay: Okay. I have a couple of questions then. I’d like to understand how these mini-split HVAC systems are connected together. I understand the units in the apartments are only visible from the interior. I understand that you don’t need that ventilation grill that you showed on the drawings and I understand that you're having the condensing units up on the roof. How are they connected? Is that connection piping visible? Mr. Lyle: The piping is not visible. It comes down through a piping chase in the wall to the units as well as the condensate drains from the roof also are routed through the walls and they drain either into landscape planters, drywells or connected directly to the storm sewer. All of the piping is concealed within the walls of the building and the units. There should be no visible effects. Chair Baltay: You guys have checked that that really can be done without being ridiculously difficult? Mr. Lyle: We have done renovations of this type before and that can be done. Chair Baltay: Okay, because I think that’s very important that you do not have exterior pipes. I want to be clear about that. Mr. Lyle: I agree. Chair Baltay: I then have a question about how you're proposing to miter the corners of the siding on the exterior. If this is a textured fiber cement board and you saw cut a beveled edge on it to lap over the other one how do you treat the edge of that saw cut edge? You’d then be left with a rough cut edge of fiber cut butting against this textured pattern. Mr. Lyle: As opposed to being butted together they do overlap. There will be a smooth edge, you're correct, that will be exposed at that end. The feedback that we’ve received before was that the corner boards were not an appealing measure so this is the direction that we took in order to make it more appealing. If it were rough sun timber or lumber siding it would be a similar condition. I'm not sure how we can mitigate that. I’d be happy to study it… Chair Baltay: Fair enough. Fair enough. Mr. Lyle: …but I don’t have the answer. Chair Baltay: Okay. Another question to the landscape architect, do you have any particular screening in mind for the new transformer which is being put above ground. Ms. Denig: I can plant some native easy shrubs that will go around that. I just found out about this yesterday. Let’s see. It’s up there. Chair Baltay: Yeah, right there. Ms. Denig: Actually, the shrubs that are next to it will work perfectly for screening. They grow about four feet tall. Chair Baltay: They probably won’t survive the relocation of the vault of the transformer though and so you'll need to put something around them. Ms. Denig: Okay. Okay. Chair Baltay: I’m just wondering if you’ve already thought about that or if it’s something still coming. Ms. Denig: I thought about this yesterday. Chair Baltay: Okay, well… 5.a Packet Pg. 115 City of Palo Alto Page 13 Ms. Denig: I will add them to the plan. Ms. Jean-Louis: Just a quick answer to that. I think there is a required three feet clearance around the whole transformer. Ms. Denig: There is, yeah. Ms. Jean-Louis: I don’t think we can basically have overgrown shrubs that are overlapping to that clearance. We have to be careful about exactly what we propose and so the idea of planning around it may not be feasible. Chair Baltay: To the applicant, do we have a rending of what that transformer will look like and how close it will really will be to the drive alley? Ms. Jean-Louis: We do not. Mr. Lyle: We do not. Ms. Jean-Louis: But it has been cleared by Public Work and it has been approved. Chair Baltay: Yeah, well I could easily see that Public Works is happy if you just raise it above the ground. You fill in the vault and you bring the wires up and put it all above ground but those are pretty big things; a transformer of that size and it’s close to the entry I think. Mr. Lyle: I believe PG&E will allow you to screen it from several sides. You need clear space in front of it in one direction. We can look at the orientation and see if we can maybe put that service area to where it faces, perhaps, the drop-off zone and then the transformer can still be screened from the street. Those are the things we can look at when we get a little more detail from PG&E and our electrical engineer about the location and so on. I think we’ll be allowed to screen at least two sides of it and still give them the required clearance in front. Ms. Gerhardt: The City of Palo Alto does not use PG&E. We have our own utility. Mr. Lyle: Okay. Ms. Gerhardt: You’ll want to work with them but I think probably the same answer, though. Mr. Lyle: Okay. All right. Ms. Gerhardt: Just regarding the circulation question that David had, this project did not get routed to Transportation. It did get routed to Public Works engineering though and they do have some, you know, overlapping responsibilities. If there was a safety concern Public Works would have brought that to our attention. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Jodie. I have one last question of sorts and then we’ll go on to some Board comments but it’s regarding the flood gates and the basic contention that you're below the floodplain. Can you say what is the floor elevation of the building itself, the main floor plate relative to the floodplain? Do you know what that is offhand because walking around it seems that it’s about a foot or two higher than the sidewalk? Do you guys have your -- what’s called BFE -- the base flood elevation of the project established? Ms. Jean-Louis: If you go to the elevations we have it noted on there. Emily, if you could scroll back to the elevations. Mr. Lyle: This was an extensive review with Public Works which accounted for much of the delay between the last hearing and this one. 5.a Packet Pg. 116 City of Palo Alto Page 14 Chair Baltay: I'm very sympathetic to you folks. Public Works can be really difficult and they are on the gun to enforce this thing. Mr. Lyle: (Crosstalk) but if we’re within 12 inches we have to provide these flood gates. We’re working with our civil engineer and the survey to limit those. The parking garage entrance is definitely one that we have to have those gates at. Probably the main entrance and then we’re working to identify any other entrances on the ground floor but it appears we’re going to be able to avoid flood gates at most of those because of the concrete stoop that’s there and the fact that that will (crosstalk). Chair Baltay: As I'm looking at your drawing it says your base flood elevation is 48.9 feet. It seems like its somewhere around the sidewalk of the property. Maybe the elevations not correct but… Mr. Lyle: I wouldn’t be surprised of the sidewalk elevation varies around site but yeah, the base flood elevation is 48.9 and the finished floor is 49.24. Chair Baltay: I see, okay. Mr. Lyle: It’s within approximately four to five inches in certain locations. Chair Baltay: You're saying that the Public Works Department is requiring flood gates on doors when you're five inches above the base flood elevation? Mr. Lyle: That’s correct. It’s a FEMA requirement if you're within 12 inches of the base flood elevation. Chair Baltay: I see. Okay. Can you describe more thoroughly the flood panel gates, whatever, that you’re thinking of using and how they work, please? Mr. Lyle: Sure. Again, we’ve looked at a number of products and we haven’t settled on one just yet but typically it involves a channel section that’s mounted at the door jamb. Then these panels that are typically 12 inches will slide in there. We’ll need two 12 inch panels to slide in to keep it more than 12 inches above the flood elevation. The parking garage entrance will probably have an intermediate member that will be like a removable bollard. We put in the intermediate member and then slide those in. It’s something that the building maintenance staff should be able to accomplish within, you know, a couple of eight-hour days when they know that a flood event may be coming. Chair Baltay: The part that’s visible on an ongoing daily basis is just the channels on the outside of the doors? The panels themselves are stored someplace else? Mr. Lyle: That’s correct. They’ll be stored in a storage area probably in the parking garage. Chair Baltay: The drawing indicates that the channel is three-quarters of an inch wide and attached to the door jamb. Mr. Lyle: Yes, that’s the approximate width based on that product there, yes. Chair Baltay: And you’ve checked that on some of those six-foot side sliding doors this product will work for that situation? Mr. Lyle: Yes. Chair Baltay: It seems like an awfully thin panel for that much water pressure. Is this product you're showing in the drawing manufactured for this purpose? This Presray Company? Mr. Lyle: Yeah, and there are multiple products that we have looked at. The one that we’ve shown is -- but that’s precisely what they are manufactured for. They have neoprene gaskets and seals and then you can see they insert the screws to tighten them down. They are engineered for this purpose. 5.a Packet Pg. 117 City of Palo Alto Page 15 Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you very much for answering that question. All right. Do we have any other questions from anybody on the Board for staff or the applicant? Okay, then I think we’re ready to move into comments and discussion from the Board. David, you want to start us out? Board Member Hirsch: You get me first all the time. Try someone else. Chair Baltay: Who else wants to begin this then? I’ll go first. I’ll tell you guys what I think. I’m very concerned about this project for a variety of reasons but primarily I think that there’s something to those cedar shingles which really resonate well with the trees and the landscaping and the whole nature of the building, which is a big broken up box. It’s fairly large and I think this fiber cement siding is just not a great choice aesthetically. I also think that the cedar shingles on there are fairly new and I really honestly think that they’ve just not been maintained. You have to put a finish on those things and that’s not been done. I think the waterproofing problems are mostly from poor installation and detailing around corners, trim, windows, and stuff. I walked around the whole thing very carefully and I just don’t see it too much. I say all of that because the fiber cement boards you're putting on are very thin and look fairly inexpensive and not attractive, I don’t think. I don’t think this is a change for the better. I can’t make the finding that this is a high-quality material. I could be persuaded if you were using a higher, thicker level of fiber cement board that’s more carefully designed and detailed to give a slightly higher quality, more textured, more shadowed relief but what you're putting on, in my, opinion is a fairly inexpensive product. I just don’t think that’s suitable for a building of this prominence and of the current level of beauty and, sort of, the textured siding that I see. I really think it’s just a change for the worse and I have a hard time supporting it. I also find that it’s problematic to propose the corners the way you're doing it. I don’t think that will work. I have a lot of experience using this material and the moment you cut that fiber cement siding it sort of frays and it doesn’t really refinish to a smooth surface ever. When we’ve tried to do those mitered corners we end up using auto body filler and sanding it all very smooth and it’s an extremely labor-intensive process. I just can’t imagine you doing that on a building of this size. It’s awfully expensive and even then it’s very maintenance intensive. I think you're going to have to use vertical corner boards to pull off this fiber cement detail. I also think that having the textured siding with the corner lap the way you're showing will just look really bad at the end. It will look like a mistake. I just don’t think that that’s a realistic detail. I acknowledge that that detail comes from the manufacturer but my experience speaks otherwise that that won’t work. I suggest that you push back with Public Works a little bit about these flood gates. I know how challenging it can be to work in Palo Alto with all these competing agencies trying to tell you what to do but I'm not sure that what you're showing will be very practical. I doubt that it really will keep the water out and it seems to me it’d be quite a pain for you to do. I would suggest instead just focus on getting a good gate at the parking garage, which is clearly below the BFE and try to get them to back off of this requirement on every door. That will be a pain and expensive to put in and it seems to be more of a bureaucratic thing that anything practical. Obviously, that’s not related to our ARB findings but that’s something I suggest that you think about. I find the colors you're prosing are fairly bright and almost cartoon-like to me, especially the yellow. I just think that’s too bright. It may well be that other houses in the neighborhood have that but I think this building is a better part of a whole block and to me the strongest thing I see is these beautiful redwood trees very close to the cedar shingles. The green trim, all of that just seems to hold together pretty well. I'm just not really in favor of the changes in color as well. I just find that bothersome to see how that goes. I'm afraid I cannot support this project at this time. Anybody else? Let’s go to Alex then. Board Member Lew: Okay. I can actually recommend approval of the project today. I do have some concerns and I'm not sure the best way to address them will be but we’ll see how that goes. I think the first one is I think I agree with Peter with the yellow color. It did pop out at me when I looked at the color samples at City Hall. I think that the drawings look fine to me. It’s just the color sample I think is too bright. My second concern is also the corners. I think my recommendation is to probably do a metal corner. I've seen architects do custom metal corners, too. I don’t want to get into all the details of that but sometimes they’ll use those instead of the standard metal corners. I think my third and last comment is on the landscape. To the landscape architect, I think you did a great job with the native plant selection and I think my only concern is on the Middlefield frontage. You’ve got like a 400-foot long block and you’ve got the same two plants going all the way down. I like the combinations that you’ve 5.a Packet Pg. 118 City of Palo Alto Page 16 done with the plants and the foliage colors but I think I would recommend some more variation. You can keep it minimal but I would encourage you to try to make a little more pedestrian-friendly with having some variation or alternate planting types. Then one last comment on the staff report on packet page 13, I think the staff report mentions that the density of the project is 14.85 units per acre but as I calculated it should be somewhere around like 98 units per acre. Like 219 units on 2.2 acres. And then on the cement board siding, you know, I think it’s an environmentally preferable material. It’s pretty typical for housing projects. It doesn’t always look good, I do acknowledge that. We have it on, like, a $4 million house right next to me and I am hard-pressed to say that it can’t be acceptable on a multi- family project if we have it on so many houses. Then it just really gets down to, like, how it’s detailed and designed. Everything that I’ve seen, with the exception of the mitered corners, I think looks good. That’s where I am. Let’s see where the rest of the Board is on this one. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thanks, Alex. That’s very clear. Grace, would you like to go next, please? Board Member Lee: Absolutely, happy to speak next. I just want to thank the applicant and planning staff for this proposal. I did look through the preliminary and saw some changes there. I also wanted to thank our Board for their comments from that August 2018 meeting. I agree with many of them that came forward. My comments will be brief. I agree with the three who have spoken so far. I’m happy to support this project for approval, particularly to come back, though, with a subcommittee on a couple items. To kind of look at the big picture, it’s something that Chair Baltay mentioned that this corner at University and Middlefield and Middlefield and Lytton really is the gateway to downtown and I've always thought of it as a quiet corner, partially because -- well, there’s a couple things. It’s a very large building; however, there’s this wonderful mature landscape that comes around it. It recedes even though it’s a very large building due to that the beautiful shingles. Now having said that, I do also want to note that this is affordable senior housing with -- thank you, Alex -- of a density and I just want to say it’s in the corner. Webster House is right there. These are two projects that are so important to our City in terms of for us to be stewards and the applicant to be stewards and staff to be stewards of this important city block. Having said that, I just wanted to think about that material. I feel that given just what kind of project this is and its importance to the city, you know, my feeling is it’s too bad the shingles don’t have that life span. It’s important that we actually have a material that would last. It’s also a wonderful situation with the material landscape around it that we really think about how that new proposed siding might recede and really think of the context as a whole and be this quiet corner gateway and just this wonderful presence for us downtown. Given, that, I mean, I support the new material. I understand that, you know, we want a material that’s going to last for 30 years. We want to make sure that it’s maintained properly if it is going to be that hardie board. Just in terms of the corners, I do think it’s important for that detail to come back to a subcommittee, just a partial representation of our Board, two members. I don’t think we need the five members for that. However, if it is a detail for siding to come together at a corner perhaps you can also bring precedence or some case studies to show or photos just to convince and illustrate to the subcommittee members. Regarding the colors, I absolutely agree. The Wheatfield… when I went and saw the samples and I saw the renderings I see them on screen, it’s just too bright still. I remember from the preliminary that was a comment. The colors are still too bright. It was a bronze-beige in the preliminary. I'm not sure if you say a sample up close but maybe you want that Wheatfield to return to the bronze-beige but something that is not quite so yellow. Since it is a very large building, even though you're using it only in pieces, I am worried about it when you squint that’s all you will see is that bright yellow color. I am fine with the Taupe and the Pony Brown. My feeling also is the Brick Red at the entry is definitely calling out the entry in a positive way. I wonder if there’s an opportunity -- and think you to the applicant for talking about seniors and how they respond to the color and wayfinding both outside and inside the building. I wonder if you can find a place for some kind of an accent color for the residence. That’s just, you know, a recommendation, that we have something like the Brick Red since it’s an opportunity to enhance the experience in the courtyard. The other piece that I wanted to mention is this lack of signage that’s in the application. You know, this is a minor and the scope seems rather limited but it’s a very large building and the wayfinding for seniors and their families and the community to be able to have signage that you feel strongly works well with the rest of your palette and what you're proposing, I mean, it’s a missed opportunity that’s not here and it’s not in the renderings, it’s not in the elevations and it’s an afterthought. I do, Jodie, hope that that suggestion that maybe the signage application… or maybe it comes back with revised elevations 5.a Packet Pg. 119 City of Palo Alto Page 17 to a subcommittee is what I want to propose to the Board to discuss. Let’s see. Then landscape, the only thing that I wanted to touch on with the landscape is, you know, the bench looks great. Seating in a comfortable climate with lots of shade and really thinking about where those benches are placed based on -- this building’s been here since 1974 -- some feedback from the staff and from really understanding our client and the use of where those comfortable areas are. I just hope that you take that time as you move forward with this application to think about comfortable places to sit. That might occur also at the entry since it is a rather large housing development and there’s often waiting that occurs for folks who need to sit and maybe then you think about how the signage and the landscape and the seating occur together. I’ll leave it there. Thank you and I’ll pass the baton. Chair Baltay: To David. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. It was worth waiting until the end because, of course, everybody else’s comments were significant and I would like to agree with Grace on so many of the items she discussed and the way she discussed them. Signage, yes, I think it’s lacking in the project and although probably people who come here are coming on a timeframe that they determine when they will be there and will be appropriately greeted with their relatives, if that’s the case. The entry is an issue here for visitors and unfortunately I don’t think that was really studied in great depth relative to other opportunities. I frankly thought that. Perhaps, there could be an entry off of Middlefield that would’ve been better placed because it would work better with the lights. This is a big transportation issue and frankly, I've watched that intersection. I've watched the visitors to the site and people who are coming with their relatives and getting out of cars and deliveries. Unless there’s a signage that indicates when deliveries could be made and that parking should be offsite when it can’t be and where will that occur… has not really been addressed. I would go back to the issue of transportation and looking at this project and ask them to not put it aside but to look at this very carefully. They did such a good job on the Middlefield issues. Now they should really look at this as a part of that as well. Speaking as someone who in is in the neighborhood and sees the conflicts happening at that site, it should be taken back to Transportation and they should have a look at it. I also feel strongly -- watching just the other day -- that people do use the entry that is on the University side that those goes towards downtown quite significantly. Even if it’s a bit steeper than the one that goes to the intersection of Middlefield and University, I find its going to be a problem for people who want to get from the center of this project to town to have to go either around a written entry all the way around the block that way or all the way down to the University and Middlefield corner. I would like the landscape people to explore why that was removed and see if it couldn’t be put back because I'm sure it’s going to turn out to be a more useful path for many of the people going out of that exit or entry. In terms of, you know, the bigger conflict here, yes this building is an introduction to Palo Alto and it is in a style that Peter noted. The old shingles really are representative of that era and there’s a really wonderful project, Hzotchy Housing, across the street and people look at that and say, gee whiz is that really a part of Lytton Gardens or Lytton came as a result of that and used shingles because… It’s a real issue to change this project to a very different kind of aesthetic where the planes are now introduced as colors and introduction of the red at the entry point versus the whole building having a single shingle look. For me, that was the first question and I went back to look at shingles and yes, you know, they last about 50 years and then they need to be replaced. In this case, you see if you look at the shingles at the inside in particular, you see how worn they are but I would have liked to have seen a study made of well this is why we had to change from shingles to a siding like that because it’s such a significant change of the exterior of the building. I'm not convinced so I come down more strongly on the side of Peter in retaining the shingles because it is very much the look of this building. It should not be discarded unless you absolutely prove that financially you could not possibly continue with shingles. I think the shingles last quite a few years if you really look back to the years that the shingles have been on this building and they're still functioning. There are leaks? Where are the leaks and where is the real problem? I'm bothered by that as well. As to the colors, I guess the one color is a bit bright and I accept Grace’s comment about that. If everything is going to be according to what the first comments were, which I was not around for, where the colors were asked to be muted as shown in neighboring projects then that one is really brighter than what you would normally see in that neighborhood. I like the red. Again, if the choice is no shingles and changed to cement board then, of course, the red and other colors are wood colors. I would say that if the idea were to go back to the original design, and to define the planes differently the way your newer design does, then the other colors are adequate. In 5.a Packet Pg. 120 City of Palo Alto Page 18 terms of the corners and the treatment of the corner, it’s a very difficult problem. I definitely wouldn’t want to see another material used at a corner. I would want to see the material that is natural to the corner return being treated appropriately. I have used this material. It certainly can be cut straight at the corner so that if you had a butting corner where one material met the other you could make that corner work. When it’s in kind of a shingle format I don’t think it’s ever going to, kind of, make it there. I think that’s a question that should come back to a committee. It definitely needs to be studied in detail. You know, it’s kind of a compromise when you sue the material that is really, basically, a flat material like that and try to semi-pretend that it’s going to match up with the texture of a shingle but doesn’t quite make it, especially when it comes to corners like that. It’s a questionable use of that material. As I say, I've used it and I think it looks good but it’s a completely different panel system when it’s rectangularly attached to a building than it is when it’s used attached in a form of overlapping shingle look like this. Again, my emphases would be to solve the problem of the entryway, which is partially solved by putting the new access from the other side of the tree but isn’t completely solved as far as the corner’s concerned and to put back the other path. And, of course, Alex’s comments, whatever they are; I always value whatever he says about the planting. He’s usually right on target. I like the landscape. I think the landscape is effective but I do think there’s a problem in the end here with the use of this material and I can’t support the project for that purpose. Chair Baltay: Thank you, David. Okay, to my colleagues, we have a bit of an issue then. I think I heard Osma supporting the project, although she's not here to vote on it. Then we have Grace and Alex in support, I'm assuming, from what you’ve said. I am afraid I cannot support it the way it’s presented. David, I heard a little more flexibility in your voice. I would like to offer to my colleagues that this is the kind of project we want to get a clean answer to as soon as possible. They’ve been, it seems like, dragged through the Public Works business more than is fair and we owe it to them to make it a straight answer. It seems to me like the majority of the Board is in favor of the material that’s been presented. I would be pushing to have them explore a fiber cement type shingle that such a project does exist and it has more of the texture and refinement of what’s there now with the durability of the fiber cement. I suspect that’s a big go around on the design right now. David, how strongly do you feel whether you can support this or not? Board Member Hirsch: It’s hard for me. This is a totally additional comment to whatever has been said. If it’s going to be a panel like that I’d like to see it be pure to the idea of the panels rather than a textured panel. Chair Baltay: I’m sorry. What kind of a panel? Board Member Hirsch: I'm conflicting with myself a bit about it but I don’t like the imitation on the quality of it. Chair Baltay: For what it’s worth, I've used this product on very similar type projects. We’ve done other things like this and our experience was that to use the fiber cement we wanted to use the thicker product. James Hardie Company makes one called Artisan. It’s three-quarters of an inch thick and has a very sharp shadow line. It’s also very smooth and it does, like Alex mentioned, have nice fittings you can use at the corners. It has a very contemporary look in the end and I think our initial feedback to them was to keep the sort of subdued -- how does Grace put it so great and so nicely -- receding quality to the building. That product probably wouldn’t do that. It’s a more dramatic kind of think. The textured siding really forces you to have corner boards. I don’t believe there’s any way to do it without that. Maybe the metal fittings Alex is talking about but they tend to be of a different texture again. I think inherently there are just some problems there. The corner boards may be okay but we would want to see that drawn up and stuff. The shingle fiber cement is very expensive to apply. It's one shingle at a time and fiber cement is a hard material to work with. I can understand where the owners of a building like this just are reluctant to go there. Grace, you put together nice thought process on this whole thing. Do you want to try to make a motion and see if we can get three votes for it? MOTION 5.a Packet Pg. 121 City of Palo Alto Page 19 Board Member Lee: Yeah, I’d be happy to. Chair Baltay: We owe it to them to get this through. Board Member Lee: I did want to propose in our discussion that perhaps Chair Baltay you might assign the subcommittee members for this particular application to be yourself and David. Given the two of you and hearing the discussion, I move that we approve the project with the conditions of the following to come back to a subcommittee and I can start that list if we’re comfortable. Chair Baltay: I’m just hoping that you can basically persuade David to vote with you. Board Member Lee: Okay. Board Member Hirsch: Peter, that’s not fair. Chair Baltay: Look, I'm playing politics here but this is a project that needs to be approved or denied now. Board Member Lee: Yes, and actually if I can step back before I state the motion. I mean, if we are still in discussion, if we think about the typology of this building, the users and the budgets that are associated with this kind of project, which many of us have worked on in the past, I do not think we should dely. I think that this is a project that has waited for two years and has worked with the City closely. I just want to make sure that we all know that this is a project that we don’t always see come along and that our Board doesn’t have the privilege to review. I think that the set was of high quality with some improvement at a subcommittee level would be a positive improvement to that corner at Middlefield and University and Middlefield and Lytton. I do want to also make sure that we know the context. That there is mature landscape, that there is a setback there and there’s a pledge for maintenance by this user group to make sure that this is a project that is a positive presence for the City of a long time to come. You know, given that I’ll just move that we approve the project with the following conditions and that the project return to a subcommittee with the following revisited: propose another option for the Wheatfield color. I don’t want to prescribe I just want to say that at this time it’s too bright. That a corner detail or a few drawings that illustrate how the corner materials will come together with a detail drawing as well as, if possible, some kind of a photo or other projects where this product has come together at a corner in that way. I believe -- feel free to jump in others -- there was something about looking at the transformer screening in terms of how to screen that as well as signage. A proposal for signage. I think subcommittee would benefit from elevations with some context around the signage showing the entry, as well as, you know, every situation where there is signage on the exterior to be presented to the subcommittee. That’s all I had, however, perhaps others want to add a couple of other bullet points for the subcommittee to review. Ms. Gerhardt: I think Alex had a comment about the planting on Middlefield. Board Member Lew: Why don’t I second the motion and then talk about amendments? Chair Baltay: Okay. The motion has been made and seconded. I had heard David had a request that this be sent to transportation for review. I'm just saying that that’s what David said. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO MOTION Board Member Hirsch: I would offer a friendly amendment that Transportation has a close look at the access and egress from the Lytton side in order to determine if there are conflicts, if they need to be responded to by a timeframe that that driveway will be used and the access to the building provided from that location and that we get a report back from Transportation on those issues of Lytton access. Also, protection of the sidewalk itself from crossing traffic. Chair Baltay: Okay. That’s a suggestion of an amendment, Grace. 5.a Packet Pg. 122 City of Palo Alto Page 20 Board Member Lee: I can accept the amendment I just want to be clear for the applicant and for the City. I think that there was discussion of pavement markings that were missing in a drawing and I'm wondering if that’s what we’re referring to specifically. Board Member Hirsch: The pavement marking issues relative to those (inaudible). Board Member Lee: Okay. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO MOTION Board Member Hirsch: I would like to add one other friendly amendment and that is that the present landscape person explores the possibility of retaining and/or revising in some way the pathway that leads from the University side towards the downtown. It’s a more convenient access for people who use this access quite frequently and if they choose to go on a non-handicapped accessible route that’s certainly their choice. The friendly amendment would be to explore the reuse of that path to downtown. Chair Baltay: We have two friendly amendments proposed by David. Before we check them over in a second, Jodie, is sending this back to Transportation for review realistic? Ms. Gerhardt: There’s nothing wrong with that. I mean, we’re just talking about that drop-off area and ensuring that it’s safe for pedestrians, correct? Chair Baltay: David, is that correct? Board Member Hirsch: Yes, and also that there’s some way in which that the traffic that uses it can be monitored not to conflict with the transportation on Lytton and the pedestrian transportation as well. Chair Baltay: What you’re asking for, though, is just to have Transportation review the project. There’s no stipulation on doing anything about it, right? Board Member Hirsch: To report back to us. Chair Baltay: Report back to the ARB or the planning department? Ms. Gerhardt: Are you worried about cars backing up onto the street. Is that part of the concern? Board Member Hirsch: Well it’s not backing up actually, Jodie, it’s a passageway that moves all the way through and then cars come back out closer to the corner into traffic. Chair Baltay: I think, David, the existing situation is not ideal but the operative word there is existing. Board Member Hirsch: Understood. Chair Baltay: The applicant’s not proposing any change or improvement to that. I think having the Transportation Department look at it is fine. They’ll probably have nothing to say, though. I just want to be sure you're okay with that. Board Member Hirsch: Not 100 percent. Chair Baltay: Okay. Look, I think this is all just to try to get your vote for Grace. Grace, are you okay with these two proposed amendments? Board Member Lee: I just want it to be clear in terms of how we write it and I think what we are asking for -- given this is a minor application with the scope that’s described in the application -- another department in the City to review the application as is and provide comments to planning staff that may be in a staff report for the future subcommittee meeting. Is that what I'm understanding? 5.a Packet Pg. 123 City of Palo Alto Page 21 Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Board Member Lee: I would be fine with that. Chair Baltay: Alex? Board Member Lee: (inaudible) we’re just asking a part of City staff to review the application and provide comments to planning staff. Chair Baltay: And you're okay with the request about the pathway towards University Avenue? Board Member Lee: I think, again, it’s just to explore the landscape consultant will explore and just take a closer look at that path. I don’t think it's prescriptive in any way. Chair Baltay: You accept that friendly amendment? Board Member Lee: I would accept that. Chair Baltay: Alex, you’ve seconded this. Do you accept those amendments? Board Member Lew: Yes, I will accept the amendments. Chair Baltay: Okay. Any other discussions to this motion? With that let’s have a vote then. Vinh, can we do a roll call vote, please? Aye: Hirsch, Lee, Lew, (3) No: Baltay (1) Absent: Thompson (1) MOTION TO APPROVE PASSES 3-1-1. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, Vinh. Okay, the motion carries. I’d like to right now then assign the subcommittee to be Grace and David for this issue. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Chair Baltay: Just so that’s clear with staff. With that, we’re done with this action item. Let’s move along to pull up my agenda. Board Members Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Baltay: Just so that’s clear with staff. With that, we’re done with this action item. Let’s move along to pull up my agenda. Next agenda item is Board Members Questions, Comments and Announcements. Alex, we have you down to bring us up to date with the North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan. Can you do that please? Alex, you're muted. [Adjusting Audio.] Chair Baltay: Jodie, do we have anything coming back to us about the prescriptive zoning standard committee work? Ms. Gerhardt: The objective standards you're asking about? Chair Baltay: Yes, David and Osma are working on that committee, right? 5.a Packet Pg. 124 City of Palo Alto Page 22 Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. I had some conversations with the consultant just the other day. I'm going to talk to her again on Friday. I know that David had some conversations with her and so that’s good. We’re moving that project forward. The committee is giving comments to the consultants and staff will help the consultants work through comments and see how to incorporate those into the draft that we ultimately bring to the ARB. As I said, that would come to the full Board in early September. I should have that date. Let me see. September 3rd would be our hearing when we would talk about objective standards. Then I was just asking for the main Board if you take a look at the design criteria that we have now that would give you a good basis for the conversation. When you get that packet for early September then you would already have a very good background. I know you were using that on a regular basis but it’s good to just, kind of, read through it and think about it in this way of, you know, we’re changing it from the standards that are currently there to this more objective standard that have numbers or, you know, we could have a menu. I mean, there’s a bunch of different ways we could tackle it because we do want to make sure that we’re not getting cookie-cutter projects. Unlike other cities, we also have this out that if you can’t meet our objective standards that you do have an out and you can go to the ARB and just be meeting the intent of the standards and go through an ARB process, you know, very similar to today. The other cities don’t necessarily have that option, we will. Of course, that’s a little cumbersome. We do want to make the standards able to fit as many projects as possible but if somebody wants to be unique they can certainly come to the Board and do that. Chair Baltay: David, do you have anything to add on that? You're on that committee. This is just a moment to report back to the Board if you feel you need to. There’s nothing on the agenda. [Adjusting Audio.] Board Member Hirsch: Thank you. It’s a big task, to begin with. It’s looking over the entire building department issues, you know, the whole of the building code here. I'm kind of waving through it. It’s a varied task because of the response is a varied response and in some cases it's extremely specific. I guess in some way that answers issues that might come up if it’s not so specific, which some of the language clearly is in the previous building code. It is a rewriting of the code in so many ways that I will tell you it takes a lot of time and thinking in order to go back and weigh into it and try to think about comments that are appropriate. Before it’s brought back to us as a Board, I recommend that everybody go back and have an opportunity to see what is being changed and take a quick look at some aspects of that and see what they think as well because for us to come back and report on this and then for the rest of you to react is not going to be a simple matter. My concern, for one, is that the whole of the ARB process might in some future date be questioned, you know, because of the fact that part of this aspect is to create a method for state housing funds to be used now without the process of ARB review. That’s for SB 35. That’s how it is explained to me. Jodie, if I'm stating it wrong please come back and correct me at this moment. Ms. Gerhardt: I think the State has definitely, you know, put in place new regulations that are meant to make it easier for housing projects to get through the process. Whether we like that or not, that’s now a State requirement. What we do have control over, though, are these objectives standards. Do we want to be conservative with the standards? Do we want to be looser with them? That’s where we can think through how we want the process to work. We can have either fit in this tiny little box and all other projects have to go the ARB or you can make the box medium-sized or you can make the box large-sized. I think the consensus of this group was to try to make the box somewhat medium to at least fit a fair number of projects and maybe have a menu of options so things are so cookie-cutter but they can still fit in that sort of medium-sized box. I think, you know, that’s the direction that we’re trying to go but, of course, you know, lots of conversations to be had because we’ve got to dig into the details and really see what that means. Board Member Hirsch: My comments, you know, in general, there are some areas where I think the study is way too specific and there are some other areas where it is expanded by the study with a new language. I think there are some other areas where one has to go back and look at the old language, which comes from years of people thinking about the City of Palo Alto and commenting about it in a casual way that maybe needs to be a bit more specific but may also require recognizing the history of it. 5.a Packet Pg. 125 City of Palo Alto Page 23 It gets extremely complex in this manner and I'm concerned about those areas where it’s almost autocratic, you know. It’s almost dictatorial that you will have X number of feet of this and Y number of feet of that. Those areas worry me and I'm making comments about it. I really request that our Board take a close look. I recognize that some of you are even perhaps better intellectually in thinking about these things. I’d like to see you not be divorced from this in some way because of the requirement that only two of us can look at this. On the side, I suggest you must take a look at them what is being proposed. Chair Baltay: Where do we see what’s being proposed? Ms. Gerhardt: You have the previous agendas where we had the attachment of what was being proposed. I can make sure and send you an email that, you know, pulls these links back together. We had previous agendas and then we have, you know, the existing criteria that’s in, kind of, each chapter of the code. It’s in multi-family, commercial, that sort of thing. I can pull together some links that show you those different chapters. David’s right though, as you're reading through the existing criteria maybe one of the things you can do is, you know, make some notes for yourself. Like does this criteria lend itself to one answer or do we think we need multiple answers, you know, for a given criteria. There are just some sidewalk widths, you know. I mean, El Camino has to have a 12-foot sidewalk. That’s a single answer. But of course, massing and the ins and outs of the building, you know, you might need more of a menu for that. Chair Baltay: If you could send us, Jodie, like you said, that link with that information I think that would be helpful so that whoever would like can read ahead on this. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, and I think given that we’re not found to have that early August meeting hopefully you have that time you already set aside where you could devote to that. Chair Baltay: Sure. Of course. Of course. Alex, did you get your microphone to work? [Adjusting Audio.] Chair Baltay: Jodie, do you know if there's any action going on with the North Ventura Committee? Ms. Gerhardt: I want to say that there had been a committee meeting and I'm sorry I don’t keep up on it enough because there’s too much else. Chair Baltay: Vinh, can you give Alex a call on the phone, please, and see if he’s okay and if he has something to say? We want to adjourn the meeting but we certainly don’t want to cut Alex off. Mr. Nguyen: Sure. One second. Let me also try to move Alex from attendee back to panelist. That sometimes helps issues that they’re having. Ms. Gerhardt: Or if we just need him to call back in. Everything was working fine a minute ago. [Adjusting Audio.] Ms. Gerhardt: The only thing I see on the webpage for NVCAP was a June 25th meeting. That’s been some time ago. Chair Baltay: Any luck there, Vinh. Did he answer the phone? Mr. Nguyen: Yeah, I’m on the phone. Board Member Lew: My computer froze. Ms. Gerhardt: We can hear him there. 5.a Packet Pg. 126 City of Palo Alto Page 24 Board Member Lew: I couldn’t do anything. Mr. Nguyen: Okay, well I have you on speakerphone and they can actually hear you through the speakerphone. If you want to give a quick NVCAP update. Chair Baltay: That’d be great if you could do that, Alex. Board Member Lew: Sure. There were two subcommittees meetings at the end of June and we have two more coming up. There’s nothing new happening. It is basically we are trying to come up with two alternatives that will be studied as part of the CEQA review. We’re trying to determine what the two alternates are. Chair Baltay: Is there any way the rest of the community members can see the alternates. Vinh, maybe ask that question to him. Board Member Lew: Yeah. There’s nothing to see yet. We’re trying to actually determine what is in each alternate. Chair Baltay: I see. Board Member Lew: It is looking like one alternate will be to retain the existing Fry’s building and the other will be to either remove it entirely or just to keep a portion of the existing Fry’s building. Chair Baltay: Okay. As soon as you have something it would be good to see it, Alex. Board Member Lew: My understanding is that the last two meetings were very well attended by community members. They are paying attention. Chair Baltay: Okay, good. I think the Board would like to see something concrete when the committee has something to present. So, we’ll just leave it. Any other comments from this Board? Alex, are we set then? Board Member Lew: Yup. Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you very much. Thanks for, Alex, getting back on… Vinh. With that, we are adjourned. Have a great day everybody and a good weekend. Thank you. Adjournment 5.a Packet Pg. 127