Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2020-12-03 Architectural Review Board Agenda Packet
_______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Architectural Review Board Regular Meeting Agenda: December 3, 2020 Virtual Meeting 8:30 AM ****BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY*** https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 964 1982 2906 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 / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3585 El Camino Real [17PLN-00305]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow The Demolition of a 800 Square Foot Commercial Building and the Construction of a New Three-Story Mixed- Use Project Including 2,400 Square Feet of Office Space, and Three Residential Units. This is a Housing Incentive Program Project with a Variance Request to Deviate From the Parking Lot Shading Requirement. Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration. Zoning District: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3241 Park Boulevard [20PLN-00032]: Recommendation on a Major Architectural Review to allow for the demolition of a portion of the existing 4,500 square foot building and addition, resulting in a proposed floor area of 7,861 square feet. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: GM. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Garrett Sauls at Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org. Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 4. Study Session on Ex-parte Communications Between Architectural Review Board Members and Applicants, Developers and Other Persons (Continued from November 19th) Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 5, 2020 Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements 6. North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Working Group Updates – Boardmember Lew 7. Architectural Review Board Annual Report to Council: Review of Letter Adjournment _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The ARB Boardmembers are: Chair Peter Baltay Vice Chair Osma Thompson Boardmember David Hirsch Boardmember 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: 964 1982 2906 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 # 11823) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 12/3/2020 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: x Attachment A: ARB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX) x 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 Cancelled 10/1/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 10/15/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular Lee excused 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 *Two Board member terms end on December 15, 2020. Appointments will be made by City Council prior to this date. 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 December 17, 2020 x 486 Hamilton: Mixed Use with Four Units (2nd Formal) x Pope-Chaucer Bridge (1st Formal) 1.b Packet Pg. 8 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 11704) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/3/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3585 El Camino Real: Mixed-Use (3rd Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3585 El Camino Real [17PLN-00305]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow The Demolition of a 800 Square Foot Commercial Building and the Construction of a New Three-Story Mixed-Use Project Including 2,400 Square Feet of Office Space, and Three Residential Units. This is a Housing Incentive Program Project with a Variance Request to Deviate From the Parking Lot Shading Requirement. Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration. Zoning District: CN (Neighborhood 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. Review and consider the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; and 2. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Development Services based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB on two other occasions. The Municipal Code encourages the Director of Planning and Development Services to decide on projects after three public hearings. Earlier staff reports include background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies; these reports are available online: x October 19, 2019 ARB Meeting: https://tinyurl.com/10-17-2019-ARB-Staff-Report x May 21, 2020 ARB Meeting: https://tinyurl.com/05-21-2020-ARB-Staff-Report 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the ARB and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section builds upon the information contained in earlier reports, modified to reflect recent project changes. The ARB is encouraged to make a final recommendation to approve, conditionally approve or deny the project. Background On May 21, 2020, the ARB last reviewed the project; this was the second public hearing of the project. A video recording of the ARB’s meeting is available online: https://tinyurl.com/05-21- 2020-ARB-Video. The ARB’s meeting minutes are available online: https://tinyurl.com/5-21- 2020-ARBMinutes. The ARB’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response x Revise shading exhibit considering all trees affecting shading for the parking area. x With the inclusion of street trees, the parking area shading was calculated and shown to comply with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) 18.54.040 landscaping of parking areas. No Variance is necessary. x Parking areas also include an overhang, solid roof and trellis covering parking in addition to tree shading that provides additional shading beyond the PAMC requirements although these areas are not counted under the PAMC standards. See Sheet A3.13, Shading Diagram See Analysis Section for more discussion. x The second floor one-bedroom unit appears large. x The applicant revised the second-floor unit to be a 1,220 square foot two-bedroom unit. See Sheet A2.2. See Analysis Section for more discussion. x Demonstrate a defined “base”, “middle” and “top” of the building. Especially the top cornice. x The applicant revised the “top” by including a one-foot parapet with brushed aluminum cladding and coping. See Sheets A3.1 & X1.4 See Analysis Section for more discussion. x Should include a landscape x The applicant updated the landscape plans by 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 professional for the project. a landscape architect with more detail. See Sheets L1.1 and L1.2. See Analysis Section for more discussion. x Evaluate basement parking possibility. x The applicant provided detailed drawings regarding a basement. These show that basement parking would be very inefficient and is therefore infeasible. See also Attachment F for exhibits. See Analysis Section for more discussion. x Update materials to be consistent with plans. x The applicant updated the 3Form materials to provide consistency with the plans. Notes were updated to differentiate the perforated metal screens and added new brushed aluminum cladding material. See Materials Exhibit, Sheets A3.2 & 3.16 Analysis1 The applicant refined the site plan, elevations, and materials of the project to respond to the ARB’s comments at the May 21, 2020 meeting. In addition, the applicant provided more precise exhibits for further evaluation of basement parking. It appears these revisions strengthen the project’s consistency with the required findings for an Architectural Review (Attachment B). Landscaping Plan/Parking Area Shading The ARB commented that the project would benefit from having input from a landscape architect creating an integrated planting palette that considers the opportunities and constraints of the site and its surroundings. The plants should fit appropriately in the locations planned for landscaping. At the same time, the applicant should consider calculating all of the trees, including street trees, that affect shading of the project’s parking area. Landscape Plan In response, the applicant hired registered landscape architect Anyi Huang to refine the plans. Sheet L1.1 shows a more detailed planting palette that includes more native plants. The landscape palette is more thoughtful with a purpose of integrating native, drought-tolerant plants with the proposed built-design and the site’s surroundings. Western Redbud trees replace the Japanese Maples along the alley, African Iris replaces Golden Bamboo within 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. 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 planters along El Camino Real and the Golden Bamboo is now added along the alley to provide additional screening from the residential neighbors across the alley. Parking Area Shading A revised calculation of the parking area shading consistent with the PAMC verified that the project meets the 50% shading requirement. As indicated on Sheet A3.13, the trees on-site and adjacent along Matadero Road would provide 50.3% shading of the parking area. No variance of this standard is necessary and therefore, the applicant has withdrawn this component from consideration. In addition to the zoning requirement, the project also includes other shading of the parking area. This includes a building overhang, solid covered parking area, and trellis covered parking area with vines. These areas add an additional 26% of shaded area that are not technically counted by any PAMC standard, however, this helps with the overall shading of the parking area. These revisions make the project more consistent with Finding #5. Second Floor Residential Unit Size The ARB commented that the second-floor residential unit was larger than a typical one- bedroom unit. The ARB further noted that, evaluating the project as a whole, this created a disparity between the sizes of the units within the development and the proposed parking. As previously proposed, the 1,310 square foot one-bedroom unit only required one parking space and the parking spaces provided for the project met the PAMC standards. In response to these comments, the applicant revised the square footage of the project. In doing so, the applicant was also able to change the bedroom mix. Table 1 summarizes the changes from the May 21, 2020 presentation to the current proposal. Table 1: Proposed Project Square-Footage and Units Space Previous Current 1st Floor Office 1,244 SF 1,245 SF 2nd Floor Office 915 SF 1,100 SF 2nd Floor Residence #1 1,310 SF (1 bedroom) 1,220 SF (2-bedroom) 3rd Floor Residence #2 897 SF (1-bedroom) 940 SF (1-bedroom) 3rd Floor Residence #3 1,238 SF (2-bedroom) 1,240 SF (2-bedroom) The previous project required 13 parking spaces. The current project requires 15 parking spaces. The mechanical lift parking system in the building provides the 10 residential spaces. The remainder of the required spaces are provided on the surface. PAMC Section 18.52.040 Off-Street Parking, Loading and Bicycle Facility Requirements, was recently updated to allow for the counting of the van-accessible aisle space (PAMC 18.52.040(b) as two (2) 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 vehicle parking spaces. The project has two van-accessible spaces that have one aisle each accounting for four (4) parking stalls. Therefore, the project is consistent with the parking requirements and has two additional spaces. The changes make the project more consistent with Finding #2. Evaluate Basement Parking Possibility The ARB commented that the applicant should develop a plan showing how basement parking would work for the project so that the parking was out of sight. In response to the ARB’s comments, the applicant created multiple iterations demonstrating how basement parking could work for the project site (See Attachment F). The applicant submitted drawings that met the requirements for the width of the ramp (two-way), the turning radii within the garage to safely maneuver vehicles and safely allow the backup of vehicles from parking stalls. In every iteration a variance or exception to a standard was required. Variances would be required for protrusions into the front and side setbacks for the maneuverability of vehicles and for backup distance. Reducing the severity of the protrusions required another variance for the width of the ramp down to one-way. The City’s Comprehensive Plan includes a Program and Policy that encourages and promotes parking either underground or behind the building as stated in the following: Program L6.6.1 Modify design standards for mixed use projects to promote a pedestrian-friendly relationship to the street, including elements such as screened parking or underground parking, street-facing windows and entries, and porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways, and landscaping, and trees along the street. Avoid blank or solid walls at street level. Policy L-9.2 Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the project, including by locating it behind buildings or underground wherever possible, or by providing for shared use of parking areas. Encourage other alternatives to surface parking lots that minimize the amount of land devoted to parking while still maintaining safe streets, street trees, a vibrant local economy and sufficient parking to meet demand. Furthermore, PAMC Section 18.23.070 Parking (Performance Criteria for Commercial Districts) provides the requirements for parking areas in that the visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones: x Surface parking areas shall be located so that garages or carports are not predominantly facing the street, and parking locations behind the building(s) are preferable. 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 x Carport structures shall be architecturally compatible with the main structures in the project and should utilize substantial support posts. Landscaping material associated with the carport shall have adequate room to grow and be protected from damage by cars and pedestrian traffic. The revised project provides additional landscape screening for the carport parking. The parking is located behind the building and accessed from a side street. The project as proposed is consistent with Findings #1, #2, #4 and PAMC Section 18.23. Demonstrate “Base”, “Middle”, and “Top” The ARB commented that the project should be more consistent with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines by providing a more articulated “top”. The ARB summarized that while the focus of the revision would be the “top”, the revision would need to consider the other building components for consistency (See Sheet X1.4). The following Guidelines are pertinent to this discussion: Guideline 4.1.5 Articulated Facades: Base, Body & Roof In order to create a cohesive streetscape, building facades should be articulated with a building base, body and roof or parapet edge. This creates a shared point of reference that allows different buildings to relate to each other, regardless of individual architectural styles or approaches. Guideline 4.1.8 Expression of Use Building forms should be articulated as an expression of the building use. For example, the various uses in a mixed-use building should be apparent through the pattern or scale of entries and windows, and through building elements such as arcades, awnings and balconies. The “base” of the building, which is the first floor, includes the office use. This space is expressed with exposed column concrete frame and concrete slab with glass walls. This space is set back from El Camino Real to accommodate a 12-foot sidewalk. The first floor includes high ceilings to accommodate commercial uses typically found on the ground floor. The placement of the columns maintains the rhythm and scale of the adjacent buildings. The “middle” of the building, which is the second floor, includes office along El Camino Real and residential use along the rear of the building. The second floor includes exposed concrete frame and overhanging balconies with steel cable railing and privacy glass railings. Vertical vine landscaping differentiates the level from the base and the top. The second-floor balconies would match the scale of the adjacent buildings. The “top” of the building, which is the third floor, includes residential uses. This space includes the 3Form cladded walls with operable windows. No structural frame or slab is revealed. The 2 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 wall along El Camino Real is setback eight feet with a four-foot overhang of the terrace. To address the comment by the ARB and to ensure further consistency with the Guidelines and Architectural Review Findings, the applicant added a one-foot parapet to the building finished with brushed aluminum metal cladding and coping. This parapet was achieved by reducing the ceiling height of the three floors. The aluminum material provides consistency with the perforated aluminum used for the rooftop mechanical screening. The project as proposed is consistent with Findings #1, #2, #3, #4 and #5, including the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project requires the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration because the evaluation determined that implementation of the project would result in significant impacts. The Mitigated Negative Declaration identified that the project would create significant impacts in several topics. Each significant impact can be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures. The impacted topics include air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise. These mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval as an exhibit. The circulation period for public comment was between May 1, 2020 and June 1, 2020. One letter from the California Department of Transportation was received and contained information on impact fees and encroachment permits. The revisions for the project are incorporated into a Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. The revisions did not necessitate the recirculation of the CEQA document. 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 November 20, 2020, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on November 19, which is 14 in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 2 Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 8 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 X109 (650) 329-2575 sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: x Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) x Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX) x Attachment C: Conditions of Approval (DOCX) x Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) x Attachment E: Applicant's Project Description (PDF) x Attachment F: Basement Study Plan (PDF) x Attachment G: Project Plans and Environmental Review (DOCX) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 16 2.a Packet Pg. 17 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 3585 El Camino Real 17PLN-00305 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals/Policies: Comprehensive Plan Goal/Policy Consistency Neighborhood Commercial: Includes shopping centers with off-street parking or a cluster of street-front stores that serve the immediate neighborhood. Examples include Charleston Center, Edgewood Center and Midtown. Typical uses include supermarkets, bakeries, drugstores, variety stores, barber shops, restaurants, self- service laundries, dry cleaners and hardware stores. In locations along El Camino Real and Alma Street, residential and mixed use projects may also locate in this category. 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 office, second floor office and residential and third floor residential in conformance with its Neighborhood Commercial designation. 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 6,000 square foot corner lot. All utilities can serve the site. The adjacent buildings range from one to two stories. 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 South El Camino Real Design Guidelines provide guiding design principles for new projects. The architectural review process includes findings and context-based design criteria necessary to ensure high quality development. Policy L-3.1: Ensure that new or remodeled The project is compatible with adjacent buildings 2.b Packet Pg. 18 structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures since its design incorporates materials, colors and form that follows a similar pattern as other buildings within the area. Policy L-4.15 Recognize El Camino Real as both a local serving and regional serving corridor, defined by a mix of commercial uses and housing. The project includes a mix of uses, office and residential, that will work well in the neighborhood. Policy L-9.2 Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the project, including by locating it behind buildings or underground wherever possible, or by providing for shared use of parking areas. Encourage other alternatives to surface parking lots that minimize the amount of land devoted to parking while still maintaining safe streets, street trees, a vibrant local economy and sufficient parking to meet demand The project includes mechanical lift parking within the building and covered parking at the rear of the building. The covered parking is also screened by vegetation between the carports and the residences across from the alley. 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 demand decreases over time, parking requirements for new construction should decrease. The project provides all of its required parking onsite. The project is consistent with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines, including the vision of the Barron-Ventura area, the Guideline’s 10 Guiding Principles and supporting guidelines regarding Street Frontage, Parking Lots, Landscape & Hardscape, Site Lighting, Alleys, Massing & Articulation, Entrance Design, Façade Design, Amenities & Functional Requirements, Roofs & Parapets, and Materials. In particular the project provides the following: an effective 12-foot sidewalk along El Camino Real; orientation parallel with El Camino Real; vehicular entry from a side street; use of the alley for services and utilities; and lighting that minimizes glare upon residential neighboring property. In addition, the project screens the parking lot with a four-foot decorative rock wall and trees; the building includes a ground floor with a storefront rhythm similar to adjacent buildings, a body that relates to adjacent buildings, yet differentiated with vertical landscape elements and top level that is setback from the property line with a brushed aluminum metal cladded parapet; and the materials are durable using concrete, 3-form cladding, steel and glass. The project is consistent with other development zoning standards, except for parking lot shading, which the project requires the approval of a variance. 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 2.b Packet Pg. 19 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 site has public access on three sides (El Camino Real, Matadero Avenue and rear alley). The project creates an effective 12-foot sidewalk along El Camino Real and sets the building back nearly five feet to achieve this sidewalk. There are two pedestrian entries to the building, one along El Camino Real for the ground floor and one along Matadero Avenue for the upper floors. Vehicles enter the site from Matadero Avenue leading to mechanical lift parking tucked into the rear of the building and carports adjacent to the alley. The alley provides service access to trash and utilities serving the site. Long-term bicycle parking is located at the end of the driveway and short-term bicycle parking is located near the entries to the building. The project is one story taller than the adjacent buildings, has similar massing characteristics as the adjacent buildings because of its use of materials, recesses, and stepped back façade. The residential units include terraces and balconies for outdoor living. The project is consistent with the following Neighborhood Commercial (CN) context-based design criteria: 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements such as: A. Ground floor uses that are appealing to pedestrians through well-designed visibility and access; B.On primary pedestrian routes, climate and weather protection where possible, such as covered waiting areas, building projections and colonnades, and awnings C.Streetscape or pedestrian amenities that contribute to the area's streetscape environment such as street trees, bulbouts, benches, landscape elements, and public art D. Bicycle amenities that contribute to the area's bicycle environment and safety needs, such as bike racks, storage or parking, or dedicated bike lanes or paths (Figure 1-1); and E. Vehicle access from alleys or side streets where they exist, with pedestrian access from the public street. The project includes a pedestrian-oriented design for the ground floor with a setback allowing for an effective 12-foot sidewalk along El Camino Real and a five-foot setback along Matadero Avenue. This allows upper-story overhangs to create climate and weather protection. The Matadero Avenue streetscape includes a bench for passers-by. Short-term bicycle parking is located near the entries to the building and long-term bicycle parking is located at the end of the driveway near the mechanical parking lifts. Matadero Avenue provides the vehicular access to site limiting conflicts along El Camino Real. 2. Street Building Facades 2.b Packet Pg. 20 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 such as: A. Placement and orientation of doorways, windows, and landscape elements to create strong, direct relationships with the street B. Facades that include projecting eaves and overhangs, porches, and other architectural elements that provide human scale and help break up building mass C. Entries that are clearly defined features of front facades, and that have a scale that is in proportion to the size and type of the building and number of units being accessed; larger buildings should have a more prominent building entrance, while maintaining a pedestrian scale; D. Residential units and storefronts that have a presence on the street and are not walled-off or oriented exclusively inward; E. Elements that signal habitation such as entrances, stairs, porches, bays and balconies that are visible to people on the street; F. All exposed sides of a building designed with the same level of care and integrity; G. Reinforcing the definition and importance of the street with building mass; and H. Upper floors set back to fit in with the context of the neighborhood. The ground floor includes clear fenestration in a pattern that is consistent with adjacent buildings. Planters are at the base of the building providing visual interest to passers-by. The entries to the building are located near the corner and are visible from the street. Ground floor setbacks allow for upper story projections using open and opaque guardrails for differentiation. Glass sunshade overhangs at the roof and a brushed aluminum cladded parapet signal the top of the building. The top floor is set back to lessen mass upon the street. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks The ground floor is setback to provide a pedestrian-oriented experience. The building design expresses the use of the space; like ground floor commercial space has storefronts matching the rhythm of the neighboring building. The proposed building design has an articulated façade with overhanging balconies, corner terraces, operable doors and windows and glass overhangs. These projections and recesses providing visual interest and reducing perception of mass. The third floor is set back eight feet from El Camino Real property line as per El Camino Real Guidelines so it relates to the surrounding two story buildings. The recessed third floor reduces the mass of the building as well as provides privacy to residential units. 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties This is not applicable since the adjacent zoning is RM-30. However, care has been taken to set the building forward on the property and away from the residential units to the rear. 2.b Packet Pg. 21 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 Terraces and balconies provide the required open space for the project. 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 Located at the rear of the site and within the building, parking does not overwhelm the site. Mechanical parking is within the building and screened from view. Covered parking provides the remainder of the required parking. A four-foot decorative rock wall and trees provide screening of the parking area. 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood This is not applicable since the site is 0.14 acres. 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 comply with Title 24 and the City’s Green Building Ordinance requirements as shown on Sheets GB-1 and GB-2. 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 uses form concrete, perforated metal screening and 3-form cladding. Exposed concrete columns and the slab articulate the building structure. The glass provides the transparency; the 3-form cladded third floor demarcates the top. The materials are integral to the building design. The rooflines are consistent with the rhythm of the building and are similar to adjacent buildings. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project includes a pedestrian-oriented ground floor with a building setback allowing for an effective 12-foot sidewalk along El Camino Real and a 6’-5”sidewalk along Matadero Avenue. These setbacks allow upper-story overhangs to create climate and weather protection. The Matadero Avenue streetscape includes a bench for pedestrians to take a break from their walk. Short-term bicycle parking is located 2.b Packet Pg. 22 near the entries to the building and long-term bicycle parking is located at the end of the driveway near the mechanical parking lifts. Matadero Avenue provides the vehicular access to site limiting conflicts along El Camino Real. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project incorporates planters on the ground level at base of the building and at the periphery of the parking area. Planters are also used on the upper floors as well as trailing vines along the El Camino Real frontage. The alley includes overhead utilities, which limit the ability to plant trees that provide height. To shade a large area with a minimal number of trees, London Planes are used as street trees and on- site trees. The plant palette includes native and drought tolerant species. Golden Bamboo, a non-native species augments the screening for the carports for the residences across the alley. 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 be consistent with Title 24 and the City’s Green Building Ordinance as shown on Sheets GB-1 and GB-2. Additional materials include: x Thermo exterior glazing (double insulated low e-glazing) for energy efficiency. x Fleetwood operable doors and windows promote natural light, ventilation and acoustical values. x 3 Form cladding: 3 Form is a manmade, renewable polymer material. The cladding reduces building maintenance and avoids exterior paint. x Solar panels located on the roof. 2.b Packet Pg. 23 Performance Criteria 3585 El Camino Real 17PLN-00305 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 accessible off the rear alley. The size of the enclosure the refuse/recycling bins are appropriate to the size of the project. 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 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. Mechanical equipment screening adequately screens the roof from the right-of-way. Utilities and trash areas are screened from view. The parking area adjacent to the alley includes a four-foot decorative rock wall and small trees for screening. 2.b Packet Pg. 24 Performance Criteria Project Consistency 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are intended to protect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residential properties. New equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be subject to these requirements. Mechanical equipment will conform to building code requirements for noise. Trash will be picked up in the alley similar to adjacent properties. 18.23.070 Parking The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. Surface parking areas shall be located so that garages or carports are not predominantly facing the street, and parking locations behind the building(s) are preferable. Carport structures shall be architecturally compatible with the main structures in the project and should utilize substantial support posts. Landscaping material associated with the carport shall have adequate room to grow and be protected from damage by cars and pedestrian traffic. The site includes mechanical parking located within the building and covered surface parking accessed by a driveway from Matadero Avenue located behind the building. The covered parking includes solid roofing and trellis that support landscaping. 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 Matadero Avenue, service of trash and utilities will be from the rear alley. Bicyclists and pedestrians may enter the site from adjacent sidewalks or the alley. 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. 2.b Packet Pg. 25 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. 2.b Packet Pg. 26 ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 3585 El Camino Real 17PLN-00305 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1.CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS: Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "3585 El Camino Real,” stamped as received by the City on November 13, 2020 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2.BUILDING PERMIT: Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3.BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET: A copy of this cover letter and conditions of approval shall be printed on the second page of the plans submitted for building permit. 4.PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5.ENTITLEMENT EXPIRATION: The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of issuance of the entitlement. If within such two years period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings has not commenced, the Planning entitlement shall expire. Application for a one year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to expiration. 6.LANDSCAPE PLAN: Plantings shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan set and shall be permanently maintained and replaced as necessary. 7.REFUSE. All trash areas shall be effectively screened from view and covered and maintained in an orderly state to prevent water from entering into the garbage container. No outdoor storage is allowed/permitted unless designated on the approved plan set. Trash areas shall be maintained in a manner to discourage illegal dumping. 8.SIGN APPROVAL NEEDED. No signs are approved at this time. All signs shall conform to the requirements of Title 16.20 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (Sign Code) and shall be subject to approval by the Director of Planning. 2.c Packet Pg. 27 9.MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) associated with the project and attached here as Exhibit A 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. 10.FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m- group.us to schedule this inspection. 11.ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE: Development Impact Fees, currently estimated in the amount of $195,757.47 shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 12.IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD: California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 13.INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. HOUSING 14.BELOW MARKET RATE REQUIREMENT: The project as proposed includes three (3) residential ownership units in a mixed used development. The project is subject to the Below Market Rate 2.c Packet Pg. 28 (BMR) requirement as set forth by Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) 16.65.060 and subject to a BMR requirement of 0.45 units. When the BMR requirement results in a fractional unit, an in-lieu payment to the Residential Housing Fund may be made instead of providing an actual BMR unit. 15.BMR IN-LIEU PAYMENT: The applicant shall provide an in-lieu payment as specified in Section 16.65.060. The fractional in-lieu fee shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits for the project; however, if the applicant elects to provide one additional inclusionary unit instead of paying the fractional in-lieu payment, a BMR Agreement between the City and applicant shall be executed and recorded prior to final map approval or building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. 16. 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. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 17.SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace all sidewalk, curbs, gutters or 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. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 18.GRADING PERMIT: The site plan must include an earthworks table showing cut and fill volumes. If the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. An application and plans for a grading permit are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 19.STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 20.IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 21.RESIDENTIAL STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project triggers the California Regional Water Quality Control Board’s revised provision C.3 for storm water regulations (incorporated into 2.c Packet Pg. 29 the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 16.11) that apply to residential land development projects that create or replace between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. The applicant must implement one or more of the following site design measures: a. Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse. b. Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas. c. Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas. d. Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas. e. Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces. f. Construct driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces. 22.LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. The plan will be attached to a street work permit. 23.CALTRANS: Caltrans review and approval of this project is required. Caltrans right-of-way across El Camino Real extends from back-of-walk to back-of walk. The City has a maintenance agreement with Caltrans that requires the City to maintain the sidewalk and to issue Street Work Permits for work done on the sidewalks by private contractors. Caltrans has retained the right to review and permit new ingress/egress driveways off El Camino Real as well as the installation of Traffic Control devices as part of this project. 24.MONITORING WELLS: 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. 25.OVERLAYS: Matadero and Lane 66 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 Matadero and Lane 66 over the full project frontage per Public Works standards. 26.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 Hydraulic Grade Line (HGL’s) 0.5 foot below inlet grates elevations and 100-year storm with HGL not exceeding the street right-of- way. As described on the City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards. 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 Intensity Duration Frequency (IDF) tables and 2.c Packet Pg. 30 Precipitation Map for Palo Alto is available County of Santa Clara County Drainage Manual dated October 2007. The proposed project shall not increase runoff to the public storm drain system. 27.PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT: The applicant shall include an offer of dedication for a public access easement for the additional dimension of sidewalk between the property line and back of walk and/or building edge that meets the El Camino Real Master Plan requirements. 28.PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT: Applicant will be required to dedicate a Public Utility Easement at the location of the new proposed transformer. 29.STREETLIGHTS: Decorative streetlights shall be added to meet spacing guidelines of 35-feet to 40-feet per light. Existing “cobra head” lights shall be replaced by tall decorative lights and the remaining distance shall be met with pedestrian scale lights. 30.SUBDIVISION: If condominium units are proposed, a Preliminary Parcel Map and a Parcel Map, or Tentative Map and a Final Map, are required for the proposed development. Map types and review procedures vary depending on the number of units proposed. Depending on the number of units proposed, the applicant shall submit a minor or major subdivision application to the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Show all existing and proposed dedications and easements on the map submitted as part of the application. Be advised that the Parcel or Tentative map shall be recorded with the Santa Clara County Clerk Recorder prior to Building or Grading and Excavation Permit issuance. A digital copy of the Parcel Map, in AutoCAD format, shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering and shall conform to North American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NGVD88 for vertical survey controls. 31.CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE: As the Planning application plans show an existing lot line across this site, that lot line shall be removed either through a Certificate of Compliance or a Parcel/Final Map prior to issuance of building or grading permits. The mapping document removing this lot line must be recorded with the County prior to issuance or Grading or Building permits. 32.RIGHT-OF-WAY: The Planning application shows the sidewalk on El Camino Real as City of Palo Alto right-of-way. As this does not match the City’s records, applicant will be required to provide documentation verifying such for City review. Applicant will be required to demonstrate right-of-way owners’ permission for any proposed improvements within that right-of-way (utility lines, etc) prior to grading or building permit issuance. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION 33.TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of 2.c Packet Pg. 31 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. 34.PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, Public Works or Urban Forestry. 35.TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to Tree Technical Manual (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. 36.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. 37.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. 38.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. 39.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. 40.PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on relevant plan sheets: 2.c Packet Pg. 32 g. 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) h. 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. 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, Type II or Type III fencing around each Regulated Tree, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T-1; City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans); or by using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. PUBLIC WORKS WATERSHED PROTECTION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT: 41. Stormwater treatment measures: a. All Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements shall be followed. 42. Bay-friendly Guidelines (rescapeca.org): a. Do not use chemicals fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil amendment. b. Use Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost. Refer to the BayFriendly 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. c. Avoid compacting soil in areas that will be unpaved. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. 43. 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 Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) fluids from roofs and other areas to landscaping 2.c Packet Pg. 33 TRANSPORTATION 44.MECHANICAL LIFT PARKING. The project proposes 11 cars to be stored in a mechanical lift parking system which allows independent access to each vehicle. The property owner shall have a maintenance agreement with the lift system manufacturer and the system shall be operational at all times. All new renters/employees shall be given instructions on how to operate the lift system. If the lift system is out of operation for any reason, anyone who is not able to retrieve their vehicle within a 10-minute period shall be reimbursed by the property owner or their designee for travel expenses up to $50 per occurrence. UTILITILES - WATER, GAS, WASTEWATER (WGW) 45. Sheet C-3.0: i. Show an additional water meter for separate metering of commercial and residential spaces j. Show water meters & boxes at street curb in the city planting strip per WGW Standards, instead of meters incorrectly shown on property. Maintain Two foot horizontal clear from meter boxes to existing hydrant bury. k. Show water services tapped from fire service per WGW Standards l. Show RPPA backflow assembly for each city meter per WGW Standards, instead of non- RPPA devices shown. Show footprints to scale m. Show RP Detector Assembly for the fire service per WGW Standards, instead of DCDA shown. Show footprints to scale. n. Show gas meter footprint to scale (refer to WGW standards), show solid wall behind meter assembly per GD-02, and provide 3 ft clear in front of meter assembly per GD-02. o. Show city sewer clean-out in Public Right of Way (P.R.O.W.) at property line on proposed City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) sewer lateral. Show private point of connection in P.R.O.W. to city clean-out per WGW standards. Show lateral connection to sewer main instead of new manhole shown. p. Show existing sewer lateral and water service in Matadero Ave to be disconnected the mains per WGW standards. 46. Revise Architectural elevations, rendering, site plan, etc to show visible features per corrections above. Residential water sub metering: Consult with WGW Utilities Engineering to determine if the development for the residential portion will be master metered by CPAU and each dwelling unit will be privately sub metered. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT: 47. 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. 2.c Packet Pg. 34 FOR BUILDING PERMIT: 48. 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.). 49. 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. 50. Per SB7 (Water Code, Division 1, Chapter 8, Article 5, Section 537-537.5) requires new multi- family residential building to include a water submeter for each dwelling unit and to bill tenants accordingly for their water use per CPA Utilities rules and Regulations. Submeters 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. 51. New High-density polyethylene (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. Show the location of the new service and meter on the plans. 52. A separate water meter and backflow preventer is required to irrigate the approved landscape plan. Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. 53. 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. 54. 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. 55. 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. 2.c Packet Pg. 35 56. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. 57. A new gas service line installation is required to furnish customer's demand specified in the load sheet or new approved gas meter location presented with this project. The work will be performed by CPAU. The gas service and meters will be sized based on the gas loads demands. Show the location of the gas meters on the plans. 58. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility services and meters 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 services and meters. 59. Sewer ejector pumps shall meet the CPAU 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. 60. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10 feet between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 61. 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. 62. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the latest edition of CPAU Standards for Water, Gas & Wastewater. ELECTRIC UTILITIES 63. A 3’x5’x54” full traffic rated box shall be installed at the bottom of the existing utility pole 1340. 64. The bike cage shall be constructed as fully removable at CPAU’s request. 65. A signed easement for the transformer location shall be the final condition prior to energization. CPAU retains the right to disconnect the power to the building without a signed easement. 2.c Packet Pg. 36 EXHIBIT A - MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Avoidance/Mitigation Measures Mitigation and Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Schedule Air Quality [Source: Section 4.3.2 of Initial Study] MM AIR-1: Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce community risk impacts from construction to a less than significant level. All mobile diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 25 horsepower and operating on-site for more than two days continuously (or 20 hours in total) shall meet U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 2 engines equipped with CARB-certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters or equivalent. Implementation: Project contractor Monitoring: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment, BAAQMD Observation of conditions by Building Inspectors during construction During construction Biological Resources [Source: Section 4.4.1 of Initial Study] MM BIO-1.1: The project owner or designee shall schedule demolition and construction activities to avoid the nesting season. The nesting season for most birds, including most raptors in the San Francisco Bay area extends from February 1st through August 31st. If it is not possible to schedule demolition and construction between September 1st and January 31st to avoid the nesting season, pre-construction surveys for nesting raptors and other migratory nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified ornithologist, as approved by the City of Palo Alto, to identify active nests that may be disturbed during project implementation on-site and within 250 feet of the site. Projects that commence demolition and/or construction activities between February 1st and August 31st shall conduct a pre-construction survey for nesting birds no more than 14 days prior to initiation of construction, demolition activities, or tree removal. Implementation: Project applicant Monitoring: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment, City of Palo Alto- approved/qualified ornithologist, CDFW Pre-construction surveys to be conducted by a qualified ornithologist for nesting raptors and other migratory birds Findings shall be reported to Director of Planning and Community Environment No more than 14 days prior to demolition, grading, construction or tree removal, if occurring between February 1st and August 31st 2.c Packet Pg. 37 Avoidance/Mitigation Measures Mitigation and Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Schedule If an active nest is found in or close enough to the project area to be disturbed by construction activities, a qualified ornithologist shall determine the extent of a construction-free buffer zone (typically 250 feet for raptors and 100 feet for other birds) around the nest, to ensure that raptor or migratory bird nests would not be disturbed during ground disturbing activities. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) will notified, as appropriate. The construction-free buffer zones shall be maintained until after the nesting season has ended and/or the ornithologist has determined that the nest is no longer active. The ornithologist shall submit a report indicating the results of the survey and any designated buffer zones to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto prior to any grading, demolition, and/or building permit. Cultural Resources [Source: Section 4.5.2 of Initial Study] MM CUL-1.1: In the event any significant cultural materials (including fossils) are encountered during construction grading or excavation, construction within a radius of 50 feet of the find would be halted, the Director of Planning shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall examine the find and make appropriate recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate treatment of the resource. Recommendations could include collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials. A report of findings documenting any data recovered during monitoring shall be submitted to the Director of Planning. Implementation: Project contractor Monitoring: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment, City of Palo Alto- approved/qualified archaeologist Qualified archaeologist shall examine any cultural materials encountered during construction activities Findings shall be reported to Director of Planning and Community Environment During construction MM CUL-1.2: Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California in the event of the discovery of human remains during Implementation: Project contractor Santa Clara County Coroner shall determine the status of During construction 2.c Packet Pg. 38 Avoidance/Mitigation Measures Mitigation and Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Schedule construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this state law, then the land owner shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. If the Director of Planning finds that the archaeological find is not a significant resource, work would resume only after the submittal of a preliminary archaeological report and after provisions for reburial and ongoing monitoring are accepted. Monitoring: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment, Santa Clara County Coroner, NAHC remains, if encountered NAHC shall identify descendants of the deceased, if remains are Native American Submittal and acceptance of an archaeological report to the Director of Planning and Community Environment Hazards and Hazardous Materials [Source: Section 4.9.2 of Initial Study] MM HAZ-1.1: A Site Management Plan (SMP) and Health and Safety Plan (HSP) shall be developed by the applicant and submitted to the Director of Planning and DEH prior to issuance of grading permits in order to reduce exposure of construction workers and surrounding receptors to potentially contaminated soil and soil vapor during development of the site. The SMP shall outline the plan for additional sampling required, in particular sampling for polychlrorinated biphenyls at former hydraulic lift locations on the project site. The SMP and SHP shall outline handling practices and the ultimate disposal location for contaminated soils, as appropriate. Implementation: Project contractor and applicant Monitoring: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Approval of SMP and HSP by Director of Department of Planning and Community Environment and Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health Observation of conditions by Building Inspectors during construction Prior to and during construction activities 2.c Packet Pg. 39 Avoidance/Mitigation Measures Mitigation and Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Schedule Noise and Vibration [Source: Section 4.13.2 of Initial Study] MM NOI-1: Implementation of the following measures would reduce the vibration impact to a less-than-significant level at the nearest commercial building at 3567 El Camino Real, which borders the construction boundary to the northwest: x Place operating equipment on the construction site as far as possible from vibration sensitive receptors. x Avoid using vibratory rollers and tampers near sensitive areas. x Avoid dropping heavy objects or materials near shared property lines. x Occupants of 3567 El Camino Real shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing. This schedule shall indicate when heavy vibration-generating construction will be taking place within 25 feet of the building. x A construction vibration-monitoring plan shall be implemented to document conditions at 3567 El Camino Real, prior to, during, and after vibration generating construction activities within 20 feet of the building. All plan tasks shall be performed in accordance with industry accepted standard methods. The construction vibration monitoring plan should be implemented to include the following tasks: o Performance of a photo survey, elevation survey, and crack monitoring survey for the building at 3567 El Camino Real. Surveys shall be performed prior to, in regular intervals during, and after completion of vibration generating construction activities within 20 feet of the building, and shall include internal and external crack monitoring in the Implementation: Project contractor and applicant Monitoring: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Observation of conditions by Building Inspectors during construction During construction 2.c Packet Pg. 40 Avoidance/Mitigation Measures Mitigation and Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Schedule structure, settlement, and distress, and shall document the condition of the foundation, walls, and other structural elements in the interior and exterior of said structure to the extent that access is provided by the owner of the building. o Conduct a post-survey on the structure where monitoring has indicated high levels or complaints of damage. Make appropriate repairs or provide compensation where damage has occurred as a result of construction activities. o Designate a person responsible for registering and investigating claims of excessive vibration. The contact information of such person shall be clearly posted on the construction site. 2.c Packet Pg. 41 ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3585 El Camino Real, 17PLN-00305 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CN DISTRICT) Mixed-Use and Residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None 0.14 acres (6,252 sf) 0.14 acres Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (8) 70 feet 4’-10” (12’-0” from face of curb for effective sidewalk width) Rear Yard 10 feet for residential portion; no requirement for commercial portion 5 feet 49 feet Interior Side Yard None (not abutting residential district) 10 feet 6 inches Street Side Yard 5 feet 10 feet 5 feet Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback on El Camino Real 33% of side street built to setback on Matadero Avenue Front: 0% Street Side: 0% Front: 75% Street Side: 50% Max. Site Coverage (k) 50% (3,138 sf) 28% (1,757 sf) 60% (3,735 sf), see (k) Housing Incentive Program note below Landscape/Open Space Coverage 35% Not applicable 35% (2,219 sf) Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit Not applicable 2-bedroom unit: 238 sf 1-bedroom unit: 180 sf 2-bedroom unit: 515 sf Max. Building Height 35 ft 20 feet 35 feet Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR)(4)(k) Residential: 0.5:1 (3,126 sf) Non-Residential: 0.5:1 (3,126 sf) Total Mixed-Use: 1.0:1 (6,252 sf) 28% (1,725 sf) Residential: 0.71:1 (4,421 sf) Non-Residential: 0.41:1 (2,594 sf) Total Mixed-Use: 1.12:1 (7,015 sf) See (k) Housing Incentive Program note below 2.d Packet Pg. 42 Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zoning 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 Residential Density (net)(3) 15 or 20 (9) Not applicable 20 du/acre (3 units) Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping (18.54.040a) Five feet Not applicable 6’-9” to 10’ (3) Residential density shall be computed based upon the total site area, irrespective of the percent of the site devoted to commercial use. (4) For CN sites on El Camino Real, height may increase to a maximum of 40 feet and the FAR may increase to a maximum of 1.0:1 (0.5:1 for nonresidential, 0.5:1 for residential). (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage. (9) Residential densities up to 20 units/acre are allowed on CN zoned housing inventory sites identified in the Housing Element. Other CN zoned sites not located on El Camino Real are subject to a maximum residential density of up to 15 units/acre. (k) Housing Incentive Program (1) For an exclusively residential or residential mixed-use project in the CC(2) zone or on CN or CS zoned sites on El Camino Real, the Director may waive the residential floor area ratio (FAR) limit and the maximum site coverage requirement after the project with the proposed waiver or waivers is reviewed by the Architectural Review Board, if the Director finds that a project exceeding these standards is consistent with the required architectural review findings. In no event shall the Director approve a commercial FAR that exceeds the standard in Table 4 of Section 18.16.060(b) or a total FAR (including both residential and commercial FAR) in excess of 2.0 in the CC(2) zone or 1.5 in the CN or CS zone. Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CN DISTRICT) continued Mixed-Use Residential Development Standards Topic Requirement Proposed Hours of Operation (18.16.040 (b)) Businesses with activities any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be required to obtain a conditional use permit. The director may apply conditions of approval as are deemed necessary to assure compatibility with the nearby residentially zoned property The application does not include a request for late night hours. Office Use Restrictions (18.16.050) Total floor area of permitted office uses on a lot shall not exceed 25% of the lot area, provided a lot is permitted between 2,500 and 5,000 sf of office use. The 5,000 sf maximum size may be increased with a CUP issued by the Director. 2,594 sf (41%, but within the permitted range) 18.16.080 Performance Standards. All development in the CN district shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, including all mixed use development 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 2.d Packet Pg. 43 Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Residential & Office Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking Office: 1/250 sf: 9 spaces Residential: 1-bedroom: 1 per unit (1 space) 2-bedroom: 2 per unit (4 spaces) Total: 14 spaces Zero Office: 10 spaces Residential: 5 spaces Total: 15 spaces Bicycle Parking Office: 1/2,500 sf = 1 Residential: 1 per unit (LT) = 3 Zero 3 long term 1 short term Loading Space 0-9,999 sf = zero Zero Zero 2.d Packet Pg. 44 102 University Avenue, Suite 3C • Palo Alto, CA • 94301 • 650 326 0374 • bellomoarchitects.com Project Description Project Name: 3585 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA _____________________________________________________________________________ Date:Sep 8th, 2020 To:City of Palo Alto Planning Department Attn: Sheldon Ah Sing Subject: Major Architectural Review of development at 3585 El Camino Real Introduction: We, together with KSS management, present, for your review, a mixed-use building - one with office and residential spaces. The proposed design unifies commercial and residential life, and celebrates the City of Palo Alto’s tradition and innovation. The building will provide cutting-edge commercial spaces for businesses and residences; encourage walkable, livable, and sustainable urban lifestyle. Our goal is to create a project that will revitalize the corner, which has been a vacant property for the past 27 years. The building will create a “node” with neighborhood oriented commercial uses that serve the surrounding residential area. The building will promote harmonious transition in scale and character between different designated land uses. Existing Conditions: The site is located on the Southwest Corner of El Camino Real and Matadero Avenue with 60 ft. frontage on El Camino Real. The 6252 sq. ft. lot is served by 20 ft. wide alley on the rear side. The property is neighboring two story commercial buildings on El Camino Real, a gas station on Matadero Avenue and a residential apartment complex on the alley. The site has been vacant for the last 27 years. It has been under soil remediation process and currently has received a clean certificate from Santa Clara County. There is an existing metal shed, approx. 800 sq. ft., which was used as a garage or an automobile repair center previously. Now the shed is in a distressed condition and will be demolished prior to the proposed development. 2.e Packet Pg. 45 102 University Avenue, Suite 3C • Palo Alto, CA • 94301 • 650 326 0374 • bellomoarchitects.com Proposed Project: We propose a three story, mixed use building with an office on the first floor, an office and a residential unit on the second floor and two residential units on the third floor Program: The proposed program follows guidelines under Palo Alto’s Housing Incentive Plan. Two Office Spaces and Three Residential Units Total Site: 6252 sq ft Office Space: 2594 sq ft (permitted 3126 sq ft) Residential space: 4421sq ft (As per Housing Incentive Plan: Permitted residential FAR is increased from 0.5 to 1.5. So permitted square footage is 9378 sq ft. ) First Floor: Office Space: 1245 sq ft Second Floor: Office: 1100 sq ft Two Bedroom Residence: 1220 sq ft Third Floor: One Bedroom Residence: 940 sq ft Two Bedroom Residence: 1240 sq ft Car Parking: Total Car Parking Spaces Required: 15 Total Car Parking Spaces Provided: 15 (as following) Car Parking with two level mechanical lift systems: 10 cars (Klaus Parking System) One Van Accessible Space (Counted as Two Standard Spaces) One Van Accessible Charging Station (Counted as Two Standard Spaces) One Standard car parking space on grade Planning: The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community. The plan follows approximately an 11’-0” x 18’0” grid; with all utilities and plumbing located in the central core area. The office spaces are located towards El Camino Real, and the residential units, mainly bedrooms, are located towards the alley. 2.e Packet Pg. 46 102 University Avenue, Suite 3C • Palo Alto, CA • 94301 • 650 326 0374 • bellomoarchitects.com The ground floor facade has a rhythmic glass front which maintains 10’0” storefront rhythm of neighboring buildings. The Third Floor residential space is set back El Camino to reduce massing, create desirable terraces and provide privacy to residential units. Access: Parking facilities are located on the rare half of the property with access from Matadero Avenue. The ground floor office has an entry on El Camino Real while the residences and office space on the second floor have a stairway entry on Matadero Avenue near the corner of El Camino Real and Matadero Avenue. The proposed vehicular access eliminates the existing curb cut on El Camino Real, thus providing a cohesive building frontage and streetscape. The property has well-demarcated entries and circulation is safe and convenient to pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles. Setbacks: On El Camino Real: Building sets back 5’0” to create 12’0” wide sidewalk promoting pedestrian environment. On Matadero Avenue: 5’-0” building set back. Structural System: 1: First and Second Floor: Reinforced Concrete Framing 2: Third Floor: Metal Framing. The proposed building design has an honest expression of building’s structural system. The building reveals its structural members. There is no layering or covering or application of another material on top of the structural members except for the third floor residential portion where we have 3 Form cladding over metal framed walls. Our building design comprises a pallet of basic materials like concrete, steel, glass and 3 Form. 2.e Packet Pg. 47 102 University Avenue, Suite 3C • Palo Alto, CA • 94301 • 650 326 0374 • bellomoarchitects.com Sustainability: The project would comply with the City’s Green Building Ordinance. The design includes overhangs, recesses, and other shading devices (vertical garden wall, wood trellis) and techniques to reduce the solar heat gain and energy consumption related to the cooling of the building. The building will be composed of sustainable building materials with exposed structural composition on the first floor and second floor. Concrete: 70% replacement of cement with slag, which is a byproduct of iron extraction process. This replacement makes concrete mix it stronger, impermeable to water and environmentally friendly (cement is a significant emission polluter during its refinement process). Steel Framing: Steel is a desirable building material with high recycle content. Thermo exterior glazing (double insulated) for energy efficiency. Fleetwood operable doors and windows promote natural light, ventilation as well as excellent acoustical values. 3 Form cladding: 3 Form is a manmade, polymer material. The cladding reduces building maintenance and avoids exterior paint. 3 Form has 40% pre consumer recycle content. Solar panels will be located on the roof. Landscape: Landscape forms an integral part of this urban building. Trees, plants and vines create beautiful setting for the building while landscaped terraces create enjoyable outdoor spaces. There are no existing trees on or on the sidewalk of the property. We are proposing five trees (PLANTANUS ACERIFOLIA,permitted by the City of Palo Alto), on sidewalk along El Camino Real and Matadero Avenue. Metal Planetrs with African Iris plant has been proposed along El Camino Real and Matadero Avenue side. The planters with beautiful Iris plants will enhance the pedestrian experience as well provide a screen and a view to the occupants. African Iris is a drought tolerant and robust perennial with great aesthetic value and easy care. A landscape planting strip, with four Western Red Bud trees and shrubs and planters along the alley acts as a buffer between the proposed building and residential apartment. Western Redbud is a native, drought tolerant, ornamental shrub/tree with pink/purple flowers and it grows around 15 ft tall. Golden Bamboo in metal planters along the alley will define the boundary of the property and screen the parking area. 2.e Packet Pg. 48 102 University Avenue, Suite 3C • Palo Alto, CA • 94301 • 650 326 0374 • bellomoarchitects.com The vehicular parking on grade is partially covered with IPE wood trellis and flowering creepers which will provide shade to the parked cars as well as create beautiful views for the residents and neighboring residents. A 8 ft wide landscape strip has been provided at the end of the driveway with permeable pavers and a landscape strip along the property wall. A London Tree provides shading in the parking area .The concrete masonry unit wall along the property line will have creepers on the wall. The proposed 6 ft high rock wall along Matadero Avenue demarcates the boundary, hides the view of parking lot and helps to blocks the light from vehicles. It creates visually interesting wall with organic arrangement of rocks and a steel mesh. The terraces will have potted plants. The Second Floor balcony on El Camino Real will have a vertical screen garden. A cable trellis system will be provided which will guide creepers potted in the planters in the balcony. The creepers and the cable will create a beautiful garden wall with an interesting view and make urban space more livable. It will also help in reducing solar gain, mitigating noise and dust. Material: A separate material sheet has been provided along with the description. Following material samples and mock ups have been provided at the ARB meeting. 3-Form cladding and corner detail, Perforated metal sheets, Steel Frame, Perforated metal sheet samples, IPE wood sample and Concrete color sample Please refer to the submitted material sheet and the board. END 2.e Packet Pg. 49 1 B2 10' - 0"51' - 4" 5' - 0 " 8' - 9" 8' - 6" 8' - 6" 1,2,3 4,5,6 5' -0" DN DN22% slope 11% Slope 10' - 0" 5' - 0" Line of Overhead Electrical Lines.5 Ft easement Transformer On the Fir st Floor 7,8,9 104' - 5" 60' - 2" 12' - 8" 5' - 0" The Ramp is adjoing the property line. 5'0" min spacing required from the property line to the driveway as per PAMC 18.54.070 Parking Design Figures ALLEY 1 B3 22' - 2" 12' - 7" R 14'- 6" DN11% Slope ARB SUBMITTAL www.bellomoarchitects.com 102 University Avenue, Suite CP a l o A l t o , C A 9 4 3 0 1 T e l 6 5 0 . 3 2 6 . 0 3 7 4 Fax 6 5 0 . 3 2 6 . 0 4 8 4 COPYRIGHT ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OT ALTERED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT 2020 SCALE PRINTABLE TO SCALE FORMAT 12" X 18" DATE Job Number 08/03/20 B1 Ba s e m e n t F l o o r P l a n w i t h S t a c k e r L i f t s 35 8 5 E L C A M I N O R E A L Pa l o A l t o , C A 9 4 3 0 6 1/8" = 1'-0"1 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN WITH STACKER LIFTS Klaus Parking Stacker Lifts Type Multibase 2072 i-190 Vehicular Ramp Note: For study purpose onlyNot a part of design proposal one way ramp ATTACHMENT F 2.f Packet Pg. 50 SITE PLAN 0' -0" THIRD FLOOR 25' -0" PERMITTED BUILDING HEIGHT 35' -0" OFFICE 1246 SQ FT 8' - 1 0 " 4' - 0" 13 ' - 4 " V E H I C U L A RRA M P ONE BEDROOM 1235 SQ FT OFFICE 1020 SQFT RESIDENCE 3 RESIDENCE 1 RESIDENCE 2 ONE BEDROOM 892 SQ FT TWO BEDROOM 1187 SQ FT BASEMENT-13' -9" CAR PARKING 12.27° 6.1 8 ° 10' - 0"5' - 2" 13 ' - 1 0 " 13 ' - 4 " 0' - 8 " Property Line 1. A distance of 5 feet shall be maintained at the same slope as the sidewalk from the back edge of the sidewalk to the starting point of the ramp. 2. The first and last 10 feet of the slope grade (transition length) shall not exceed 11 percent. 3. The remaining portion of the ramp shall not have a slope greater than 22 percent and the breakover angle (see Figure 5) shall not exceed ten degrees (100). 4. Minimum ramp width (two-way) for above or below ground parking facilities shall be 18 feet S L O PE 2 2% SLOPE 11% S L O PE 1 1 % 18.54.070 Parking Design Tables and Figures 12 ' - 3 " 1' - 6 " 10' - 0" ARB SUBMITTAL www.bellomoarchitects.com 102 University Avenue, Suite CP a l o A l t o , C A 9 4 3 0 1 T e l 6 5 0 . 3 2 6 . 0 3 7 4 Fax 6 5 0 . 3 2 6 . 0 4 8 4 COPYRIGHT ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OT ALTERED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT 2020 SCALE PRINTABLE TO SCALE FORMAT 12" X 18" DATE Job Number 08/03/2020 B2 SE C T I O N B B 35 8 5 E L C A M I N O R E A L Pa l o A l t o , C A 9 4 3 0 6 1/8" = 1'-0"1 Section BB 0'4'8'16' ALLEYEL CAMINO REAL Note: For study purpose only Not a part of design proposal 2.f Packet Pg. 51 1 B2 10' - 0"51' - 4" 5' - 0 " 5' -0" DN DN22% slope 11% Slope 10' - 0" 5' - 0" Line of Overhead Electrical Lines.5 Ft easement Transformer On the Fir st Floor 104' - 5" 60 ' - 2 " 19 ' - 1 " 5' - 0 " The Ramp is adjoing the property line. 5'0" min spacing required from the property line to the driveway as per PAMC 18.54.070 Parking Design Figures ALLEY 1 B3 22' - 2" 19 ' - 0 " R14'- 6" DN11% Slope R 3 3 ' - 1 0 " ARB SUBMITTAL www.bellomoarchitects.com 102 University Avenue, Suite CP a l o A l t o , C A 9 4 3 0 1 T e l 6 5 0 . 3 2 6 . 0 3 7 4 Fax 6 5 0 . 3 2 6 . 0 4 8 4 COPYRIGHT ALL DRAWINGS AND WRITTEN MATERIAL APPEARING HEREIN CONSTITUTE ORIGINAL AND UNPUBLISHED WORK OF THE ARCHITECT, AND THE SAME MAY NOT BE DUPLICATED, USED OT ALTERED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT 2020 SCALE PRINTABLE TO SCALE FORMAT 12" X 18" DATE Job Number 08/03/20 B1 Ba s e m e n t F l o o r P l a n w i t h S t a c k e r L i f t s a n d T w o Wa y R a m p 35 8 5 E L C A M I N O R E A L Pa l o A l t o , C A 9 4 3 0 6 1/8" = 1'-0"1 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN WITH STACKER LIFTS Klaus Parking Stacker Lifts Type Multibase 2072 i-190 Two Way Vehicular Ramp Note: For study purpose onlyNot a part of design proposal two-way ramp 2.f Packet Pg. 52 Attachment G Project Plans and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration During Shelter-in-Place, project plans are only available online. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll to find “3585 El Camino Real” 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=4589&TargetID=319 Materials Boards: During Shelter-in-Place, color and material boards will be available to view in the display case outside of City Hall, on the exterior elevator near the corner of Hamilton Ave. and Bryant St. 2.g Packet Pg. 53 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 11707) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/3/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3241 Park Boulevard: New Commercial Building (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3241 Park Boulevard [20PLN-00032]: Recommendation on a Major Architectural Review to allow for the demolition of a portion of the existing 4,500 square foot building and addition, resulting in a proposed floor area of 7,861 square feet. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: GM. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Garrett Sauls at Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1.Consider the CEQA Categorical Exemption Documents; and 2. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Development Services based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The application is a request for architectural review of a new 7,861 square foot (sf) two-story office and Research and Development (R&D) building. The project includes a three-level parking lift garage (two levels above ground and one level below ground) and associated site improvements. The subject property is a 20,442 sf parcel currently developed with a 4,501 sf building previously occupied by Akins Body Shop. Roughly 2,200 sf of the existing building will be demolished, and 5,558 sf of floor area will be added to the first and second floors. The net increase is 3,358 sf of gross floor area (GFA). The project site has 149 feet of street frontage along Park Boulevard (24 feet to the building wall) and has a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Light Industrial (LI). The property is within the General Manufacturing (GM) Zone District. The proposed building features a smooth troweled, gray cement plaster exterior finish and metal panels/steel, painted bronze. 3 Packet Pg. 54 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 Background Project Information Owner: Dan Cunningham: 3241 Park Boulevard LLC Architect: Ken Hayes Representative: Mason Hayes; Jeff Galbraith Legal Counsel: N/A Property Information Address: 3241 Park Boulevard Neighborhood: North Ventura Lot Dimensions & Area: 149.81 feet wide (West PL), 134.24 feet long (South PL); 103.55 feet wide (East PL); 100.97 feet long (North PL); 67.25 feet long (North- East rounded corner) Housing Inventory Site: N/A Located w/in a Plume: California Olive Emerson Plume Protected/Heritage Trees: Designated Trees Historic Resource(s): Commercial Building older than 45 years; determined ineligible for the California Register of Historical Resources by City consultant M- Group in May 2020. Evaluated by Page & Turnbull to not be significant. See report at: https://bit.ly/2TsMHu0. Existing Improvement(s): 4,501 square feet; 1-story; 21 feet and five inches tall; built in 1970. Existing Land Use(s): Automobile Service Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: GM (Office) West: RM-30 (Retail; Professional Office; Auto Service) East: Zoning (land uses) South: PF (Palo Alto Substation) Aerial View of Property: 3 Packet Pg. 55 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: GM Comp. Plan Designation: LI Context-Based Design Criteria: Not Applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes; 340 Portage zoned RM-30 (formerly Fry’s Electronics Site) is located across the street Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action 3 Packet Pg. 56 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: 14PLN-00366; Minor Architectural Review of Sign Project Description The proposed building would constitute a total of 7,861 square feet of gross floor area. A building tenant has not been selected at this time, but the applicant has indicated that the space would likely be occupied by an office tenant – hence the parking ratio of 1 space for every 250 square feet. The building would consist of two stories and would be 29 feet and eight inches in height to the top of the roof and 32 feet and six inches to the top of the mechanical screen on the roof. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested: x Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Development Services Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment D. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The subject site is surrounded by office, retail, auto service, and public utility buildings, as well as the Matadero Creek channel along the north and east boundaries of the property. The City of Palo Alto’s substation is located directly south of the site. The proposed landscaping would be installed along the Park Boulevard frontage and north side property line of the site. The intent is a visually cohesive landscape with the area, using native California Sycamore trees and several native species to frame the streetscape. Designated trees currently occupying space along the front of the property would be removed to accommodate the new building and site improvements; the tree replacement proposal is discussed below. The placement and massing of the building is representative of the Park Boulevard context of one to two-story buildings with a more industrial appearance. The building follows an L-shaped 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 3 Packet Pg. 57 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 plan, with the longest façade facing Park Boulevard and the southern property line. The placement of the building in the South, Southeast corner is intentionally designed to block the substation from view from the tenants and draw more attention toward the proposed landscape and ground floor elements of the building. Exterior cladding materials would consist of painted cement plaster, exposed structural steel, painted metal sheet fascia, and a wood slat cladding shade structure. Large windows and the exposed metal beams would cut across the building’s façade to help reduce the vertical scale of the building. The mixture of materials presents a distinctive style that is appropriate for the setting and vicinity. While the selection of architectural materials distinguishes the proposed building from the varying styles of the surrounding buildings, the proposed building would be compatible with its surroundings. The use of grey along the entire building creates a muted color scheme that could use more refinement along the front-southern, two-story wall behind the transformer enclosure. Staff circulated the project plans to the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) for feedback on the design because the site is next to the Matadero Creek channel. In focusing on the potential impacts to the creek wall, SCVWD staff provided direction and requirements to the applicant. These requirements address the need for the proposed trees to have root barriers on the sides facing the creek. Additionally, SCVWD staff recommends a certain support wall depth for the parking lift. SCVWD staff provided suggested conditions for project approval requiring the applicant to request SCVWD permits. The plans must be formally reviewed by the SCVWD Geotechnical and Structural Engineering team to confirm there would not be impacts to the District’s creek wall. Landscape Plan/Tree Replacement The applicant proposes to remove three Designated Trees and proposes 20 replacement trees on the project site. In addition to the replacement trees, a majority of the proposed native plants are low-water intensity species. As noted on sheets T.03, the proposed landscaping plan will provide: x more than 50% shade coverage over the parking lot within the next 15 years, and x over 6,000 square feet of new canopy coverage. The project includes a five-foot wide landscape buffer next to the parking lift. In accordance with Code Section 18.54.040(a), a landscape buffer is required for unenclosed parking facilities, but does not apply to an enclosed parking lift system. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 3 Packet Pg. 58 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires designs to be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Light Industrial, which allows for wholesale and storage warehouses and the manufacturing, processing, repairing and packaging of goods. While not entirely consistent with the uses demarcated in the Comprehensive Plan, the proposed land uses are consistent with allowable uses in the zone district. Additionally, the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan recognizes Park Boulevard as a mixed-use sector; this project would have office/R&D uses that would be consistent with the surrounding uses. The proposed 7,861 square foot office building would comply with the intended commercial office uses noted in Comprehensive Plan. Based on staff’s analysis, the project appears to be consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan as well. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is shown in Attachment D. NVCAP The City Council initiated the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) process in November 2017. The NVCAP is a direct outcome of the Comprehensive Plan Update Program L4.10.1. The purpose of the NVCAP is to capture the City’s vision for this neighborhood into a regulatory document that will guide future development and will include land use policies, development standards, and design guidelines. The City Council appointed a fourteen member Working Group to assist staff to draft the plan. The NVCAP project area is approximately 60-acre site roughly bounded by Page Mill Road, El Camino Real, Lambert Avenue, and the Caltrain tracks. The existing plan area has a mix of small and large businesses and single-family residences. The site represents a rare opportunity within the city to plan proactively for a transit-oriented, mixed-use neighborhood. The project area includes one of the largest housing opportunity sites in Palo Alto, at 340 Portage Avenue (previously occupied by Fry’s Electronics). Three draft plan alternatives have been proposed for the plan area based on input community input, Working Group goals and aspirations for the area and staff input. Each of the draft alternatives address topics such as future housing and office space requirement and location, maximum building heights, preferred locations of taller buildings, housing density, building typologies, open space, site connectivity and traffic improvements etc. in varying ranges with Alternative 1 with least development potential or change to Alternative 3 proposing the maximum development. These three alternatives remain under development. At present, the staff alternative recommends this area along Park Boulevard remain zoned for GM uses, to serve as a buffer for future residences from the adjacent railroad noise. The discussion with the Working Group on proposed draft alternatives have been completed in November 2020. Next staff plans to present these draft alternatives to the Planning and 3 Packet Pg. 59 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 Transportation Commission (PTC) on December 9th, 2020. The PTC will discuss the alternatives and forward their recommendation to the City Council. Staff will then bring the alternatives, including the PTC recommendation, to the City Council for selection of the preferred alternative. After the City Council selects a preferred alternative and provides direction for refinement of the alternative, the City will direct the consultant team to undertake further study and refinement of the preferred alternative. Staff will return to the City Council for review of the revised alternative and with the additional data and information. After consideration by the City Council and affirmation of or direction to further refine the preferred alternative, the environmental review process of the preferred alternative will begin along with development of the final plan documents—including design standards. The environmental review and draft plan documents will return for City Council consideration. Once adopted, the plan will be finalized. Zoning Compliance3 Staff performed a detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards, reflected in the summary table, Attachment C. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Annual Office Limit Section 18.40.210 limits office development to areas within the City to a total of 50,000 square feet when projects are located within the Downtown, California Avenue, and El Camino Real areas. As this area is located within the California Avenue area, it would be subject to the 50,000 square foot limit – however, the City does not currently have projects approved in Fiscal Year 2020-2021. As this may be the first office project approved in these areas, it will be the only one contributing to the limit, which will leave 42,139 square feet of office to be developed. This is not considering the fact that whatever square footage that is left over from the previous year is allowed to be carried over. FY 19-20 saw only 7,214 sf of office development within these areas leaving a remainder of 42,786 sf carried over to FY 20-21. The total remaining annual office limit space is 84,925sf. This project is well below the threshold for needing Council approval identified in 18.40.210. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The site plan includes an enlarged pedestrian frontage along the west edge of the property which faces Park Boulevard compared to existing conditions. This will help to establish a greater pedestrian aspect to the building and create the opportunity for a more active streetscape. As the site is roughly within a half-mile distance to the California Avenue Caltrain station, this provides a greater opportunity for multi-modal forms of transit to and from the site. Additionally, the project includes four long-term bicycle parking spaces, located at the southeastern edge of the building near the parking garage. The number of short term and long- 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3 Packet Pg. 60 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 8 term spaces proposed on the site exceeds the code requirement. The long-term spaces have been suitably placed for protection of the bicycles as they are out of the way and less visible. The plans include the required 31 vehicle parking stalls, including 21 stalls located in the above/below ground parking lift garage. At-grade surface parking would be located along the north and west sides of the property, which would be located to the side the building when facing it. The proposed landscaping and use of a parking lift should help to soften the appearance of a vehicle centric facility. The surface parking and drive aisles would be shared with trees, which at maturity would provide over 50% shade cover. Hazards / Contaminated Groundwater CEQA does not require analysis of impacts of the environment on the project site; therefore, impacts on future tenants are evaluated as part of the planning entitlement process. Specifically, for any project within the plume, applicants are required to coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to prepare and obtain approval of a remediation plan. This plan ensures that the project will meet the state screening level requirements for any contaminants found on the site. The environmental documents under Attachment F discusses the potential for impacts from hazardous material handling and disposal of impacted groundwater/soil. The site is not on the Cortese list but analysis of the soil at the site has found that there may be volatile organic compounds (VOCs) found in the soil that could affect workers during construction. This was a result of the site being used as an automobile repair service over the years. Although any VOCs released during construction activities dissipate quickly and would not affect the surrounding environment, construction workers participating in active earthmoving work could come into contact with VOCs. Involvement by the Regional Water Quality Control Board is required, given the COE plume and below grade construction. The applicant will need to prepare and submit to the PDS Director and RWQCB staff a site management plan and health safety plan before grading activity, to address the VOCs. The construction contractor and their employees are required to comply with OSHA standards during construction; compliance with existing regulation, e.g. the use of personal protective equipment, would ensure that workers are protected during construction. The oversight of ongoing operation and maintenance includes activities such as continued groundwater/soil extraction and treatment, groundwater/soil monitoring and reporting. Consistency with Application Findings Staff has prepared a detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with the Findings for approval. The draft findings, tailored to the project, are provided in Attachment D. The proposed project appears to meet all applicable findings for Architectural Review approval. Environmental Review The subject project was assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s 3 Packet Pg. 61 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 9 environmental regulations. As noted earlier in this report, the City’s consultant, M-Group evaluated the existing building and found it ineligible for the CRHR. A Categorical Exemption (Attachment F) was prepared pursuant to CEQA. The Categorical Exemption is available for review on the project webpage at https://bit.ly/2TsMHu0. Overall, the City’s consultant found the project would not cause significant impacts to the environment and qualified as a Class 3 (New Small Structures) and 32 (In-Fill Development Projects) Exemption. 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 November 20, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on November 19, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Garrett Sauls, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, Planning Manager (650) 329-2471 (650) 329-2575 Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: x Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) x Attachment B: Applicant's Project Description (PDF) x Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) x Attachment D: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX) x Attachment E: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX) x Attachment F: Project Plans and Environmental Review (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 62 18 188 3200 3201 28 320 3290 300 280 268 270 32613251 220 230 336 340 370 380 3396 230 250 240 264 260 271 261 251 231 221 211 201 210 220 230 241 231 221 3300211 291 290 270 271 260 281 255 250 3371336333573341 3350 3346 2799 149 129 2780 2766 3101 210295 285 245 265 275 891 2901 3040 3045 3197 2725- 2741 2745- 2757 2773- 2781 179 178 2822 2832 2840 2858 130 120 110 2800 2876 2886 2896 2906 2914 2920 2891 2817 2829 2811 2845 288828762860 2875 2895 2861 2844 2889 3291 3241 2821- 2825 2811- 2815 2831- 2835 2901- 2907 2893- 2899 2877- 2885 2871 2865 2857- 28632841- 2845 101-107 109-115 3410 231 3437 3455 3419 34113401 33953389 2931 2905 2930291629042898 2932- 2940 183 181 3381 100 102 104 106 2959- 2967 29132901 2933-2939 3013- 3019 3031 30 2 2746 180 190 28 27912 272127192717 262691 2693 2695 2701 2705 2707 2709 2711 2715 2830 2893 28752 2917 3225 3333 3180 360 200 3390 3250 3335 2867 2869 2777 252 3360 3335 2858 2999 3348 290 292 278 Fry's Electronics Al m ChestnutAvenue Ash Park B o ulev ard E m e rso n S treet Alm a Street ElDorad oAvenue This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Water Feature Centerline (SD) 3241 Park Blvd (Project Site) 0' 200' 32 4 1 P a r k B l v d Lo c a t i o n M a p CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto RRivera, 2020-11-19 10:49:12 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 3.a Packet Pg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b Packet Pg. 64 '0-5);;16/1;)41/6-,<7+:-)<-)6)+<1>-;<:--<-,/-)6,8:7>1,-;+:--616/7.<0-;=*;<)<176;1<-'0- ;=*;<)<176-,/-1;57;<4A+47;-,?1<06778-616/;7:7>-:0)6/?0-:-);<0-7<0-:-,/-;):-.=44A/4)B-, .477:<7+-1416/?1<0,--87>-:0)6/;)6,;=6;0),16/;+:--6; '0-8:15):A*=14,16/5)<-:1)4;-@87;-,<78=*41+>1-?):-;577<0<:7?-4-,16<-/:)44A+747:-,+-5-6< 84);<-:,):38)16<-,5-<)4?7:316+4=,16/;<:=+<=:)4;<--4*=14,16/<:15;<--484)<-;+:--6;)6,;<--4<:-441; ;<:=+<=:-):3.161;0-,)4=516=5/4)B16/.:)5-;?1<001/08-:.7:5)6+-+4-):/4);;8:7<-+<-,.:75<0- ;=6*A-@<-:17:?7>-6.)*:1+;74):;0),-;+7584-<-<0-?16,7?+7587;1<176?77,7:?77,413-;7..1< ;0-)<0-;<0-=6,-:;1,-7.<0-:77.8:72-+<176;*:16/16/)?):5<0<7<0-*=14,16/47?*7):,.7:5-, +76+:-<-4)6,;+)8-?)44,-.16-;<0--,/-7.<0-.:76<8)<17;8)+- '0-<7<)4.477:):-)1; &+76;1,-:)*4A4-;;<0)6<0-8:->17=;8:787;)47. &)6,4-;;<0)6 <0-8-:51<<-,.477:):-)7. &'0-8:787;-,*=14,16/1; DC<)44<7<0-<787.<0-:77.;+:--6 )6,+76.7:5;<7<0-0-1/0<4151<7. D C $):316/.7:<0-8:72-+<1;8:7>1,-,)</:),-)6,168=BB4-:41.<;)++-;;-,.:75$):34>,*A);16/4-<?7 ?)A,:1>-?)A<7<)47. ;8)+-;):-:-9=1:-,)6,8:7>1,-,.7:<0-8:72-+< ;8)+-;):-*-16/ 8:7>1,-,168=BB4-:41.<;)476/<0-67:<0-);<-:6;1,-7.<0-8:78-:<A)6,?1<016<0-6-?<?7;<7:A),,1<176 )<<0-/:7=6,.477: 76/<-:5*1+A+4-8):316/1;8:7>1,-,)<<0-:-):67:<0-);<-:6+7:6-:7.<0-;1<-#6-;07:<<-:5*1+A+4- 8):316/;8)+-1;8:7>1,-,)<<0-8:15):A;1,-?)43-6<:A<7<0-;1<-.:75$):34>, +7>-:-,<:);0-6+47;=:-1;8:787;-,)<<0-67:<0?-;<-:6;1,-7.<0-;1<-(0--4-,+):<;)6,+76<)16-:; 0-:-16+)6*-57>-,.7:+76>-61-6<81+3=876+744-+<176,)A;*A<0-*=14,16/78-:)<176;8-:;766-41. 6-+-;;):A 8),57=6<-,-4-+<:1+)4<:)6;.7:5-:1;:-9=1:-,*A$)474<7=<141<1-;.7:<0-8:72-+<'0-<:)6;.7:5-:1; 8:787;-,)<<0-.:76<A):,7.<0-*=14,16/*-<?--6);+:--6-,/):,-6)6,<0--@1;<16/?)44.-6+-)<<0- ),2)+-6<$;=*;<)<1768:78-:<A:-57>)*4-87:<1767.5-<)4;+:--61;8:787;-,):7=6,<0- <:)6;.7:5-:;7);<7:-6,-:<0-<:)6;.7:5-:158-:+-8<1*4-.:75<0-;<:--<#<0-:=<141<1-;-6<-: =6,-:/:7=6,.:75<0-:-57<-;7=<0?-;<-:6+7:6-:7.<0-;1<-);;7+1)<-,)*7>-/:7=6,-9=185-6<1; ;+:--6-,*A6-?84)6<16/; 6)++7:,)6+-?1<0<0-+1<AD;:--6=14,16/#:,16)6+-<0-*=14,16/?144;)<1;.A:-9=1:-5-6<;.7:)4 :--6"76%-;1,-6<1)4'1-: (-4773.7:?):,<7<0-%0-):16/;7<0)<?-+)68:7+--,?1<0<0-,->-4785-6<7.<01;8:72-+< $4-);-+)445-)< @ 1.A7=0)>-)6A9=-;<176; &16+-:-4A -6 )A-; $:16+18)4 ++!:)6=6616/0)5 3.b Packet Pg. 65 ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3241 Park Boulevard, 20PLN-00032 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.20 (GM DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area 1 acre 20,442 square feet 20,442 square feet Minimum Setbacks (1) 11 24 Min. yard for site lines abutting or opposite residential districts 10 feet N/A as property is not abutting residential district N/A as property is not abutting residential district Special Setback N/A on Park Boulevard N/A on Park Boulevard N/A on Park Boulevard Max. Site Coverage none 16% (3,358 sf) 33% (6,808 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 50% (10,221 sf) 22% (4,501 sf) 38% (7,861 sf) Max. Building Height 50 ft or 35 ft when located within 150 ft of residential zone (5) 21’-5” 32’-6” Daylight Plane for site lines having any part abutting one or more residential districts. Initial Height 10 feet then sloped at 1:2 N/A as site does not abut residential district N/A as site does not abut residential district Employee Showers 0-9,999 sf (0 showers) 0 0 (1) For any property designated GM and fronting on East Bayshore Road a minimum setback of 20 feet along that frontage is established. (5) Residential zones include R-1, R-2, RE, RMD, RM-15, RM-30, RM-40 and residential Planned Community (PC) zones. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Research & Development uses Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1/250 sf of gross floor area for a total of 31 parking spaces 31 spaces 31 spaces Bicycle Parking 1/2,500 sf (80% long term and 20% short term) equals 3 spaces 0 spaces 5 spaces total (4 long term, 1 short term) Loading Space 0 loading spaces for 0sf to 9,999 sf 0 0 3.c Packet Pg. 66 ATTACHMENT D ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 3241 Park Boulevard 20PLN-00032 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The project is in conformance with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: x Policy L-2.9: Facilitate reuse of existing buildings. The proposed building seeks to reuse roughly 2,000+ square feet of the existing building. The remainder of the project will include additions to the site. By reusing a portion of the existing building, the project seeks to reduce the total waste created by the project. This helps to reduce the overall environmental impact of the project in terms of waste materials removed from the site and emissions produced for the work needed to be done to construct the project. x Policy L-9.11.2: Encourage the use of compact and well-designed utility elements, such as transformers, switching devices, backflow preventers and telecommunications infrastructure. Place these elements in locations that will minimize their visual intrusion. The project includes the placement of a transformer along the front-right side of the property; however it is screened with a metal panel fence. This design choice serves a dual purpose of having the transformer located close to the street for Utilities to access while hiding the structure from view. The use of the protective bollards detracts slightly from the screening intent but painting the bollards the same color as the metal panel will help to provide the necessary protection for the facility while maintain the screening measures. Additionally, the backflow preventer, fire department connection (FDC), and valve for sprinklers located along the front-left side of the property will be screened from view using a landscape hedge. This landscaping will be grown to three feet tall to screen the equipment from view so that it does not detract from the visual aesthetics of the site. x Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The building’s architectural design is well composed and creative. While the site planning establishes a parallel orientation to the street which could exaggerate the scale of the building 3.d Packet Pg. 67 to the street, this is not felt by the design as the deep recesses and variation to the building’s material frontage break this massing up resulting in a more pedestrian oriented design. It encourages a pedestrian environment along Park Boulevard. The design of the building serves to shield the City of Palo Alto’s electric substation and re-focuses attention toward the Matadero Creek and proposed landscape elements of the site. This design would help to screen views of the substation for occupants and visitors alike that would otherwise detract visually from the new building and landscaping. Provided these design mitigations, staff believes the site is appropriately screened from the abutting substation and will be compatible with the adjacent buildings. x Policy T-1: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use The design of the building has a strong connection to the pedestrian environment. Its location in close proximity to the California Avenue Caltrain station provides great opportunity for use of multi-modal forms of transportation to get to the site. The design of the building emphasizes the pedestrian scale and pedestrian activity through the combination of uses for the building and streetscape elements. x Goal B-1: A thriving business environment that is compatible with Palo Alto’s residential character and natural environment. The project proposes to redevelop the site with a new building and would be compatible with the surrounding natural environment. The design of the building maintains a modern and industrial style that is similar to surrounding buildings. The design of the landscaping and front entrance to the building establishes a stronger ‘welcoming feeling’ at first glance. This design aesthetic softens the visual impact that a standard commercial building may have in this context. The project has been evaluated for consistency with the Zoning Code, and the project meets all applicable development standards. Park Boulevard does not have a coordinated area plan or specific design guidelines, however, the proposed use would be compatible with the policies of the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan once adopted. 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 consistent with Finding #2 because: 3.d Packet Pg. 68 The design of the project is well ordered and provides a coherent plan that is readily understood in the surrounding context. The site planning has been arranged to provide for a 24 foot setback along the Park Boulevard frontage, with existing landscaping providing a unifying design element. The design creates an internal sense of order by providing a well-landscaped public realm along the Park Boulevard frontage with the introduction of the sidewalk, while integrating the outdoor areas at the ground level. This integration provides a desirable environment for cyclists and pedestrians that would be crossing the site, as well as building occupants and visitors. Natural features are appropriately integrated with the project and the proposed landscaping along the Park Boulevard frontage serving as important elements that define the streetscape. The scale, mass and character of the building is appropriate for the Park Boulevard context, which is surrounded by other one to two-story office industrial buildings. Finding #2.c. is not applicable to the site, as the Municipal Code does not provide context-based design criteria in the GM zoning district. 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 is consistent with Finding #3 because: The modern design of the building utilizes a variety of complimentary building materials, textures and colors that are appropriate to the setting and context of other buildings along Park Boulevard. The use of exposed metal and smooth concrete plaster breaks up the taller portions of the building and provides sense of depth that enhances the appearance of the building. These features also provide a fitting contrast in texture and color. Overall, the selection and use of materials yields a building of high aesthetic quality, which would be further enhanced through the proposed landscaping. In addition to introducing a high-quality structure, the project would enhance the appearance of the surrounding area by relegating much of the parking to a rear placed garage lift and locating the small surface lot around proposed landscaping. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The design is appropriate to the function of the project in that the placement of the two-story building emphasizes proposed open space along the Park Boulevard frontage while relegating parking improvements to the rear of the site. The project presents a functional and accessible design for multiple modes of travel due to its proximity to a Caltrain station. Circulation from the street to the site would be improved by reducing the number of drive aisle cuts along Park 3.d Packet Pg. 69 Boulevard, and providing a single, logical location for the main vehicle entrance. Pedestrian access to the building entrances is significantly enhanced by the sidewalk improvements that are included with the project. Adequate vehicle and accessible parking are located conveniently in the surface lot and in the parking lift garage. The amount and arrangement of open space is appropriate to the design and the function of the structures due to the presence of City’s adjacent substation. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained, and is of a variety that would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance. The landscape plan highlights the surrounding area’s use shade trees along Park Boulevard, which provide a visual buffer between the street and the proposed building. The landscaping plan for the Park Boulevard street frontage removes the existing vegetation and supplements the tree canopy with additional plantings, including drought- tolerant native groundcovers. As the site is in a developed portion of the City, it is not considered prime habitat. However, the project would maintain and enhance the main open space areas on the site with the landscaping proposed, which would be the most likely location to support desirable habitat. 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 is consistent with Finding #6 because: In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. A summary of the project’s compliance is on sheet GB-1 of the plans. The project has incorporated many elements that indicate a sustainability focus. The building’s use of glass along its north and westward facing side provides natural light during the early morning hours during much of the year. The applicant has supplied a preliminary Cal Green Checklist to ensure conformance with applicable requirements regarding green building techniques. The site planning relegates vehicle parking to the rear of the site and proposes to locate most of the required parking spaces in a parking lift structure. This design element, in addition to the proposed parking lot tree shading, reduces the “heat island effect” associated with surface parking. New groundcover plantings would consist of a variety of low water use and drought tolerant species. 3.d Packet Pg. 70 ATTACHMENT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 3241 Park Boulevard 20PLN-00032 ___________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, “3241 Park Boulevard” dated September 30, 2020 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet all conditions of the departments listed in this letter. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. Project plans submitted for Building permits shall incorporate the following changes: a. Update sheet A0.7 under “LOT COVERAGE” to reflect the net lot area as 20,442 square feet and adjust the corresponding information in the box to be consistent. 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. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE. All landscape material shall be well maintained and replaced if the plant material dies or if the irrigation equipment fails. Planters shall not drain onto sidewalk, ground, or public right of ways. 6. BIRD FRIENDLY BUILDING DESIGN. The project shall incorporate bird-safe glazing treatment that may include fritting, netting, permanent stencils, frosted glass, exterior screens, and physical grids placed on the exterior of glazing or UV patterns visible to birds. In some cases, bird-friendly treatment is invisible to humans. Vertical elements of the window patterns should be at least 1/4- inch-wide at a minimum spacing of 4 inches or have horizontal elements at least 1/8 inch wide at a maximum spacing of 2 inches. The applicant should reference the San Francisco Guidelines for Bird- Safe Buildings: http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=2506. 7. VAPOR INTRUSION PREVENTION. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit for City of Palo Alto review the design of engineering controls, and sufficient information about construction and operation parameters as are determined by City and/or County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health, Regional Water Quality Control Board, or the State of California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control to be needed to 3.e Packet Pg. 71 assure that the future occupants would not be impacted by current or future soil vapor intrusion. Common engineering controls that could be installed beneath the proposed structures and within the parking lift to prevent soil vapor intrusion into the structures include soil vapor barriers placed beneath the proposed structure and installation of an exhaust ventilation system in the parking garage, engineered to ventilate VOCs in addition to vehicle exhaust. The engineering controls shall be routinely inspected per equipment specifications to ensure proper functioning and that the system components have not degraded. The system shall include a monitoring device or alarm to alert the facility manager if the system fails. 8. ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE: Development Impact Fees, currently estimated in the amount of $247,658.92, per PAMC 16.58, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 9. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90- day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 10. 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)) 11. LIGHTING. Between the hours of 10:00pm-6:00am (normal cessation of business hours), lighting within the building or on the property should be reduced to its minimum necessary to facilitate employee security in order to minimize light glare at night. a. All lighting shall be directed away from any riparian areas. 12. NUISANCES AND NOISE. The outdoor space shall not be operated in a manner to produce excessive noise, odors, lighting or other nuisances from any sources. Noise levels emanating from the outdoor space shall not exceed the maximum level established in the PAMC Chapter 9.10. Amplified sound equipment is not included in this approval, and any such equipment proposed for this site shall be submitted for review by the Planning Department. 3.e Packet Pg. 72 13. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 14. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Garrett Sauls at Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 15. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property that are broken, badly cracked, displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter strip. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496- 6929 to arrange a site visit so the inspector can determine the extent of replacement work. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work or include a note that Public Works’ inspector has determined no work is required. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 16. EXCAVATION & GRADING PERMIT: The site plan must include an earthworks table showing cut and fill volumes. If the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. Applicant shall prepare and submit an excavation and grading permit to Public Works separately from the building permit set and prior to building permit issuance. The permit application and instructions are available at the Development Center and on our website. https://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits/default.asp#ExcavationandGrading 17. Excavation may require dewatering during construction. Temporary construction-related groundwater dewatering may be conducted using 1) groundwater exclusionary techniques (e.g., secant or cut-off walls), or 2) controlled groundwater pumping, also known as drawdown well dewatering. The City’s Public Works Department does not allow open pit dewatering of groundwater during construction. If the proposed project will encounter groundwater, the applicant must provide all required dewatering submittals for Public Works review and approval prior to Excavation & Grading Permit issuance. Public Works has dewatering submittal requirements and guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64867. 3.e Packet Pg. 73 18. 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 19. PUBLIC WORKS STANDARD CONDITIONS: The City’s full-sized “Public Works Engineering Services Standard Conditions” sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available on the Public Works website: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=67175.06&BlobID=66261 20. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2718 21. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to grading or building permit issuance. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. 22. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. Here is a link to Public Works’ Logistics Plan Preparation Guidelines: http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2719 23. STORM WATER HYDRAULICS AND HYDROLOGY: Plans provided do not show if the existing site drainage has a direct discharge into the existing system. Provide an analysis that compares the existing and proposed site runoff from the project site. Runoff shall be based on City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards for 10 year storm event with HGL’s 0.5 foot below inlet grates elevations and 100-year storm with HGL not exceeding the street right-of-way. As described on the City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards. Please provide the tabulated calculations directly on the conceptual grading and drainage plan. This project may be required to replace and upsize the existing storm drain system to handle the added flows and/or depending on the current pipe condition. The IDF tables and Precipitation Map for Palo Alto is available County of Santa Clara County Drainage Manual dated October 2007. The proposed project shall not increase runoff to the public storm drain system. 24. Plans for proposed development show the entire site’s storm water runoff directed into the City’s storm system. Applicant will be required to provide Public Works Storm Drain Division a video of the storm drain line from the single point of connection to the next downstream manhole. If any of that storm drain main line needs to be repaired or replaced, this project must complete that work as part of its offsite improvements. 3.e Packet Pg. 74 25. 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. 26. STREET LIGHT: The project is required to replace any street lights along its frontage to match Public Works Special Street Lighting Style Placement Guide. 27. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’ arborist at 650-496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’ arborist (650-496-5953). 28. SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the site plan that says, “The contractor using the city sidewalk to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians using the sidewalk. Pedestrian protection must be provided per the 2007 California Building Code Chapter 33 requirements. If the height of construction is 8 feet or less, the contractor must place construction railings sufficient to direct pedestrians around construction areas. If the height of construction is more than 8 feet, the contractor must obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works at the Development Center in order to provide a barrier and covered walkway or to close the sidewalk.” BUILDING DIVISION 29. Plans shall comply with the 2019 CA Building Standard Codes as amended by the City. 30. Please obtain a J # from BAAQMD for the proposed demo shown. 31. Submit complete MEP, structural, T24, & Green Building Plans. 32. Green Building - complete GB1 Tier 2 – for each required (YES column) green measure; please explain how each item is implemented for this project. 33. Submit structural calculations in addition to the building - rooftop mechanical unit, cloud ceiling, soffits, metal fence, glazed interior partition walls, switchgear, new trash enclosure, etc. 34. Submit a soil report per current codes. 35. Amend plans and show assumed property line between buildings on the same lot. CBC section 503.1.2. 36. Submit electrical engineering plans – include specifications as part of plans for generator, transformers, switchgear, etc. 3.e Packet Pg. 75 37. Submit plumbing fixture count calculation to confirm the bathroom fixture counts provided per CPC 422 prior to occupancy. Urinal is required per CPC T422 even meeting exception 3 per section 422.2, CPC. 38. Proposed floor plan shows mixed use/occupancy subjected to Section 508, CBC. If fire-rated occupancy wall is required please include wall details and UL assembly as part of plans. 39. Stair 2 exit discharge shall comply with CBC section 1028. 40. Submit an exiting plan showing room-to-room exiting system. Intervening room shall include the accumulative exiting loads until the exit/exit discharge is reached with proper sizing of doors, stairways, hallways, corridors, etc. CBC Chapter 10. 41. Contact Building Department for complete submittal requirements and technical code questions. 42. Wall and wall opening at property line shall be protected and fire-rated as required by Chapter 6 and 7, CBC. Parapet is required unless meeting the exceptions – illustrate at building permit. RECYCLING 43. PAMC 5.20.108 Internal Waste Stations. Internal waste stations are required for common areas such as conference rooms, coffee stations, fitness room, laundry room, office, restroom, club house, community room, and front entrances. The three waste station containers shall be black for landfill waste, blue for recycling, and green for compostable. The green compostable container, if bags are used, shall use green compostable bags. The waste station containers must also have color coded signs. If site uses paper towels in the restrooms there must be a green compost container within the restroom to collect paper towels. A small garbage container may be added for personal hygiene waste or diapers. To determine the number of waste station locations or obtain signage please contact GreenWaste of Palo Alto (650) 493-4894 or email pacustomerservice@greenwste.com. 44. PAMC 5.20.108 External Waste Stations. External waste stations are required for common areas such as pool, mailboxes, courtyard, playground area, and front entrances. If the site choses to have external refuse containers they will need to be installed at convenient and appropriately selected locations. The three waste station containers shall be black for landfill waste, blue for recycling, and green for compostable. The green compostable container, if bags are used, shall use green compostable bags. Waste station containers must also have color coded signs. To determine the number of waste station locations or obtain signage please contact GreenWaste of Palo Alto (650) 493-4894 or email pacustomerservice@greenwste.com. 3.e Packet Pg. 76 URBAN FORESTRY 45. WATER USAGE AND MWELO REQUIREMENTS- In accordance with California state ordinance, applicants are required to provide information pertaining to estimated total water usage (ETWU) and maximum allowed water usage (MAWA) on existing and new development projects. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56074. Based on square footage of the landscaped area, applicant’s whose project triggers the water efficient landscape ordinance are to follow the efficient landscape requirements by determining the ETWU and MAWA of their site. For plant factor information and calculations go to: https://ucanr.edu/sites/WUCOLS/Plant_Search/. This information is to be included in the plan set prior to building permit approval. 46. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. 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. 47. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 48. 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 2.202.30. 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. 49. 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. 50. 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. 3.e Packet Pg. 77 51. 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. 52. 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. 53. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on relevant plan sheets: a. SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full-sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban Forestry/Contractor is mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: Insp. #1-7 applies) b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor, shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc.) and added to the sheet index. c. Plans to show protective tree fencing. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show the correct configuration of Type I, Type II or Type III fencing around each Regulated Tree, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T-1; City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans); or by using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING 54. Applicant shall apply to retire the existing easement and propose the new easement at the same time. The new easement is for the transformer and the primary pull box (should it be located on site). The new easement shall be a minimum of 10’x10’ depending on the required size of transformer. Typical building this size shall be 300-500kVA which requires pad size of 74”x88”. This easement is required to be final and signed prior to Utilities releasing the design for construction. Applicant shall coordinate with CPAU to remove the transformer and its live high voltage underground cables. 55. Existing pull box 3467 shall be relocated prior to the shoring wall installation. 3.e Packet Pg. 78 56. The proposed building electric meter shall be accessible through not more than one door to the outside. 57. Applicant shall put all the applicable standard on the drawing set. All current CPAU Electric standards can be found here: www.CityofPaloAlto.org/ElectricServiceRequirements 58. To avoid digging up the sidewalk in the future, Utilities recommends the installation of 2-24”x36” boxes on the sidewalk, one at each side of the property. Also install 2-4” conduits between these boxes and connect them to the existing CPAU’s dark fiber. 59. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. 60. 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. 61. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 62. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. 63. 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. 64. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the California Electric Code requirements and City standards. 65. If the customer’s total load exceeds 2500 kVA, service shall be provided at the primary voltage of 12,470 volts and the customer shall provide the high voltage switchgear and transformers. 66. For primary services, the standard service protection is a padmount fault interrupter owned and maintained by the City, installed at the customer’s expense. The customer must provide and install the pad and associated substructure required for the fault interrupter. 67. 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. 68. 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. 3.e Packet Pg. 79 69. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property for City use. 70. 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. 71. 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. 72. 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. 73. 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. 74. 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. 75. 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. 76. 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. 77. 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. 78. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. 79. For services larger than 1600 amps, a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility’s padmount transformer and the customer’s main switchgear may be required. See City of Palo Alto Utilities Standard Drawing SR-XF-E-1020. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Division for review and approval. 3.e Packet Pg. 80 80. 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. 81. 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. 82. 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. 83. Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and greater) and associated hardware must be submitted for review and approval prior to installing the switchgear to: Henry Nguyen, P.E. Senior Electric Engineer Utilities Engineering (Electrical) 1007 Elwell Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 84. For 400A switchboards only, catalog cut sheets may be substituted in place of factory drawings. 85. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. 86. 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. 87. 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. WATER, GAS, WASTEWATER 88. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet per unit for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m. and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The 3.e Packet Pg. 81 applicant shall provide the new total loads 89. 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. 90. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas. 91. The applicant shall be responsible for upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 92. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans per WGW Standards. 93. 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. Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans per WGW Standards. 94. 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. 95. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service=and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 96. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 97. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 2’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed 3.e Packet Pg. 82 within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 98. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto current utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 99. The underground parking garage adjacent to Matadero Creek, as shown on Sheet A5.2, Detail 2, must be designed such that the bottom of excavation and bottom of the structural concrete slab is at elevation 18.81 feet (NAVD88 datum), not elevation 20.5 feet. 100.Applicant must apply for and obtain a Valley Water encroachment permit prior to issuance of grading and building permits for excavation and construction within Valley Water right of way for the underground parking structures and buildings. 101.Prior to obtaining grading and building permits, applicant must obtain Valley Water written approval for construction of buildings within 20 feet of Valley Water right of way to demonstrate buildings foundations are designed and constructed in accordance with geotechnical and structural report recommendations for the protection of the Matadero Creek concrete u-frame channel. 102.Applicant plans must include property line markers along the entire mutual property line with Valley Water prior to issuance of building permits. PUBLIC ART 103.The project is subject to the public art in private development ordinance requiring that 1% of the estimated construction valuation is used to either commission public art on site or pay the equivalent contribution to the public art fund, whichever is greater. 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. This actual amount to be paid shall be determined during building permit submittal and be paid prior to building permit issuance. FIRE 104.Install a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler, NFPA 24 underground fire service, NFPA 72 fire alarm, two-way call box system and an emergency responder radio system. 105.Upgrade public fire hydrant located on Park Blvd adjacent to Matadero Creek to a Clow model 76. 106.Apply for a closure permit with the Palo Alto Fire Department Hazardous Material Division. 107.Elevator car to be sized for a gurney and two attending medical personnel. 3.e Packet Pg. 83 Project Plans During Shelter-in-Place, project plans are only available online. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “3241 Park Boulevard” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4965&TargetID=319 3.f Packet Pg. 84 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 11824) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 12/3/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Ex-parte Communications: Study Session Title: Study Session on Ex-parte Communications Between Architectural Review Board Members and Applicants, Developers and Other Persons (Continued from November 19th) From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Discuss Board policies regarding ex-parte communications Background and Discussion The ARB Chair recently requested a study session to discuss ex parte communications and their effect on communicating ARB’s feedback to applicants, developers and architects. Staff has provided legal boundaries governing ex-parte communications. However, the ARB may adopt more stringent local rules in its procedural rules or bylaws. Ex parte is a Latin phrase that literally means “from one party”. Generally, an ex-parte communication is: x any material or substantive oral or written communication with a decision maker that is relevant to the merits of adjudicatory or quasi-judicial decision-making matters, and x communication which takes place outside of a noticed proceeding that is open to all parties to the matter. The ARB’s current practice is that individual board members are open to meeting with applicants and neighbors before the first public hearing. In this way, ARB members can better understand the proposed project before deliberations begin. The legal requirements of due process simply require that any member who has obtained information about the project in an ex-parte manner disclose that information at the start of the public hearing. That way, the information is available to all parties and board members. Some of the City’s board and commission members have adopted personal rules against ex-parte communications to simplify 4 Packet Pg. 85 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 the issue; however, this is not legally required, nor is it included in the ARB’s Procedural Rules or Bylaws. After the first public hearing has begun, the ARB’s Procedural Rules are more restrictive. The Procedural Rules state that Board members “will refrain from any contacts pertaining to the item, other than clarifying questions directed to City staff” following closure of the hearing and prior to a final decision. Due process concerns are especially present when a hearing is continued, and the applicant, appellant, or public will not be afforded a subsequent opportunity to speak. In such circumstances, mere disclosure of information acquired ex-parte may not be sufficient, as such information will be introduced into the record without an opportunity for the parties to respond. A different set of issues is implicated when a Board member provides ex-parte feedback to a party but does not receive any information in return. In that situation, the excluded party may argue that unequal access to a Board member is unfair or that the Board member’s ex-parte communication indicates some form of bias. Even if these sorts of objections are unfounded, the Board may wish to discourage such ex-parte communications because they have the potential to confuse the opinions of an individual Board member and those of the Board as a body. The ARB’s By-laws and Procedural Rules can be found on the City’s webpage at http://bit.ly/paloaltoARB and in Attachment A and B. Minutes from the ARB’s previous discussion on ex-parte communications are provided as Attachment C. The procedural rules also require ARB members to track their ex-parte contacts and disclose their occurrence and the substance of the information conveyed. Disclosures should be made in writing or orally as early in the proceeding as possible. ARB1 Liaison & Report Author City Attorney’s Office Jodie Gerhardt, Planning Manager Albert Yang, Assistant City Attorney (650) 329-2575 jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org (650) 329-2171 Albert.Yang@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: x Attachment A: ARB By-laws (PDF) x Attachment B: ARB Procedural Rules (PDF) x Attachment C: November 1, 2018 ARB Excerpt Minutes (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Packet Pg. 86 011415cs01313011Rev.February5,2015 RULES AND REGULATIONS AND BY-LAWS OF THE PALO ALTO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ARTICLE I NAME Section 1.0 The name of this board shall be the PALO ALTO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD (ARB) ARTICLE II Section 2.0 This board shall perform any duties imposed upon it by Ordinances of the City of Palo Alto and by applicable State and Federal law, or as requested by the City Council of the City of Palo Alto. ARTICLE III Officers Section 3.0 The officers of the Board Shall consist of a Chairperson, a Vice Chairperson, and a Secretary who shall be a non-voting member. Section 3.1 The offices of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall be elected from among the appointed members of the Board, and the person so elected shall serve for a term of one year or until a successor is elected. Elections shall be held at the first organizational meeting of the Board in 1973, and at the first meeting in October of each subsequent year. Section 3.2 The Director of Planning and Community Environment of the City of Palo Alto or his/her designated representative shall be the Secretary of the Board. Section 3.3 The duties of the offices of the ARB shall be as follows: Section 3.31 It shall be the duty of the Chairperson to preside over all meeting of the Board, to appoint committees and to serve as an ex-officio member of the committees so appointed, to call special meetings of the Board and to designate the time and place of such meeting, to set the date and time for the public hearing held by the Board, to sign documents and correspondence in the name of the Board, and to represent the Board before the City Council, its commissions and committees, and such other groups and organizations as may be appropriate. The Chairperson may designate the Vice Chair, or in the Vice Chairperson’s absence, another member of the Board to act in his/her stead. Section 3.32 It shall be the duty of the Vice Chairperson to assist the Chairperson and to act in his/her stead during his/her absence. 4.a Packet Pg. 87 011415cs01313012Rev.February5,2015 Section 3.33 It shall be the duty of the Secretary to keep a record of all meeting of the Board, to accept in the name of the Board documents and correspondence addressed to it, to present such correspondence to the Board, and perform other staff functions as deemed necessary by the Board. The Secretary will determine the agenda for all public meeting of the Board, based upon an assessment of the applications made to the City requiring architectural review, and based also upon the desirability of hearing such other matters as may be deemed, by the Chairperson or by the Secretary, to be of concern to the Board. ARTICLE IV Committees Section 4.0 The Chairperson shall appoint special committees as they be desired or required. ARCTICLE V Quorums and Voting Section 5.0 Three members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for the purposes of conducting business. Section 5.1 All actions taken must be by affirmative vote of majority of those Board members present, except to adjourn or continue for lack of a quorum. A tie vote constitutes a denial of an item, except that a member of the Board may then move that the item be reconsidered or continued to another meeting. A majority of the Board may then vote to reconsider or continue the item to another meeting ARTICLE VI Meetings Section 6.0 Regular meetings of the ARB shall be held not less than twice a month. The Chairperson shall establish the dates of the meetings. Meetings shall be held on Thursday at 8:30 A.M. in the Palo Alto City Hall. Regular meetings may be adjourned and reconvened upon a majority vote of the members present. Section 6.1 Special meetings may be called at any time by the Chairperson, or at the request of three members, by a written or oral notice given to each member at least 48 hours before the time specified for the proposed meeting. 4.a Packet Pg. 88 011415cs01313013Rev.February5,2015 ARTICLE VII Rules Section 7.0 All meetings of the Board shall be conducted in accordance with a modified Robert’s Rules of Order. ARTICLE VIII Design Awards Section 8.0 Design Awards for outstanding built projects may be awarded every five years beginning in 2005. Award-winning projects shall be selected from those reviewed by the ARB, and completed since the last awards were made. Section 8.1 Criteria and number of awards shall be determined by the awarding board. Section 8.2 Winning projects may be displayed in the City Hall lobby for one month following the presentation of awards. The ARB shall request that the Mayor of the City of Palo Alto issue an appropriate proclamation. THE FOREGOING BY-LAWS WERE ADOPTED BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE PALO ALTO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 1973. Amended: July 3, 1974 May 19, 1977 August 4, 2005 February 5, 2015 4.a Packet Pg. 89 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD PROCEDURAL RULES Introduction & Contents These Procedural Rules supplement the Bylaws of the Architectural Review Board (“Board”) and are to be construed consistent with those Bylaws. In the event of any conflict between these Rules and the Bylaws, the Bylaws shall prevail. These rules are organized in three sections: I. Public Participation in Board Meetings This section explains the basic rules for speaking to the Board. The Board follows a modified Roberts’ Rules of Order. II. Motions, Debate & Voting This section explains the simplified rules of parliamentary procedure the Board follows (like Roberts’ Rules of Order, but simpler!). III. Quasi-Judicial Proceedings This section explains the special way the Board handles hearings that raise constitutional due process concerns. These are usually hearings that seriously impact someone’s life, liberty or property. 011215 cs 0131300 1 February 5, 2015 4.b Packet Pg. 90 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD PROCEDURAL RULES I.Public Participation in Board Meetings A. Policy. It is the policy of the Board to assure that members of the public have the opportunity to speak to any regular or special meeting agenda item before final action. In addition, an opportunity will be provided for members of the public to address the Board on items within its purview but not on the agenda at each regular or special meeting. These rules establish the rights and obligations of persons who wish to speak during Board meetings. B. General Requirements. 1. Accessibility. Palo Alto makes every reasonable effort to accommodate the needs of the disabled. Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329-2364. 2. Presiding Officer's Permission Required. The presiding officer at Board meetings (usually the Chair or Vice-Chair) is responsible for preserving strict order and decorum. This is important in order to assure a fair opportunity for everyone to participate in an open and civil setting. a) Any person desiring to address the Board must first get the permission of the presiding officer by completing a speaker card and handing the card to the Secretary. b) The presiding officer shall recognize any person who has timely given a completed card to the Secretary. c) Except as provided by these rules, no person shall be permitted to enter into any discussion without the permission of the presiding officer. 3. Recording and Identification. Persons wishing to address the Board shall comply with the following: a) Use the microphone provided for the public and speak in a recordable tone, either personally or with assistance, if necessary. 011215 cs 0131300 2 January 1, 2015 4.b Packet Pg. 91 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD PROCEDURAL RULES b) State their name and address if presenting evidence in a hearing required by law. c) Other speakers should state their name and address, but cannot be compelled to register their name or other information as a condition to attendance at the meeting. 4. Specific Requirements and Time Limits. a) Oral Communications. Oral communications may be limited to three minutes per speaker and will be limited to a total of thirty minutes for all speakers combined. 1) Oral communications may be used only to address items that are within the Board’s subject matter jurisdiction, but not listed on the agenda. 2) Oral communications may not be used to address matters where the receipt of new information would threaten the due process rights of any person. 3) All remarks shall be addressed to the Board as a body and not to any individual member. 4) Board Members shall not enter into debate or discussion with speakers during oral communications. 5) The presiding officer may request that City staff respond to the person speaking and/or the Board at a later date. b) Other Agenda Items. Public comments or testimony on agenda items other than Oral Communications shall be limited to a maximum of three minutes per speaker unless additional time is granted by the presiding officer. The presiding officer may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes if necessary to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 1) Spokesperson for a Group. When any group of people wishes to address the Board on the same subject matter, the presiding officer will inform the group that a spokesperson 011215 cs 0131300 3 January 1, 2015 4.b Packet Pg. 92 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD PROCEDURAL RULES may be chosen by the group to address the Board. Spokespersons who are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the Board meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen minutes at the discretion of the presiding officer, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2) Quasi-Judicial Hearings. In the case of a quasi-judicial hearing, applicants and/or appellants, as applicable, shall be given ten minutes each for their opening presentation and ten minutes for rebuttal before the hearing is closed. When the appeal is brought by a party other than the applicant, the appellant’s opening statement should precede the applicant’s opening statement and the appellant’s rebuttal should follow the applicant’s rebuttal. In the event a request is made and the need for additional time is clearly established, the presiding officer shall independently, or may upon advice of the Board’s attorney, grant sufficient additional time to allow an adequate presentation by the applicant or appellant in a hearing required by law. A person who participates during the ten minute period allotted for appellants and/or applicants may not speak during the time allotted for public comment without first securing the permission of the presiding officer. 3) Addressing the Board after a Motion. Following the time for public input and once the matter is returned to the Board no person shall address the Board without first securing the permission of the Board, subject to approval of the Board’s Attorney with respect to any hearing required by law. 011215 cs 0131300 4 January 1, 2015 4.b Packet Pg. 93 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD PROCEDURAL RULES II.Motions, Debate & Voting A. Policy. It is the policy of the Board to follow simplified rules of parliamentary procedure for motions, debate and voting. These rules focus on the types of motions the Board can debate and when those motions are properly used. 1. Purpose. The purpose of these rules is to facilitate orderly and thorough discussion and debate of Board business. These rules shall not be applied or used to create strategic advantage or unjust results. 2. Summary of Rules. Palo Alto does not follow Roberts Rules of Order. See the Summary Table below. B. Motions. A motion is a formal proposal by a Board Member asking that the Board take a specified action. A motion must receive a second before the Board can consider a matter. 1. Types of Motions. There are two kinds of motions. These are the “main” motion and any secondary motions. Only one main motion can be considered at a time. 2. Procedure. a) Get the Floor. A Board Member must receive the permission of the presiding officer before making a motion. b) State the Motion. A motion is made by a Board Member (the “maker”) stating his or her proposal. c) Second Required. Any other Board Member (including the presiding officer) who supports the proposal (or who simply wishes it to be considered) may “second” the motion without first being recognized. A motion to raise a question of personal privilege does not require a second. d) Motion Restated. The presiding officer should restate the motion for the record, particularly if it is long or complex. e) Lack of a Second. If there is no second stated immediately, the presiding officers should ask whether there is a second. If no Board Member seconds the motion the matter will not be considered. 011215 cs 0131300 5 January 1, 2015 4.b Packet Pg. 94 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD PROCEDURAL RULES f) Discussion. The maker shall be the first Board Member recognized to speak on the motion if it receives a second. Generally Board Members will speak only once with respect to a motion. If the presiding officer or Board permits any Board Member to speak more than once on a motion, all Board Members shall receive the same privilege. g) Secondary Motions. Secondary motions may be made by a Board Member upon getting the floor. h) Action. After discussion is complete the Board will vote on the motion under consideration. 3. Precedence of Motions. When a motion is before the Board, no new main motion shall be entertained. The Board recognizes the following secondary motions, which may be considered while a main motion is pending. These motions shall have precedence in the order listed below. This means that a secondary motion that is higher on the list will be considered ahead of a pending secondary motion that is lower on the list: a) Fix the time to which to adjourn; b) Adjourn; c) Take a recess; d) Raise a question of privilege; e) Lay on the table; f) Previous question (close debate); g) Limit or extend limits of debate; h) Motion to continue to a certain time; i) Refer to committee; j) Amend or substitute; 4. Secondary Motions Defined. The purpose of the allowed secondary motions is summarized in the following text and table. a) Fix the time to which to adjourn. This motion sets a time for continuation of the meeting. It requires a second, is amendable and is debatable only as to the time to which the meeting is adjourned. b) Adjourn. This motion ends the meeting or adjourns it to another time. It requires a second and is not debatable except to set the time to which the meeting is adjourned, if applicable. A motion to adjourn shall be in order at any time, except as follows: (a) when repeated without intervening business or discussion; (b) when made 011215 cs 0131300 6 January 1, 2015 4.b Packet Pg. 95 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD PROCEDURAL RULES as an interruption of a member while speaking; (c) when the previous question has been ordered; and (d) while a vote is being taken. c) Take a recess. This motion interrupts the meeting temporarily. It is amendable, but is not debatable. d) Raise a question of personal privilege. This motion allows a Board Member to address the Board on a question of personal privilege and shall be limited to cases in which the Board Member’s integrity, character or motives are questioned, or when the welfare of the Board is concerned. The maker of the motion may interrupt another speaker if the presiding officer recognizes the "privilege." The motion does not require a second, is not amendable and is not debatable. e) Lay on the table. This motion is used to interrupt business for more urgent business. A motion to lay on the table requires a second, is not amendable and is not debatable. It shall preclude all amendments or debate of the subject under consideration. If the motion prevails, and the subject is tabled, the matter must be reagendized in the future if further consideration is to be given to the matter. f) Previous question. This motion “calls the question” by closing debate on the pending motion. A motion for previous question requires a second, is not debatable and is not amendable. It applies to all previous motions on the subject unless otherwise specified by the maker of the motion. If motion for previous question fails, debate is reopened; if motion for previous question passes, then vote on the pending motion. A motion for previous question requires a two-thirds vote of those Board Members present and voting. g) Limit or extend debate. This motion limits or extends the time for the Board or any Board Member to debate a motion. It requires a second, is amendable and is not debatable. The motion requires a two-thirds vote of those Board Members present and voting. h) Continue to a certain time. This motion continues a matter to another, specified time. It requires a second, is amendable and is debatable as to propriety of postponement and time set. i) Refer to a city agency, body, committee, board, commissioner or officer. This motion sends a subject to another city agency, body, 011215 cs 0131300 7 January 1, 2015 4.b Packet Pg. 96 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD PROCEDURAL RULES committee, board, commissioner or officer for further study and report back to the Board, at which time subject is fully debated. It requires a second, is amendable, and is debatable only as to the propriety of referring. The substance of the subject being referred shall not be discussed at the time the motion to refer is made. j) Amend or substitute. This motion changes or reverses the main motion. It requires a second, is amendable, and is debatable only when the motion to which it applies is debatable. A motion to amend an amendment is in order, but one to amend an amendment to an amendment is not. An amendment modifying a motion is in order but an amendment raising an independent question or one that is not germane to the main motion shall not be in order. Amendments take precedence over the main motion and the motion to postpone indefinitely. 011215 cs 0131300 8 January 1, 2015 4.b Packet Pg. 97 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD PROCEDURAL RULES Motion Description 2 nd Req’d Debatable Amendable 2/3 Vote Fix the time to which to adjourn Sets a next date and time for continuation of the meeting X Only as to time to which the meeting is adjourned X Adjourn Sets time to adjourn. Not in order if (a) repeated without intervening business (b) made as an interruption of a member while speaking; (c) the previous question has been ordered; and (d) while a vote is being taken X Only to set the time to which the meeting is adjourned Take a recess Purpose is to interrupt the meeting X X Raise a question of privilege Lay on the table Interrupts business for more urgent business X Previous question (close debate or “call the question”) Closes debate on pending motion X X Limit or extend limits of debate Purpose is to limit or extend debate X X X Motion to continue to a certain time Continues the matter to another, specified time X X X Refer to committee Sends subject to another city agency, body, committee, board, Board or officer for further study and report back to the Board, at which time subject is fully debated X Only as to propriety of referring, not substance of referral X Amend or substitute Modifies (or reverses course of) proposed action. Cannot raise independent question. Can amend an amendment, but no further. X Only if underlying motion is debatable X 011215 cs 0131300 9 January 1, 2015 4.b Packet Pg. 98 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD PROCEDURAL RULES Summary of Key Motions Type of Motion 2nd Req’d Debate Order of Debate Main Motion Yes Yes Mover & 2nder speak first “Friendly” Amendment No, but must be accepted by mover and 2nder of main motion No Amendment (If friendly amendment not accepted) Yes Occurs with main motion BUT Chair has discretion to bifurcate issues/questions Substitute Motion Yes Yes, Debate & vote occurs before main motion Mover & 2nder of substitute motion speak first 011215 cs 0131300 10 January 1, 2015 4.b Packet Pg. 99 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD PROCEDURAL RULES C. Debate and Voting. 1. Presiding officer to state motion. The presiding officer shall assure that all motions are clearly stated before allowing debate to begin. The presiding officer may restate the motion or may direct City staff to restate the motion before allowing debate to begin. The presiding officer shall restate the motion or direct City staff to restate the motion prior to voting. 2. Presiding officer may debate and vote. The presiding officer may move, second and debate from the chair, subject only to such limitations of debate as are by these rules imposed on all Board Members. The presiding officer shall not be deprived of any of the rights and privileges of a Board Member. 3. Division of question. If the question contains two or more divisible propositions, each of which is capable of standing as a complete proposition if the others are removed, the presiding officer may, and upon request of a Board Member shall, divide the same. The presiding officer's determination shall be appealable by any Board Member. 4. Withdrawal of motion. A motion may not be withdrawn by the maker without the consent of the Board Member seconding it. 5. Change of vote. Board Members may change their votes before the next item on the agenda is called. 6. Voting. On the passage of every motion, the vote shall be taken by voice and entered in full upon the record. 7. Silence constitutes affirmative vote. Board Members who are silent during a voice vote shall have their vote recorded as an affirmative vote, except when individual Board Members have stated in advance that they will not be voting. 8. Failure to vote. It is the responsibility of every Board Member to vote unless disqualified for cause accepted by the Board or by opinion of the Board’s Attorney. No Board Member can be compelled to vote. 9. Abstaining from vote. The abstainer chooses not to vote and, in effect, "consents" that a majority of the quorum of the Board Members present may act for him or her. 0011215 cs 0131300 11 February 5, 2015 4.b Packet Pg. 100 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD PROCEDURAL RULES 10. Not participating. A Board Member who disqualifies him or herself pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974 because of any financial interest shall disclose the nature of the conflict and may not participate in the discussion or the vote. A Board Member may otherwise disqualify him or herself due to personal bias or the appearance of impropriety. 11. Tie votes. Tie votes may be reconsidered during the time permitted by these rules on motion by any member of the Board voting aye or nay during the original vote. Before a motion is made on the next item on the agenda, any member of the Board may make a motion to continue the matter to another date. Any continuance hereunder shall suspend the running of any time in which action of the Board is required by law. Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent any Board Member from agendizing a matter that resulted in a tie vote for a subsequent meeting. 12. Motion to reconsider. A motion to reconsider any action taken by the Board may be made only during the meeting or adjourned meeting thereof when the action was taken. A motion to reconsider requires a second, is debatable and is not amendable. The motion must be made by one of the prevailing side, but may be seconded by any Board Member. A motion to reconsider may be made at any time and shall have precedence over all other motions, or while a Board Member has the floor, providing that no vested rights are impaired. The purpose of reconsideration is to bring back the matter for review. If a motion to reconsider fails, it may not itself be reconsidered. Reconsideration may not be moved more than once on the same motion. Nothing herein shall be construed to prevent any Board Member from making a motion to rescind such action at a subsequent meeting of the Board. 13. Appeal from the decision of presiding officer. When the rules are silent, the presiding officer shall decide all questions of order, subject to appeal by a Board Member. At the presiding officer’s discretion, the presiding officer may submit the question to the Board, in which case a majority vote shall prevail. Any decision or ruling of the presiding officer may be appealed by request of any member. A majority vote is required to reverse the decision of the presiding officer. 14. Getting the floor; improper references to be avoided. Every Board Member desiring to speak shall address the chair and, upon recognition by the presiding officer, every Board Member shall be confined to the question under debate, avoiding all indecorous language and personal attacks. 0011215 cs 0131300 12 February 5, 2015 4.b Packet Pg. 101 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD PROCEDURAL RULES 15. Interruptions. Except for being called to order, a Board Member once recognized, shall not be interrupted when speaking, except as otherwise provided for in these rules. A Board Member called to order while speaking shall cease speaking until the question or order is determined, and, if in order, said Board Member shall be permitted to proceed. III. Additional Requirements for Quasi-Judicial Hearings and Planned Community Zoning Applications A. Policy. It is the policy of the Board to assure that the due process rights of all persons are protected during City hearings. A “quasi-judicial” hearing is a hearing that requires a higher level of procedural due process because of the potential impact on life, liberty or property. Usually, quasi-judicial hearings involve a single parcel of land and apply facts and evidence in the context of existing law. Findings must be stated to explain the evidentiary basis for the Board’s decision. 1. Purpose. These rules are intended to assure that Board decision-making on quasi-judicial matters is based upon facts and evidence known to all parties and to support the role of the Board in making independent recommendations to Council. B. General Requirements. 1. Quasi-Judicial/ Planned Community Proceedings Defined. Quasi- judicial/planned community proceedings subject to these procedural rules include hearings involving the following matters: a) Design Enhancement Exceptions b) Subdivisions, other than final map approvals c) Architectural Review d) Planned Community Zoning e) Other matters as determined by the Board’s Attorney f) Appeals related to any of the above g) Environmental Review relating to any of the above 2. Restrictions on Board Communications Outside of Quasi-Judicial and Planned Community Zone Hearings. The Board deliberates and makes all decisions in public, however the Board recognizes there may be circumstances where one on one conversations with applicants or community members may be useful and informative. The following procedural guidelines are intended to implement the Board’s policy on such 0011215 cs 0131300 13 February 5, 2015 4.b Packet Pg. 102 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD PROCEDURAL RULES ex parte contacts, but shall not be construed to create any remedy or right of action. 3. Identification of Quasi-Judicial/Planned Community Matters. The City Attorney, in conjunction with the Planning Director, will identify agenda items involving quasi-judicial/planned community decisions on both the tentative and regular Board agendas. This identification is intended to inform the Board, interested parties, and the public that this policy will apply to the item. 4. Board Members to Track Contacts. Board Members will use their best efforts to track contacts with owners, developers, applicant representatives and members of the public pertaining to such identified quasi- judicial/planned community decision items. Contacts include conversations, meetings, site visits, mailings, or presentations during which substantial factual information about the item is gathered by or submitted to a Board Member. 5. Disclosure. When the item is presented to the Board for hearing, Board Members will disclose any contacts which have significantly influenced their preliminary views or opinions about the item. The disclosure may be oral or written, and should explain the substance of the contact so that other Board Members, interested parties, and the public will have an opportunity to become apprised of the factors influencing the Board's decision and to attempt to controvert or rebut any such factor during the hearing. Disclosure alone will not be deemed sufficient basis for a request to continue the item. A contact or the disclosure of a contact shall not be deemed grounds for disqualification of a Board Member from participation in a quasi- judicial/planned community decision unless the Board Member determines that the nature of the contact is such that it is not possible for the Board Member to reach an impartial decision on the item. a) If a Board Member receives any written materials in connection with these types of discussions, a copy of those materials shall be made a part of the public record. b) At the beginning of any such meeting or discussion, Board Members are strongly encouraged to review these Guidelines with the party they are meeting. c) Board Members shall endeavor to always keep an open mind, and not rush to pre-judge any matter, until after all concerned parties 0011215 cs 0131300 14 February 5, 2015 4.b Packet Pg. 103 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD PROCEDURAL RULES (including but not limited to applicants, members of the public and Staff) are heard during the public hearing. d) Board Members shall refrain from coming to a conclusion on the item until the public hearing is closed. 6. No Contacts after Hearings. Following closure of the hearing, and prior to a final decision, Board Members will refrain from any contacts pertaining to the item, other than clarifying questions directed to City staff. 7. Written Findings Required. On any matter for which State law or City ordinance requires the preparation of written findings, the staff report and other materials submitted on the matter will contain findings proposed for adoption by the Board. Any motion directly or impliedly rejecting the proposed findings must include a statement of alternative or modified findings or a direction that the matter under consideration be continued for a reasonable period of time in order for staff to prepare a new set of proposed findings consistent with the evidence which has been presented and the decision which is anticipated. 8. Rules of Evidence. Board hearings need not be conducted according to formal rules of evidence. Any relevant evidence may be considered if it is the sort of evidence upon which responsible persons rely in the conduct of serious affairs. The presiding officer may exclude irrelevant or redundant testimony and may make such other rulings as may be necessary for the orderly conduct of the proceedings while ensuring basic fairness and full consideration of the issues involved. Evidentiary objections shall be deemed waived unless made in a timely fashion before the Board. 9. Burden of Proof. The applicant and appellant shall bear the burden of proof on all aspects of the action or relief they seek. The person with the burden of proof must offer evidence to the Board to support his or her position. 10. Board Members Who are Absent During Part of a Hearing. A Board Member who is absent from any portion of a hearing conducted by the Board may vote on the matter provided that he or she has watched or listened to a video or radio broadcast, or video or audio recording, of the entire portion of the hearing from which he or she was absent and if she or he has examined all of the exhibits presented during the portion of the hearing from which he or she was absent and states for the record before voting that the Board Member deems himself or herself to be as familiar with the record and with 0011215 cs 0131300 15 February 5, 2015 4.b Packet Pg. 104 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD PROCEDURAL RULES the evidence presented at the hearing as he or she would have been had he or she personally attended the entire hearing. 10. Appeals. Appeals to the Board and requests for hearings of minor staff architectural review shall be conducted de novo, meaning that new evidence and arguments may be presented and considered. C. Record Before the Board. The Records before the Board on any matter shall be deemed to include the Comprehensive Plan, the Municipal Code and any relevant plans or studies which have been formally accepted or approved by the Board or by the City Council. 0011215 cs 0131300 16 February 5, 2015 4.b Packet Pg. 105 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Members Alexander Lew and Robert Gooyer. Absent: Osma Thompson. 4. Study Session on Ex-parte Communications Between Architectural Review Board Members and Applicants/Developers and Other Persons Chair Furth: The first one is on Ex-parte communications between the Architectural Review Board members and applicants and developers and other persons. And we have a representative of the City Attorney's Office here, and a member of the public who has asked to speak, both of which we're grateful for. Just to set the scene, a lot of people, both neighbors, and historic preservationists, and applicants, make requests of us, that we speak to them about their project or the work of the Board. We have a Board policy, and a City policy, that give us some direction, but not total direction. We thought it would be helpful to discuss this with our counsel, our City's counsel, and with each other. If you would introduce yourself and proceed. Ms. Lee: Thank you, Madam Chair. Sandra Lee, Assistant City Attorney. Thank you for inviting me here this morning to talk about what I hope is an interesting topic. You requested a study session on ex-parte communications and quasi-judicial hearings. This is a quick overview of what I'm going to touch upon. First is a little bit of refresher for all of you about quasi-judicial hearings, fair hearing requirements that attach to such matter, and within that context, the regulation of ex-parte communication. This will be a general discussion about these areas. You may have interest in talking about specific matters, specific situations. However, that may be more suitable for off-line discussions as these situations arise, and we can talk about it after this meeting -- or you and I, not all together -- individually, or as situations arise in the future with respect to specific projects and requests. Quasi-judicial hearings as opposed to legislative matters: When the ARB takes discretionary action on a proposed project. You are applying existing policies, roles and standards to a specific person, project or circumstance. These hearings involve the taking of evidence and will result in a written decision, based on required findings. And, in contrast, legislative actions are the promulgation of these more general policies, rules and standards, and the ARB does from time to time weigh in on such matters with respect to design guidelines and the like. Things that will apply to projects more generally. With respect to quasi-judicial hearings, certain rules apply to ensure due process for the project applicant and a fair administrative hearing for all interested parties. These are the fundamental requirements of a fair hearing that are rooted, not only in the federal constitution, but the state constitution, as well as state law. A fair hearing requires notice to the applicant and to the public, an opportunity to be heard, and to hear the evidence that the Board will consider. A hearing must occur before an impartial decision-maker, one that is not biased or has not prejudged the matter. And, within the context of all of this, a fair hearing does require the disclosure of ex-parte contacts. I would just say that, I just want to touch on, with respect to the impartial decision-maker item. Public officials are presumed to be impartial, but this could be overcome with evidence of bias, and in general, members should avoid taking a position on a specific project or class of projects prior to hearing ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXCERPT MINUTES: November 1, 2018 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM 4.c Packet Pg. 106 City of Palo Alto Page 2 evidence. First, I wanted to talk about what are ex-parte communications, so we are all talking about the same thing. Evidence-gathering that takes place outside the hearing. It includes oral and written information, but it can include other sensory communication, something that you perceive visually, or that you hear, and that you may ascertain from a site visit, for example. These communications are those that are substantive and relevant to the project and the decision that the ARB is making. If you have a contact with a project applicant and it's about a barbecue that someone is having, then obviously that's not considered an ex-parte communication in this context. The law generally requires that such contacts be disclosed, and any new information learned as a result of those contacts be disclosed. Why is full and complete and timely disclosure of contacts important? It's for a couple of reasons. First, such disclosure affords applicants the right to rebut evidence that may have been learned outside of the hearing context. It gives not only the applicant, but other interested parties the ability to refute, test and explain such information. And, the other reason why this disclosure of ex-parte is important is that the hearing requirement necessarily contemplates that a decision will be made in light of the evidence introduced at the hearing. So, if you have an outside contact, if you don't disclose it at the hearing, it's not part of the record before the body. The decision needs to be made on the evidence presented at the hearing. That could be evidence presented by the applicant, presented by members of the public, other interested stakeholders, but it also could be evidence that you yourself obtained outside of the hearing context that is disclosed to all of the other members of the Board, and to the public and the applicant. I did want to mention that in the land use context...So, different rules apply, different due process rules apply in different context. But in the land use context, ex-parte evidence that is disclosed before the public hearing does not violate due process, which is why we put so much emphasis on disclosure. In a 1957 case involving the city of San Mateo, that's still good law, and this is just a paraphrase of the court's decision. Plaintiff complained that the defendant, the City of San Mateo and City Council members, relied upon information acquired by the council members outside of the hearing, but there, the mayor stated at the outset that the council members had a look at the property -- they conducted a site visit -- and the statements in question made at the hearing fully revealed the investigation. There was no concealment, so those who are protesting this decision -- it was a variance, in that case -- were free to challenge any views expressed, and they frequently did so at the hearing. In that context, it was deemed to not be a due process violation, that the council members had obtained information outside of the hearing. I want to just talk a little bit about what our rules are -- the City Council and the ARB -- they are a little different. Ex-parte contact are discouraged for the City Council. The Council, as well as the PTC, have procedural rules that do discourage such contact if they will affect the impartiality of the member. The ARB does not have this rule specifically in their procedural rules. And, in fact, the procedural rules say...Well, they acknowledge that in some circumstances, it may be useful and informative for ARB members to have these contacts. I would say that even though that is the rule that the Board adopted about three years ago...It may have been before, but the last time they were updated. Individual members could, of course, choose to be more restrictive in their conduct, should they desire. You're not compelled to have ex-parte communication, and you can make your own decision with respect to that, as long as you meet this minimum of disclosure. The ARB procedural rules require that members make best efforts to track any contacts, and the substance of those contacts. That includes conversations, meetings, site visits, mailings, or presentations where substantial factual information was conveyed with respect to the project. And, it is recommended -- this is not reflected specifically in the rules, but I would recommend that members who do engage in ex-parte contact take contemporaneous notes -- who, what, when, where -- and as detailed as possible, because that information, you're going to convey on the record prior to the beginning of the ARB hearing. Disclosure may be oral or in writing. You can submit it to staff prior to the hearing, or, the latest the disclosure should be made is at the beginning of the hearing, before any testimony is taken. The ARB rules state that ex-parte contacts are prohibited after the close of the public hearing, and prior to a decision. I would just mention that even though the rules don't expressly discourage ex-parte contacts for the ARB, that sometimes they may be useful. Whatever you learn that is useful, that you've considered and have influenced your decision, should be disclosed, because the purpose of the hearing is not to come together with all or separately-gathered evidence and just share it. I mean, the primary purpose of the hearing is to have the evidence presented by the parties and the staff, and should the ARB members obtain other evidence, then disclose it. But, it is really principally the forum for which the evidence should be presented by the parties. I wanted to make mention of a potential Brown Act violation, also in the context of ex-parte contact. To the extent that the 4.c Packet Pg. 107 City of Palo Alto Page 3 applicant...What I've been talking about up to now is the Board getting information about a project, learning information. But an applicant potentially will want to know, what does the Board think about their project? Elicit information the other way. There are a couple things with respect to that. The potential Brown Act violation is what's called the hub-and-spoke model, where that individual is ascertaining the position of various board members, and they may go to the next board member. There are five members, so they may go to three members, and to the third member, they tell them, "I've spoken to members A and B, they are on board with this project, I just need your vote." Now, there is a potential violation right there because there is this collective concurrence being formed through an intermediary. So, it's really incumbent on the board members to prevent that type of communication from a member of the public or the applicant, because if a Brown Act violation occurs, it will be your violation. It will not be their violation. And you are in the best position to know the requirements of the Brown Act, and to make sure the views of other Board members are not shared with you on a pending project. Also, with respect to providing feedback to applicants, I would be somewhat circumspect in what information you provide, only because of the requirements to be an impartial decision-maker. You do have to keep an open mind, to not prejudge the matter before the hearing, to not commit to a specific position, because the position must be based on evidence that you obtain at the hearing, or that is presented at the hearing. And then, my last slide really is just about, this is the last part of what's required for a fair hearing in quasi-judicial, is that, you know, you need to make a fair decision that is supported by substantial evidence in the record. That includes things that you might disclose that you've learned from ex-parte communications. Any questions? Chair Furth: Thank you very much, Counselor Lee. I'm going to suggest that we hear from the members of the public before we start asking questions and having a general discussion. The first card that I have is from Jyanhwa Myau. Good morning. Mr. Myau: Yeah. First, I would like to thank you for Counselor Lee's presentation. It's very informative for me, personally. I was asking, after the previous hearing, I was wondering if members of the council would like to talk to the community, to answer some of the questions, you know, if we have a chance. This is not directly related to this presentation. It's just so very happens about communication. And I truly understand and am very grateful that you present us as a public, you know, for the...This is a very complicated application process. Most of us, we don't have the professional knowledge, and specifically, I would like to (inaudible) about, last time you asked about the setback of the building, and today, we can (inaudible) to see all your efforts. The whole process, we need to communicate with the public, if possible, you know, to educate them about...To ease their anxiety about the future change. And there's a trend about, to adding more mass buildings around the boundary of the cities. That's just the trend. We'll have to live with it. But, how can we include the (inaudible) parties and work together as a community? That's where I'm coming from, and hopefully you can share most of your view of experience with us. That's it. Thanks. Chair Furth: Thank you so much. I have another card from Randy Popp. Mr. Popp: Thank you. Randy Popp, I'm a resident of Palo Alto, and an architect practicing in town here. I will tell you that I just happened across the agenda for today's meeting and noticed that this item was present. I'm very glad that you're taking up this discussion because, having sat in your seat as chair for some time, and board member for longer, I can tell you that it's important to me that applicants be able to speak to the Board throughout the process. We spend thousands of hours developing projects. They are immensely complex, and the number of decisions that goes into the organization of a site, the design of a building, the use of building, is something that you cannot possible absorb by reviewing the material that comes in your packet. It's just too complex. And while the PTC receives a packet that has written documentation that they can read and digest and understand, there's so much more involved in the process of developing a building, that it's critical --I believe -- that the Board be open to meeting with applicants. And I think it can be done easily within the constraints of what was described. Having done this, again, myself, it's easy to say to an applicant, "I'm here today to hear what you have to say. I'm here today to listen to any explanation that you want to provide. I'm expecting that whatever you're showing me today will be in your presentation so that we can discuss it publicly. Share with me whatever 4.c Packet Pg. 108 City of Palo Alto Page 4 is important for you to really explain to me in a clear way, but I will not be giving you any additional information. I'm not going to be providing feedback for you. I'm not going to make any judgments about your project. I'm just here to absorb information, and be more educated when I come to the point of having to make a decision about your project." I believe that that's really critical for the Board to be open to, and to be accepting of, and to maintain as a policy. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any comments from staff? Ms. Lee: I would say that whatever information is provided to the Board, I mean, to the extent that it's maybe too much to absorb in 10 minutes, that is not necessarily a reason to allow for ex-parte meetings that might take a substantially longer amount of time with each Board member. I would say that more time is required in a public setting, so, if the information that's going to be conveyed in these ex-parte meetings is so critical to understanding the project, then that information should probably be conveyed in a public setting so that all interested parties could hear that information. Chair Furth: Staff? That was legal staff. Anything from planning staff? Ms. Gerhardt: I think, related to the concept of a project being complex, I mean, if it's complex for the ARB, then it's that much more complex for the neighbors. Obviously, I very much agree with our counsel. I might kick myself later, but, I mean, I think we really should have more community meetings. If a project is that complex, we should be having community meetings ahead of hearings so that it can be explained to the neighborhood. And potentially, the Board could come. We'd have to figure out if that needs to be noticed, or not. That sort of thing. But the community meetings are noticed anyway, so, we would just have to notice that the Board would be in attendance if, you know...We will talk with counsel about the details of that. Chair Furth: Thank you. Alex. Board Member Lew: A comment on the community meetings. I do know that a lot of times, the planners, the project planners, will meet with members of the community, and it's not always documented to the Board. Sometimes they'll mention it during the staff presentation. So, it may be good to just have, for us to try to be more methodical about including that in staff reports and what-not. Like, how many meetings, and when did they happen, and what-not. I think my other comment is, for staff, is, can we make a document for the applicants about what they, if they ask for an ex-parte meeting, that there are guidelines that they need to follow. Because it seems to me that we've done it, we've had meetings before in the past, and usually the applicants are knowledgeable about what they should and should not do. But, I think there are other applicants out there that don't know that. I mean, we just have a guideline for them about what they can expect... Chair Furth: (inaudible) Board Member Lew: Yeah. But I would just say, for example, there was a recent project, and the applicant asked for a meeting with two Board members, and that would have violated the Brown Act. Just having the meeting right there. And they didn't seem to understand, so they were putting the Board members in a tight spot and not even know it, not even knowing that there was a potential issue. Yeah, so, I think we just have to be careful about that. Ms. Gerhardt: Just related to the, when staff is meeting with neighbors, there is a portion of the staff report where that information should be because we have the public outreach section. But I will make sure we are more diligent about communicating that, if that hasn't been true. Board Member Gooyer: I have a question. One of the things I thought was a bit unusual, under the "discouraged" items, you have a site visit. I mean, I thought that's pretty basic. In fact... 4.c Packet Pg. 109 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Ms. Lee: Yeah, I wasn't saying that that's discouraged. I was actually saying that that is okay, and the court has upheld the ability to do that, so long as that information was disclosed prior to the hearing. Board Member Gooyer: Okay. I ask, basically talking to a lawyer, usually, a very specific, exactly... You know, if it's written there, it's gospel. Chair Furth: You know what? I think one of the important things is that, that's why the chairs do ask us to disclose, have you done a site visit, because that is something that the applicant should know. Sometimes it needs to be more specific, like I saw it last Wednesday when there was an explosion on site, or something. If you just keep imaging this imaginary person participating in the hearing, and... Board Member Gooyer: (inaudible) (off microphone) Chair Furth: Yeah. They need to know what we think we've learned that's relevant to this project. And, of course, I was having a bit of a discussion with counsel about, we bring our whole experience to these hearings, and you particularly bring your professional experience. And one of the things I notice is that you have a lot of expertise on the use of materials in this area, so you frequently tell an applicant that, "That's not going to work here." And that is based on your professional experience, and you don't need -- in my opinion, Sandy can disagree -- to disclose that, you know, you did this on such-and-such a setting. Though I notice that Alex often does say, "This material has been used on three projects in the last 10 years. If you look at the one on Park Avenue, it really is a good example of why this is a bad idea." He has quite the memory, and history. And that lets the applicant say, "Oh, but that's not, you know, that was ipe from this part of the world, and I'm using a different..." But just so that people can respond to what we think we know and correct our understanding, or argue against it. I particularly wanted to talk about neighborhood concerns. You know, based on my professional history as a lawyer, and a municipal lawyer...And I've been doing this so long. I remember when the law came in requiring us to, for the first time, make written findings of fact and conclusions of law, so that courts could review our decisions, and people would have due process. Yeah, on stone tablets. Absolutely. It was the 70's. I sort of thought, well, it's much simpler if I just don't talk to anybody because then I don't have to take all these notes or remember everything, and tell them that no, they can't pay for my cup of coffee. And I found my views evolving, particularly with regard to neighbors, particularly when it's an existing community of neighbors, whether it's the Palo Alto redwoods next to the proposed hotel, to replace the restaurant on El Camino, or the Greenhouse neighborhood with respect to this hotel. And I do believe that, ideally, we have infinite staff, with infinite time, and they are able to have a community meeting, or one or more community meetings, with these groups. But we don't have infinite staff, and we don't have infinite time, and thinking about how to do that has been on my mind. I do believe that meeting with neighbors so that you can see what the view is from their property, so that you can look at the project literally from another angle, is useful. It does require a lot of note-taking. Because I think we not only have to be fair, we have to be seen to be fair, and we have to be seen to be listening, which is why I tend to run these hearings in what some of you may view as a rather sloppy way. Which, if we've got time, I essentially re- open the hearing and let people continue to comment, because I think the value of their speaking and us hearing outweighs the other. I'm more reserved about meeting with applicants because I think they have more professional ability to present their plans to us. I do agree that I sometimes want more than a week or less to look at a project, and its site, and its history. But, I decided to engage in some fact-finding on this approach, a little empirical research, so, I did meet with Roxy Rapp and his colleague and son, and his professional consultant, Steve Emslie, because they are proposing to do something concerning a retail use on the site of the former Cheesecake Factory. And I learned about the Rapp family history with that building, and the tenants who had been there before, and we discussed the fact that we think that the Masonic Temple and Design Within Reach did a bang-up job of redoing their site. And, I refuse to comment on proposed designs because I think that undercuts what we should be doing here at the Board. I find myself trying to figure out, under what circumstances, under what conditions, is it helpful to the process, to the community and to the applicant, to meet with them, and under what circumstances is it not? And I’m interested in Alex's question, suggestion of sort of, these are the ground rules here. Because I think it could be helpful, because it's not at all good when somebody blurts out, "Well, I've talked to two of your colleagues and..." And I will say, I never agree to meeting with anybody and with 4.c Packet Pg. 110 City of Palo Alto Page 6 another Board member because it's just a problem. First of all, we never know what our quorum is going to be for the actual hearing, and it could be that two people already violated the Brown Act because there's only going to be three or four decision-makers. Comments from folks? Vice Chair Baltay: I have a specific three things, but one of them is regarding site visits. I wonder if we could just be clear. A site visit, when I go out to physically look at a property that's coming before us, that's considered an ex-parte communication? Just the act of visiting the site? Ms. Lee: Any gathering of information outside of the hearing is an ex-parte contact. Vice Chair Baltay: So then, it needs to be disclosed very clearly at the meeting. To the best of my memory, this is the first time we've been doing that since Wynne became Chair. Is that right? Board Member Lew: That's correct. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, so, your advice is that we continue to do that very clearly. At each meeting, before each item, we should all disclose that we visited the site? Ms. Lee: Yes. And if you have visited the site, I would disclose that you visited it, when you visited the site, and any information that you may have learned on that site visit that is not in the record. So, there could be something that happens that day that is unusual, and that might influence your decision. And we don't know if it's unusual or not, and the applicants and others will not be able to kind of test that information you've ascertained without knowing about it. And you are the only person who can disclose that information. Chair Furth: One of the things about site visit disclosure is that I actually do hear you all disclosing...Frequently, I say, "I visited the site, and I notice that the trees overhang, or that the neighbors oak tree is very close, and I'm going to be concerned about how you're protecting that tree." We actually don't get too many on-site explosions. But, it's helpful to the applicants to know what struck us. Alex. Board Member Lew: We've been disclose...I think the issue, though, is that...I think Sandy is saying that it needs to be done first. Chair Furth: Yes. Board Member Lew: And we haven't been doing that. That sometimes happens later in our disclosure... Chair Furth: Well, we have to disclose the fact that we've been there. Board Member Lew: Been to the site, but not the actual... Chair Furth: And I would argue that, I would suggest that people have a pretty good understanding of what you're going to see on the site, and that we don't have to detail every single...It's impossible to detail everything we saw. You saw the site. But, if there's something that concerns us, we could take advantage of that time to mention it. Ms. Lee: Yes. I would agree. You're not going to go through a minute-by-minute recount of...But, things that struck you. Things that could influence your decision. I do think that that type of information should be disclosed before the hearing. However, perhaps it doesn't occur to you until you're in the middle of the hearing. You know, something's happened. The applicant...So long as you give an opportunity to the applicant to respond to this other information, then that should be okay. But, I still would urge you to try to disclose as much as possible, as early as possible, so that every speaker has an opportunity to kind of question that information, or provide some kind of rebuttal to it. 4.c Packet Pg. 111 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Chair Furth: Peter. Vice Chair Baltay: My second thought, then, was, when is the appropriate time to disclose? Again, on our hypothetical site visit, what if I just disclosed by email to the Planning staff that I visited the site? I'm visiting the site, I could just send an email, "I'm at the site right now, I visited it." Is that a proper disclosure? Or, more specifically -- I'm sorry to interrupt you -- but, at what point in the hearings do we have to do the disclosures? Could we do them all at the very beginning? Or does it have to be project by project? Ms. Lee: It should be project by project, at the beginning of the hearing on that project. You could send an email to staff. It probably wouldn't be, "I just visited the site on this day." Again, you know, there might be some additional information that you want to provide about what struck you, what you saw, and all that. That information will be public, however, so, they could include it as part of the staff report, if you provide that email, or it would be read out loud at the hearing, along with anyone else who wants to make an oral disclosure. Chair Furth: And I think that the applicant is entitled to due process; the public is entitled to a fair hearing. I always think of this imaginary person out there, and that imaginary person has read the public notices, they've read the staff report, they're familiar with the city's laws and rules -- this person doesn't exist -- and what else do we need to do so that they understand, in general, the basis for our decisions? Myself, I believe that the most effective way to do that is to, as we hear the...And they are only here for their item. They're not here for the meeting in general. They come in for their item. So, at the beginning of addressing that item, we disclose what needs to be disclosed. One of the things is, we're not terribly formal about what is in the public record, and what isn't. Sometimes, we say, "Now, I'll open the public hearing." What we're really saying is, "Now I'm opening the hearing to the public." Because from the court's point of view, and the due process point of view, the minute we call the item, that's when the hearing starts. So, somewhere in that period, we need to do this. And if there is a whole lot to disclose, you can refer to a document, but there generally is not anything to disclose, except that I went and looked at it. I will say that I found...I wanted to disclose my meeting with the Rapps because that was the first I knew that there was a project over there. And so, I want you all to know what I know. I sort of want you to know it, when I know it, so that...That's part of, sort of mutual respect for each other, so that if there is information that I have, you know it. That's a block which we spend a lot of time on. That's an alley we've put a lot of energy into. I want you to know that, so if you want to think about it, you have more time to do that. I would also say as a general practice, I'd be really uncomfortable being one of five people. The more of us talk to an applicant ahead of time, the more of us meet with the community ahead of time, the less comfortable I am about that. I don't know how the rest of you feel about that. Vice Chair Baltay: I'm trying to come back, Wynne, to the concept of speaking to somebody that's not based on a certain project. Is it ex-parte communication for her to speak to...? I don't want to be specific. If it's not related to something that's coming before the Board. In other words, there's no project on application. Is that still an ex-parte communication to speak to somebody about... Chair Furth: Sure. Vice Chair Baltay: ...something? Chair Furth: I don't have to disclose it until the project gets here, but, yeah. It doesn’t matter that they haven’t filed an application yet. Ms. Lee: Yeah, so, typically, it attaches once an application is filed, so to the extent that there is information...You know? "In five years, I'm going to work on this project." I would not necessarily say that you need to record that and potentially disclose it five years down the road, when it comes to the ARB. This obligation to track your contacts and all of that, that would attach after the application is filed. 4.c Packet Pg. 112 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Chair Furth: Wynne's sense of disclosing things that are not based on a project is more out of a sense of doing it right than it is any legal requirement? Ms. Lee: Yes. Chair Furth: And I would say that I wouldn't do this if I didn't know they intend to file an application in the near future. I mean, some big discussion about open space policies in Palo Alto is not the kind of thing I'm going to regale you with during Board member comments. Vice Chair Baltay: Another question I had was regarding, I've heard comments about not having ex-parte communications between hearings. We frequently have multiple hearings on a project, so, after the first hearing, is it then not allowed to, say, go visit a site to see what's going on? Ms. Lee: The ARB rules do not expressly prohibit that. There's no clear demarcation, other than after the hearing is closed, you may not have...and prior to a decision, you may not have ex-parte communications. An example of that would be -- and I don't know if this happens with this Board -- but, you may make a preliminary decision, but you're waiting for findings to be prepared by staff, and it will come back to you for a final decision. Before that final decision is made, no further communications with the applicant or others. Vice Chair Baltay: When we move and second and vote to continue a project, is that a decision, or is that just a continuation of...? Ms. Lee: No, because that's just a continuation of the public hearing. It hasn't been closed. Vice Chair Baltay: I see. So, until we have a decision issued, ex-parte communications are okay, then. Chair Furth: I would say, as a member of this Board, first of all, I view site visits as very different from having a chat with the architect. Because I'm not going to convey any information out during a site visit. I'm going to be absorbing information, the same way I would be doing if I was researching some building material on the internet. But I'm not at risk of either pre-judging and conveying a prejudgment, or giving somebody my opinion so that they can start shaping the project in response to what I saw. Or what I said. I've used site visits as very difficult to get in trouble with a site visit. And by "get in trouble," I mean distort the hearing process, or find myself disqualified for bias. I can't think any circumstances under which I would want to talk to the applicant between hearings. Because we have, as a Board, looked at, we have commented, we've begun to discuss, and I don't want to tell them, "Well, of these two alternatives, I prefer X," because I think that's usurping the function of the Board as a whole. That's where I come down on that. But, other people might have different opinions. Board Member Lew: Are you recommending then that the Board adopt the Council and PTC's bylaws regarding that? Chair Furth: Refresh my recollection. Board Member Lew: Well, I think... Board Member Gooyer: Well, it's already discouraged, so I think... Board Member Lew: But I think Sandra was saying that it's not in the, it's not written in our ARB... Ms. Lee: Yes, sorry, this was confusing. Because it was kind of interesting to me, actually, that the ARB rules are different from Council and PTC's, which are the same. And those have changed over time, as well. But today, both Council and PTC have procedural rules that discourage ex-parte communications if it will affect the impartiality of the decision-maker. But, the ARB does not include that "discourage" language. It just, you know...It's really silent as to that. 4.c Packet Pg. 113 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Board Member Lew: I think my...I think there's a specific example that happened this year, where the applicant who really...He'd been pushing for meetings between hearings, and really was pushing the City Attorney's Office to show them where it was written in the ARB's rules. Right? If we think that the PTC and the Council's rules are better, then I think we should put them in the ARB's language. Because they are challenge...I mean, there are applicants who are challenging that. Chair Furth: Does the PTC or the City Council have a rule forbidding ex-parte with the applicants or members of the public while a matter is being, a quasi-judicial matter is being continued? Ms. Lee: No... Board Member Lew: I think you're saying it's discouraged. Chair Furth: Discouraged. Ms. Lee: It's discouraged, in general. But I also think...You know, the ARB's process is interesting because you do contemplate having these three hearings, whereas that's not necessarily true before these other bodies. That's why there's no specific provision about between hearings. The only provision, which is the same as the ARB's, is about the prohibition between the close of the public hearing, and the decision. Chair Furth: And I think we all understand that that's because the public hearing is closed. We are not supposed to be gathering more information. Except maybe reading the code, which would be okay. Vice Chair Baltay: But I find I, I feel I have to visit the site, often several times on a complex project. It's only by going back there and looking at it again, often with the words of my colleagues ringing in my ears, that I can do this job properly. And yet, if that's ex-parte, is it or is it not? Chair Furth: I really think we should, analytically, we should separate site visits from talking to the applicant... [crosstalk] Board Member Gooyer: I agree. I think one is a... Chair Furth: ...very different concept, and nobody is going... Board Member Gooyer: ...definite requirement, and the other one probably is not necessary. Chair Furth: I think they are very different. Counsel? Ms. Lee: Even though we might generally say they're ex-parte contacts, they are very different in degree, as other Board members have commented. I do think that a site visit is in its own class of outside information than communications with individuals. Board Member Gooyer: What do you think of...Wynne? I mean, as far as...I've been on other boards where it was basically left for the chair to make that determination while his or her term... Chair Furth: Make which determination, Robert? Board Member Gooyer: Because, I mean, you know, every chair has a different way of looking at things. I don’t like the idea of making something too black and white where, in case you need an out, occasionally. 4.c Packet Pg. 114 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Chair Furth: Yeah, I'm less convinced that...Thank you for attending. I don’t know what the chair's role might be. Just thinking tentatively, not conclusively. I would be in favor of having a policy of discouraging communications between hearings. I really do not want an applicant to shop alternative proposals or responses to the Board after they've heard from us. I think that's very much the Board's function, or staff's function, and I think we have worked hard to be clear on our direction, and to try to get, you know, straw votes, or consensus, so that people understand what our opinions are before...So they don't need to go say, "Well, what do you think of this shade of blue?" I'm not going to tell you, and I don't even want to hear the question. So, I would be in favor of modifying our rules in that regard. I'd like to hear more from staff about the use of community meetings and whether it's useful to have an ARB representative with you at such meetings. I think that Board members can say things that staff can't. I really like Alex's idea of some proposed, you know, explanation to the public and the applicant about how we can and cannot - or do and do not -- wish to gather information. I think it would be helpful. The thing that I'm clearest about is that I have felt that I was advancing the City's efforts when I've met with neighbors or community activists, or whatever, to hear their concerns before an application is filed. Those are lay people. They don’t have professional advocates working for them. Though they're often highly sophisticated and very organized. It's pretty easy for me to keep track of what they've said, and when, and they are almost always telling me what they think, and never asking me what I think. All that makes it easier. I have -- twice -- met with applicants. No, three times. And once, the argument was, they really wanted to show me their drawings and plans. I am the slowest study on the Board in terms of looking at drawings and plans because that's not my profession. I can beat you anytime on an ordinance. And on balance, I don't think it's worth it. Staff is willing to go over questions with me, and I think that would be the better approach. I did meet with the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. It was helpful to hear their project description. I suggested that they give us that information when we were here. I disclosed that information in summary form before the hearing. Interestingly, they didn't make that part of their case when they came, and so I asked them to expand on it when they were here. The drive not to be discourteous is significant and refusing to meet with somebody is awkward. I would be happier if we had a policy that said that we strongly discourage meeting with applicants and the neighbors between hearings, and we directed those inquiries and communications to staff. I don't know how the rest of you feel. Ms. Gerhardt: Just from a staff perspective, I think you'd asked some questions of staff. I think we have heard communications from various applicants, that they walked away from a first or second hearing and didn't quite know what needed to be done. And I think we've tried to be thoughtful about that in the recent past, about -- as Chair Furth said -- you know, taking some straw polls, doing a better summary at the end of our hearings. I think that can help a lot of this type of issue. If we want to do a handout related to ex-parte communications, I think that's a great idea, and we can certainly work on that. The other thing, too, I know from board members, there seems to be some struggles with the plan sets and things like that. Staff has tried to work on that as best as possible, but some early communication from the board members to staff might be helpful in that regard. If you're looking through the plans and you're not seeing something you want, then maybe an early email to us could help us. We'd have to scramble, but we could try and get something together related to that. Or, we could just be ready for that question with a possible answer. Related to community meetings, I think it's a much bigger topic than all of us, just about how this city would like to move forward with that potential idea. I think right now, we have applicants that do their own community meetings. Most of the time, they will invite staff, and if we hear something incorrect being said, we will certainly voice that and try and correct that issue immediately. But it really is a developer's community meeting at this moment. So, you know, the whole city should think about how they may want to move forward with that or change that. And then, regarding updating the ARB's rules, we're certainly available to do that, and if we want to put some line items in there that, you know, just says that meetings are discouraged after the first hearing, and that somehow, you know, doesn't exactly pertain to site visits, we could certainly do that. Chair Furth: Thank you. Comments? Don't all speak at once. Board Member Lew: Well, I would say that I think I agree with your position on discouraging ex-parte meetings between hearings, and I think we definitely acknowledge that a past board member, when 4.c Packet Pg. 115 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Chair Popp was here. I mean, he...He was arguing for the opposite (inaudible), and I think there are other board members in the past who would also agree with him. About board members being available for meetings between hearings. But I think to your point, I think it's better not to do it. Vice Chair Baltay: I find that...I think the status quo is actually working pretty well. I think the feedback you've given us and the general understanding amongst the Board is pretty close to, it sounds like what the rules are. I don't see that we really need to change our rules or anything. Unless we want to put more time into it. But I think there are more pressing things we could work on changing our rules on. I'm satisfied with what we have. I'm happy to see it change, but I'm satisfied with what we have right now, too. Chair Furth: It looks like two of us would be in favor of modifying our rules to discourage ex-parte meetings between hearings, meaning contacts with the applicant and the public. In my case, particularly the applicant. "Discourage" doesn't mean prohibited. And two of you are happy with it as it stands, so we will wait for Board Member Thompson. Anything else we want to say about this topic while we're here and have the chance? Oh, how do people...? I would be in favor of having a...cheat sheet is the wrong word. Tip sheet. A document that applicants and members of the public could read about what we can and cannot do in meetings with them, so they don't start off by telling me what two of my fellow board members believe before I can stop them. Commissioner Gooyer: What we can and cannot do, or what we, what our purview is? Chair Furth: Well, I think it would be helpful if there was a document that said, you know, when you have a matter before the Board, you know, if a Board member agrees to meet with you, you need to be sure you do not inadvertently violate the Brown Act. Tell them...I don't know if it's possible, but if it has been done...I'd be willing to put some energy into thinking about this. I mean, one of the problems is it may encourage more people to ask for more meetings, which I think would be undesirable. Comments? Vice Chair Baltay: I think it's great as long as somebody else does it. Chair Furth: Got it. Maybe we just need to make those standard speeches. Why don't we think about that? Yes, go ahead, staff. Ms. Lee: I was just going to say that, as well. We can certainly put some thought into that, and what the appropriate forum would be. Chair Furth: What might be useful. Ms. Lee: Mm-hmm. Chair Furth: Yeah. Ms. Lee: Let us think about that a bit. Chair Furth: I will say that having had this meeting, I find myself thinking, you know, if somebody asks me for a meeting, I am probably going to say, "Are you planning to talk to other members of the Board as well?" And if they say, "Yes, I'm going to talk to everybody," I'm going to say, "You're not talking to me." Vice Chair Baltay: You know, when I started these meetings with this Board and others, I used to feel strongly that when somebody asked me, I would refer them back to the Chair, and the Chair would then direct how or if the Board would have ex parte communications. I've since come to think that maybe that's just overkill, and just sort of too much maneuvering and bureaucracy. 4.c Packet Pg. 116 City of Palo Alto Page 12 Chair Furth: I don't even think I can do it without breaking rules. I can't instruct the Board members whether or not to meet with a member of the public without violating other procedural (inaudible). How's that for vague? Vice Chair Baltay: I guess I’m just a legal layperson. I don't understand why that would be a bad thing. But, I mean, clearly, it's not something that counsel or staff wants us to do, and... Chair Furth: Because basically... Vice Chair Baltay: ...I don't really care. Chair Furth: Basically, the only authority I have I exercise at the meeting. When I'm not here, I have no importance. I have no authority except to chair the meetings. I'm entitled to put something on the agenda I forget. Anything else anybody wants to say about this today? Okay. Well, thank you very much for coming to talk to us. Staff, if you put this on as a follow-up meeting next time we have all five of us, follow-up item, that would be helpful. Thanks very much. Ms. Lee: Okay. Thank you. Chair Furth: I learned a lot. 4.c Packet Pg. 117 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 11822) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 12/3/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes of November 5, 2020 Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 5, 2020 From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the November 5, 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: x Attachment A: November 5, 2020 Draft Minutes (DOCX) 5 Packet Pg. 118 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Peter Baltay, Vice Chair Osma Thompson, David Hirsch, Board Member Grace Lee. Board Member Alexander Lew. Oral Communications Chair Baltay: Oral communications. Are there any members of the public who wish to address any item not on this agenda? Do we have any members raising their hand, Vinh? Vinh Nguyen, Administrative Associate: Chair Baltay, we currently do not have any members wishing to speak in oral communication. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Next item is agenda changes, additions, and deletions. Jodie Gerhardt, do we have anything for that? Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: No changes. Chair Baltay: Okay. I would like to add that I have been spoken with at least one member of the Board who has requested we have an agenda discussion in the future regarding, I guess you would say, ex parte communications between Board Members and staff and the public. I would like to ask staff that we agendize something of that nature as an informal discussion at some point this year. Would that be okay, Jodie? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, we’ve had the attorney’s office do such a conversation before. Do you feel like you want to bring the attorneys back? Would that be helpful to… Chair Baltay: I don’t feel the need for that but I would leave that to staff’s discretion. I think I would like to have the five Board Members have an opportunity to discuss amongst ourselves what we think is an appropriate process for communicating outside of meetings. I think within (inaudible) to bring up and discuss. What I am really after is to allow the Board to have a discussion amongst ourselves. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. Chair Baltay: If you think the attorneys would be beneficial that’s fine. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. Are you thinking for the next hearing on November 19th? Chair Baltay: I would prefer to do it later this calendar year. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: November 5, 2020 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue Virtual Meeting 8:30 AM 5.a Packet Pg. 119 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. Chair Baltay: Again, whatever you think is best to fit in. Ms. Gerhardt: December 3rd would be the next available. Chair Baltay: Yeah. Either of those meetings and maybe it depends on what other items we have. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. Chair Baltay: I would think about half an hour ought to be enough to just go through all of that. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. Sounds good. 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, thank you very much. City official reports, Jodie, again. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning. Thank you for my screen person. This just shows our meetings to the end of the year. We do currently have items for each of those hearings. To the best of my knowledge, all of the meetings will happen. December 15th would be installation of new or reappointments of existing members. I have heard from the Clerk’s Office that the Council will be doing that in a timely fashion. We will have a full Board. The new Board would start on December 17th. We will get confirmation from Council probably around December 14th or so. We do have two items for our next hearing on November 19th. We did put down here 3585 El Camino but that is actually going to be pushed off to December 3rd likely. At the November 19 th hearing we will be finishing up on the objective standards. We had started that conversation and got three-quarters of the way through. We will finish up with the last quarter or so. As we have time, we can start a second round if we so choose. The second item on that hearing is going to be 744 San Antonio Road which is a master sign program for the Marriott Hotels that are going at that location. Thank you. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 1310 Bryant Street Castilleja School Project Third ARB Hearing [19PLN-00116]: Recommendation to the City Council Regarding Architectural Review of Castilleja School's Phased Campus Redevelopment Proposal. Zone District: R-1(10,000). Environmental Review: A Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was Published July 29 and 30, 2020. For More Information Contact Amy French, Chief Planning Official, at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Chair Baltay: Thank you, Jodie. Okay. We are ready to get started on our action items. Action item number 2 public hearing/quasi-judicial: 1310 Bryant Street, the Castilleja School Project, the third ARB Hearing. Recommendation to the City Council regarding architectural review of Castilleja School's phased Campus redevelopment proposal. Zone District: R-1(10,000). Environmental Review: A final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was published on July 29 and 30, 2020. For More Information Contact Amy French. Okay, before we get started do we have any disclosures to make? Alex, disclosures? Board Member Lew: Yes, I have a couple. I visited the site on Tuesday. I also exchanged an email with Tonya Frasco [phonetic] who wanted to discuss the sustainability provisions in the Castilleja plans but I declined to meet since we are between hearings. There is a product that the applicant is using, the Okawood and I did do additional research about that on the website. Then, I also did look at the Packard Foundation in downtown Los Altos, which is a similarly designed project as the proposed project. I was looking at façade lengths. That’s it. 5.a Packet Pg. 120 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. David, any disclosures? Board Member Hirsch: No. No disclosures. Chair Baltay: No disclosures. Race, any disclosures? Board Member Lee: Just simply that I visited the site a couple of times and also went and saw the materials board. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Osma, disclosures, please. Vice Chair Thompson: I saw the materials board. Chair Baltay: Wonderful. I would like to disclose that I also visited the site and possibly of interest to my colleagues is that Oak Tree number 88 is an existing tree to the north-left of the proposed swimming pool location and I found that the drip line of the tree was approximately eight to ten feet larger than what’s shown on the plans. Just for your reference on that. I spent some time visiting the site earlier this week. Okay, with that we are ready to get started with a staff presentation. Amy, would you like to get started, please? Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Yes. [Setting up presentation.] Ms. French: Good morning. Amy French, Chief Planning Official. We are here at the ARB this morning to discuss the Castilleja School. Your staff report covered the submittal that the applicant provided several weeks ago now to the Architectural Review Board and on the webpage for the project. The staff report included the draft findings again as we did on October 1st. At the October 1st meeting, we did have 13 speakers and this is a continued hearing to a date uncertain with direction to modify and bring in conformed sets, which the applicant did. Last night and on October 28th, the Planning and Transportation Commission heard from the public and had some discussion late last night and continued the hearing again to November 18th to continue discussion of the CUP conditions. Today’s hearing we are here to review the applicant’s responses. The applicant is here to give a presentation. I can summarize the PTC hearing. I kind of just did. There was some consensus building last night regarding number of events that are subject to the CUP as well as a limitation on vehicle trips, both average daily trips and peak hour trips. There is some other stuff that happened but, again, it was continued. There is more to come. Today we will have public testimony and then the ARB may resume discussion and provide a recommendation if it so chooses. I am going to go through the applicant’s responses. The applicant, of course, will go into greater detail in their presentation. The building changes and overview: there was a second break provided as requested by the Architectural Review Board, to continue breaking up the mass on Kellogg Avenue. As well, additional green tile placements on that elevation and some other responses that I’ll briefly touch upon. We also had the opportunity to discover that there was a stair that needed to be relocated from the Lockey House parcel over to a different area, which the applicant did with adjusted plans for that. That move realized the retention of the Oak Tree 102, and a couple more trees as well. We will cover just briefly again the noise. There was an acoustician report that was provided with this packet. Then, landscaping, of course. There is a lot of discussion about landscaping required by the ARB. I will just quickly go through the slides for those that might be tuning in for the first time. Castilleja’s request is to replace the existing building. You will see these images from Kellogg Avenue. This was a lot of discussion at the last ARB meeting. The other views here are at the corner of Bryant and Emerson and then along Emerson. These are superimposed images of the proposed building. The request that the ARB made was to show elevations with trees off and trees on. They have done that. This one shows the second break and the green tile again. Last time it was only here. This time it is marching down here and again on the other side. There have been changes here at the fascia and views of the entrances and balconies will come shortly. Again, trees on and off on Bryant Street. This shows that lobby as last time the ARB saw. Emerson trees on and trees off. These are the two entrances and the two drop-off driveways, Bryant you saw last time. This has an enlarged elevation showing this second break in the massing. This, again, is the second break view 5.a Packet Pg. 121 City of Palo Alto Page 4 (it is a little fuzzy). This shows the green tile use; the third location for that green tile. The applicant provided a number of sections and enlarged elevations. I am sure they will go through those in detail; this is a summary of that. The applicant provided balcony images as requested. The photo-voltaics, there's an example of the system they're looking to install. This is a school in the vicinity. The building revisions: this image indicates where the second-floor area was removed to add up to a total reduction of gross floor area from the last meeting. There are images of stairs around the property. This one is the stairs that come from the blow-grade parking, and there are two stairs. Stair one is the stair that is uncovered that is going to be moving, as shown in the images. The second stair is the one that has the roof over it; this is next to the elevator near the gym. All of this is metal; metal stairs, metal railing, and metal roof. This just shows the image of where the stair is going to from this parcel. This is tree 102. That’s the latest to address some of the concerns. This is, again, the site view showing that. Then, just a quick set of fences. There is the pool fence here. This is an image I showed earlier. This is the rendering of that pool fence as it faces the neighborhood. Here are the photo-voltaics with trees on. This is a view of the landscaping and the mitigation trees that are proposed. The green trees are the ones that are proposed. The relocated trees are the ones shown in this tan color. This is a key to the frontage enhancement close up drawings of the landscaping around the entire site. Well, on three sides of the site. I am just going to quickly go through those. I have put them together to see. Here it is from Bryant, from the corner of Embarcadero all the way to Kellogg. This is the corner of Bryant and Kellogg. There are bioswales in these planting areas and the set shows the images of the plants to be used with a key to make it understandable. We go down Kellogg. Here’s the Kellogg frontage. Again, the bioswale area. Then the corner of Emerson and Kellogg leading over to the Emerson Street homes where there is the garage exit and the emergency vehicle access drive. Fences, I have done a key diagram showing where these fences are. There are four types of fences on this diagram. The other fence was the pool sound wall. Here is where these are shown. If you want me to come back to this diagram later I am happy to do that to fully understand where those fences go. The same with the gates. The gates are indicated here. There are five types of gates: vehicle, pedestrian, et cetera. This had been earlier, was earlier provided, but I thought it would be worth showing again. These are the daylight illuminance patterns for the campus, as well as the sun patterns. Hopefully, these were available for the last hearing. Then, because it came up at the Planning Commission last night --a member of the public hadn’t seen what the distribution percentages would be -- I thought it would be worth showing today the Transportation Impact Analysis of the alternative four recommendation, which is included in our recommendation, is to distribute the drop-off trips to 27 percent of the vehicles coming through the garage, 43 percent going through this Bryant drop-off drive -- again only come one direction down Bryant -- and then 30 percent on this Kellogg driveway. I believe that concludes my presentation. I know the applicant is here to present as well. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, Amy French. Do we have any questions from the Board for staff? No questions? Board Member Hirsch: I do have one. Maybe about that last comment you made about the -- Chair Baltay: Please speak closer to your microphone, David. It’s hard to hear you. Board Member Hirsch: The question is of the 27 and 43 percent, whichever, do they all come from that same direction? Are they all coming off of Embarcadero? Chair Baltay: Amy, are you able to understand his question? Ms. French: Yes, I think I do. In order for vehicles to enter the campus on the Bryant side, they have to be driving southward,if that’s the compass direction. I don’t know exactly but we call that project south, I guess. They are driving down Bryant and turning right into the Bryant driveway. There is no turning left currently nor proposed from northbound Bryant left into the campus. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. All of that traffic has been a part of the Environmental Report as well? The traffic in that direction? Ms. French: correct. 5.a Packet Pg. 122 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Chair Baltay: Any other questions for staff? Okay. With that, we are ready to have our applicant make a presentation. Do we have someone from the applicant team with us? Vinh, is there somebody here? Adam Woltag, Applicant: This is Adam Woltag from WRNS Studio. I can dive right in, Vinh, if that’s all right. Chair Baltay: You'll have ten minutes, Adam. You can start whenever you're ready. Adam Woltag: Thank you and good morning, everyone. Thank you for your time and consideration. I am looking forward to your comments and suggestions here. We have a lot to go through here today but we wanted to focus on these four key elements on building modifications, some of the material clarifications, landscaping and fencing, and some of the daylight strategies on the project. This slide illustrates our proposed site plan that incorporates the changes we have heard from you from the last time. Many of those changes were focused along the Kellogg Street elevation. Those changes were really centered on massing material, color, and texture. This slide shows our original proposed elevation from way back when when we first met with you folks. This slide shows the first run of comments with the initial break you see here just to the left of the science portion of the project. This is the new revised elevation with an added second break that Amy was referring to, and now with trees. Here is a view along Kellogg. Note the two different breaks in the massing. The initial one that goes all the way through the building and the new proposed one towards Emerson that is setback not all the way through but it does break the massing in that location. This slide illustrates the plan at the first and second floor as well as the Kellogg elevation highlighting the variety of ins and outs, or setback from the street. Note again that second break in the elevation just above the Kellogg Street entry. This is a view looking towards Emerson from that first break you see above the ceramic tile on the right. This is a view of the new proposed break in the massing above the Kellogg Street entry. Focusing a bit on that Kellogg entry, we have tried to keep it small and residential in scale and screened from the street just beneath that new porch created by that break. We have also added more green ceramic tile marking that entry. Then on the left, another view of that entry as you are walking into that space. Above it, you can see the new massing break. On the right continuing this approach turning the corner along Emerson at that recessed second-floor terrace with the proposed green tile. Now focusing on some of the material changes, and along the Kellogg we’re going to cut a section here through this portion of the project. Here is a detailed, cut-away, 3-D section that illustrates those changes to the façade. We have taken our keys from the Gunn building, as you see on those little snapshots on the right, where the Gunn has a very strong datum between the first and second floor. That is what we tried to do and really amplified our approach. We have increased the number of wood battens on the second floor above that horizontal beltline, which really breaks that two-story façade into two distinct elements. We have also brought the language of the battens to that metal fascia that runs continuously all around the building now. We think that is going to be a wonderful addition adding texture and shadow to that fascia. We have also changed the color of all the metal windows and the fascia from a clear anodized to a warmer champagne anodized color. We think that is going to make the building feel much warmer. I am really, really pleased with how this is starting to come together. Here is going to be another section closer to the Bryant Street intersection. Here you can see, again, that first-floor facade clad and wood shingles The second-floor setback behind the planted terrace and the clear windows at grade that bring daylight into the lower garden level. Here’s a shot of the updated material palette with a champagne anodized aluminum sample. Now let’s take a look at some of the modifications to the Bryant Street elevations. This was our original proposed design and you can see with a full break between the two building volumes and the exposed cast-in-place concrete wall on that Bryant Street elevation. Then, what we are proposing now and letting that wood façade wrap around that concrete wall and with the new proposed lobby. With trees. Moving along to Emerson Street. Here again, is the proposed elevation. You can see where that beltline is broken by that concrete wall that goes two-stories. What we are proposing now is letting that wood façade wrap around the whole building and not be broken up by those concrete share walls. Then with trees. A little bit more on the building clarifications that came up in our last meeting. There was a question about Okawood and we just wanted to show here diagramed in yellow the specific locations where we are proposing the Okawood window system. These are areas that we felt that the program behind those windows would benefit with a little more screening from the street and a little more 5.a Packet Pg. 123 City of Palo Alto Page 6 privacy. We have them in the library; we have them in what you see here on the Bryant Street elevation; we have them along Kellogg where we have the science and maker spaces; then along Emerson on the second floor near conference and dining space. Now looking at a section of the building and looking at our approach to our photo-voltaic strategy where PV panels are set low on stanchions and are laid almost flat. As Amy mentioned, we have done this a couple times before. These are project examples from a campus very nearby. That very low profile that really has very little impact on the façade. Now looking at perimeter edges and landscape and fences, this is the proposed landscape plan that illustrates are internal and perimeter landscape design. It is really focused on amplifying and sustaining the existing landscape character of the area. It is also designed to work passively and slow the flow of storm water on-site and ensure the health of existing and proposed trees. As Amy mentioned earlier, here is a detailed plan of our fence strategy. This slide illustrates two of the five campus fence conditions, each of those conditions responding directly to their specific content. This slide shows a range of a more traditional brick and metal fencing along the Embarcadero and public gateways. We also transitioned to wood fences that felt a little bit more residential in scale in facing the neighborhood along Emerson. This is a specific type, type five, that is along the depressed pool seen here. This fence is doing a couple of different things. It is actually supporting a PV canopy that is trying to get our overall project net-zero target inline. It is also a detail to help increase acoustic performance of that wall. That is set behind a landscape planted buffer zone. This is a detailed vision of that here. This illustrates the richness and the variety of those native plant species and drought tolerance strategy here. A comment was brought up about public art. In response to that, we have looked at a couple of opportunities to think about where we might want to incorporate that. One location was along the existing drop-off along Kellogg. You can see here on the left a plan that shows some possible locations and some ideas and where we might want to bring some of the elements in. The intent would be that some of these elements might be specifically designed to be integrated into the landscape along the street. We wanted to show you these initial concept thoughts about how we might integrate public art along that street. Moving to daylighting and planning. There was a comment at our last meeting about what programs are in that below-grade garden level and we wanted to bring this to light. Going left to right you can see we have performing arts and digital recording. We have world languages. There is a faculty hub. There is a continuation of the library that actually does spill down into this level. There are science and maker spaces.In the upper school, the student’s hub space begins at grade and spills down to that lower level, as well as building services and trash and access that is all at that lower level. The yellow indicates where we have -- through the use of skylights, clear-story windows, light wells, and open double-height spaces -- brought daylight into this garden level. That goes and begins at the roof and through the building. You can see here on the first floor the elements we are using to bring daylight into those spaces up on that second floor and how the roof also plays a part on how that daylight strategy is coming together. This is a 3-D section that illustrated how the middle school entry and hub spaces work. Students walk past a sunken garden that brings daylight into that garden level through large storefront doors into a double-height space that reaches up to the second floor. Again, through the use of skylights, interior clearstory windows, daylight really will be evident. We really are trying to get daylight evident in all aspects of the middle school spaces. Mr. Nguyen: Time check. Ten minutes is up. Adam Woltag: Just two slides left. This is a section diagram that shows the high school. Here this space starts at grade and drops to the garden level. Again, through the use of skylights, full-height south-facing clear-story windows, and interior clear story windows we really feel attested how daylight is going to move through this project. We feel very, very confident that these spaces will feel very inviting and very easy to flow between. That’s it. Thank you very much. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Adam, for your presentation. Do we have any questions of the applicant from the Board Members? Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, I do. Chair Baltay: Osma, go ahead. 5.a Packet Pg. 124 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Vice Chair Thompson: Adam, would you be able to go over again the shear wall locations? I am looking at our printed plans and I do see concrete shear walls on Bryant Street and on Emerson Street. I would like some clarification on those elevations. Chair Baltay: Which drawings are you looking at, Osma, please? Vice Chair Thompson: AB305 and AB306 both show a texture concrete shear wall, which I was going to ask about what that texture is. But then as Mr. Woltag was going through his presentation I noticed that those elevations look a little different. I’d just like some clarification on what those elevations look like and where the shear walls are. Adam Woltag: absolutely. I am going to point to the plan here. It’s a little hard to see but I am going to show you on Bryant Street there is shear wall here. Along Kellogg there is another shear wall that was located over here and over here, so two. Then one more here along Emerson. What we are proposing to do is actually clad those in wood. Before we put a break here there was a shear wall right here. Our structural engineer is really not happy about this but we are going to get it to work. There was an exposed concrete shear wall here and there was actually another one located here along Kellogg. You won’t see those concrete shear walls anymore. We’re going to clad them with wood. A little bit more detailed view here. There was a wall located here and here. Those are now covered. Along Bryant Street, let’s get to that one. Here we go. Along Bryant Street there is the location of that concrete shear wall. We had a break, you can see where that waistband stopped and we allowed that shear wall to make its way to the façade. We all thought that it was better, actually, to go in this direction which would be to clad that shear wall and let the wood finish and that beltline continue and not break the façade. We prefer this approach to our initial suggestions which was this one. Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. Yeah, I think that this image that we’re looking at is the one that’s in our set. In this new one are the wood panels a certain size or are they the wood slats? I can see some seams there. Adam Woltag: Yes, right here you're starting to see those, yes. I am going to go to a detailed view here that might help explain it. This is a pretty good view that shows our strategy throughout the whole project where we have vertical wood siding. Where you see these smoother-looking panels that are separated by these wooden battens these are on a four-foot to five-foot module. It is very regular. The battens help establish where we have solid vertical wood panels and then the openings for fenestration. It’s pretty regular pattern. We have our belt line which we really like that accentuates from the Gunn Building. Then on the second floor, we have the same wood siding but we are going to increase the amount of battens on the second floor. It’s the same material but a much more intense, I'm going to say, density of wood battens. You're starting to get a break now very similar in way of interpretation of the Gunn Building. We have a much different cadence of the wood battens on the first floor to the second floor. There will be more shade and shadow; there will be more density. We really like that difference between as opposed to a continuous façade of the same elements above that beltline. We are going to start to establish a different density of battens on either side of that beltline. Vice Chair Thompson: Okay, thank you. Can you go over the Emerson façade. I think I cut you off before you went there. Adam Woltag: No, it’s right here. Let’s see. The Emerson here you can see where that concrete shear wall used to be and it broke our beltline and really broke façade into two elements. Here it is now with a continuation of that beltline, the wood skin just rolls over it and we like that continuation of the façade. It feels much better; much more contiguous. Vice Chair Thompson: Thank you. Adam Woltag: You're welcome. 5.a Packet Pg. 125 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Vice Chair Thompson: I do have one more question and it’s about lighting. I wanted confirmation -- maybe this is something you might need to go and get it -- on the ZY1 pole light. The image that we have in our packet is really tiny and it’s a little hard to tell what that light is. Adam Woltag: Oh boy. I’m sorry, I don’t have that packet in front of me at the moment but can we, can we get that to you and get a better… Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. Adam Woltag: Get more information on that. That was Z -- which one again was that? Vice Chair Thompson: The ZY1. Adam Woltag: Okay. Vice Chair Thompson: Then on the plans it says ZY1C, and I just also wanted to confirm that is the same light. Adam Woltag: Okay. We can go ahead and get that to you. Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. Those are my questions. Chair Baltay: Before any other questions, Adam, could you clarify, then that the packet elevations and perspectives do not... or show that concrete shear wall and you're saying that’s not going to be there any longer. Adam Woltag: That’s correct. Chair Baltay: What’s going on? Why are the drawings out of sync, then? Adam Woltag: you know, this approach here with the façade treatment is a late addition. We felt it was in concert with our approach with the elevations and trying to relate this to the Gunn Building. Chair Baltay: Amy French, are you -- excuse me, Adam. Amy, are you aware of this change? Ms. French: I am seeing as you are. Chair Baltay: Okay. Adam, it’s important to have a complete set of plans for us and it seems like the elevations and perspectives in our packet do not show this. I am not sure how we’re going to react to that but I just want to clarify that really is the case that what you're proposing is not the same as the drawings you’ve submitted. That’s a question. Adam Woltag: The only changes there should be would just be on the shear wall. Covering the concrete shear wall with the wood siding. Chair Baltay: Okay. Thank you. Adam Woltag: That should be the only changes that may not… Chair Baltay: Any other questions for the applicant from Members of the board? Alex, Grace, David? Then I have a question for you, Adam. You had a very nice sectional perspective entitled batten, something like -- yeah, that one is good. This is a technical type of thing but when I look at your drawings you seem to indicate a series of steel I-beams just inside the glazed curtain wall supporting the timbers lab roof. You also seem to indicate a series of drain pipes. You're showing a notch on the roof section here where the gutter would be for drainage but my understanding is that you can turn pipes laterally through a timber slab. Are these, then, going to be visible underneath? Will that change the way this looks? 5.a Packet Pg. 126 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Adam Woltag: Are you speaking about this detail here with the concealed… Chair Baltay: Exactly. On that detail the drain pipe goes through the timber slab, right? Adam Woltag: That’s true. It goes through the… Chair Baltay: And then where does it go from there? Adam Woltag: It depends on where on the project this condition takes place. Chair Baltay: Take the section in your perspective there. Where does it go in that section? (crosstalk) Adam Woltag: Sure, typically it’s in the body of the wall. It can be concealed within that wall and then it goes into our stormwater management area. There could be areas where it might daylight. We haven’t run that all the way through but typically what we do is we conceal that within the wall where we can. There will be areas where you might see a downspout, right, that would chase all the down towards our stormwater management approach. Chair Baltay: It is possible we will have exposed drainage pipes on the underside of that roof slab? Adam Woltag: You might start to see it in a few locations where it makes sense to daylight, correct. You would see a downspout. Chair Baltay: Then on the inside the structural beam, you’re drawing shows that as an exposed steel I- beam. Wouldn’t you need some kind of fire protection? How is that going to work and look? Have you through that through? Adam Woltag: Are you speaking about this detail here? Chair Baltay: No, on the inside. Looking at your perspective where the person is standing up above. Adam Woltag: Right here, correct. Chair Baltay: On the second floor. I'm talking about the roof. I have noticed in a number of your drawings a series of steel sections indicated which would be necessary to support the slab over the glazed openings. I was just wondering how much thought you have given to that because I think that would change dramatically how it affects how it looks. Adam Woltag: I don’t see what you're seeing right here, unfortunately, Peter. I think what we have done here in cases like this where we have CLT slab above our steel beam is that all of that would be fire protected. We could definitely get you more information when we get to that level of detail, absolutely. But we wouldn’t propose anything that wasn’t. Chair Baltay: I'm looking at your detail number four on sheet AB802, which is indicating a pretty clear steel section running right underneath that small parapet wall up above. Adam Woltag: I'm sorry. I don’t have that same drawing in front of me. Chair Baltay: To my colleagues, then, there's a steel beam that seems to be indicated there which I believe would be necessary and I am not sure you could just leave it exposed at that. I think it would be nice to know how that looks. That will be seen through the window from the exterior. That’s a question to but if there’s no resolution to that then that’s the end of that question. Vice Chair Thompson: The type four constriction building? Chair Baltay: I can’t hear you, Osma. 5.a Packet Pg. 127 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Vice Chair Thompson: I was just confirming is this a type four building? It’s a question for Mr. Woltag. Chair Baltay: Oh, you mean the fire rating of the building. Vice Chair Thompson: Actually, sorry, it's type 2B. Adam Woltag: Yeah, it's 2B. Ms. French: Would it help -- this is Amy -- if I show it? I have that page number you reference Chair Baltay? Chair Baltay: I don’t think so because this is a question to the applicant. I don’t really hear anything else about it. I don’t want to drag it beyond that. Are there any other questions for the applicant? Vice Chair Thompson: I’ll retract my question on the ZY1 pole. I did some further Googling and it is a timber pole it seems for the lightning fixtures. That was my question about the material. Chair Baltay: Yeah, they do provide the specs on it in the packet but it does require some leg work to figure it out. Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. Board Member Hirsch: I wanted to pick up on your comment, Peter, about the beam. Chair Baltay: David, this is a question period right now. Is this a question or a comment? Board Member Hirsch: Question. Chair Baltay: Okay, go ahead. Board Member Hirsch: Regarding whether you're going to have a drop ceiling or exposed lighting? How do you intend to treat the clear story aspect of those rooms that have beams below the line of the window from the slab above? Chair Baltay: Adam, did you understand his question? Adam Woltag: Yes, I did. Typically what we do… that beam is set back away from that clear story window by a certain distance. It could be 18 inches, 24 inches. It’s not exactly entirely set. You do get a glass line coming from the bottom of the COT slab, right, all the way down to the floor slab. It’s a full-height window cut. We used to call it a shadow pocket in the days of a lot of high rise construction where you have asset back. I think you remember that. But a beam is set back and what that does is sometimes it can be soffited in and so we soffit in where we have an acoustic ceiling coming in at a lower elevation and that provides a very clean and tidy way to encase the beam, fireproof it, as well as provide acoustic performance to those interior spaces. Board Member Hirsch: So far your section doesn’t really show those aspects of the interior relative to that outside wall and pocket. That’s yet to come, right? Adam Woltag: That’s correct. Chair Baltay: Adam, do I understand that the interior may have a dropped ceiling in these classrooms? Adam Woltag: In certain classrooms, yes, where the acoustic performance is needed. Correct, yes. There will be suspended lights, ceiling fans, there's a whole interior reflected ceiling plan that we can get to you in the right amount of time that would show all those things. But, yes, there will be suspended lighting, there will be acoustic ceilings in these spaces… 5.a Packet Pg. 128 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Chair Baltay: And how far down would that be dropping from the structural slab do you think? Adam Woltag: It would probably be about 24 to 30 inches. I think what we’re trying to achieve in there, Peter, is a ten-foot clear space. Chair Baltay: I see. Adam Woltag: That is our goal is to try to get that. That is the best acoustic properties and the best daylighting properties. Where we have done that in classrooms before it has worked very, very well with lighting and acoustics. Chair Baltay: And you're saying that the shadow pocket, the space between the dropped ceiling and the glazing perimeter, might be about 24 inches wide? Adam Woltag: Approximately, yes. Chair Baltay: Okay. Thank you for the clarification there. Any other questions? Thank you, then. Vinh, do we have any members of the public who wish to address us? I’d like to open the meeting to comments from the members of the public now. Mr. Nguyen: Yes, we do have some raised hands. I see the number of raised hands is going up as we speak. Chair Baltay: Okay, that’s good. Mr. Nguyen: Veronica, can we get the speaker timer, please? Chair Baltay: To the members of the public, we will be asking you to say your piece each in turn and you'll have three minutes to address us. Vinh, do we have a list of names or how do we do this? Mr. Nguyen: Yeah, we will put the list of names on the screen. Chair Baltay: That’d be great. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Nguyen: I do apologize. It looks like Veronica is no longer in this meeting. Maybe she had an internet disconnection or something. Let me see if I can put that up myself. One moment, please. Chair Baltay: Take your time, Vinh. We’re going to do this next. Let’s get it right. It’s like vote counting. You have to just do this the right way. Vice Chair Thompson: I see that Veronica is on the call again now. Mr. Nguyen: Okay, great. And she did just message me that she has returned. I guess she must have had a disconnection of some sort. All right. Thank you so much, Veronica. Okay. While she fills in the list let me just read out the first five names so that way they can prepare. The first five speakers will be Mary Sylvester, followed by Cath Garber, followed by Vania Fang, followed by Trisha Suvari, and then followed by Jim Poppy. Chair Baltay: Do you know how many speakers we have in total, Vinh? Mr. Nguyen: Currently we have eleven raised hands. Chair Baltay: Okay. That’ll be fine. Mr. Nguyen: Okay. The first speaker will be Mary. 5.a Packet Pg. 129 City of Palo Alto Page 12 Chair Baltay: Welcome Mary. Mary Sylvester: Thank you Chair Baltay as well as your fellow and female Board Members. Thank you for all of you for your countless hours of time along with City staff in working on this project so diligently. I would also like to acknowledge Mr. Nguyen for his competent and very professional performance with all of us. I would like to acknowledge Chair Baltay, you, for paying attention to the vulnerability of tree 89. It is at risk and we appreciate you acknowledging its state. Secondly, I would like to ask the Board where is the garage architects? It’s been great to have Adam Woltag and his team available to present to the community and the Chairs, Commissions, and Boards but we need further information about this very significant amendment to our zoning code and the implications of the neighborhood. We need to meet with the architects for the underground garage. Thank you. Now, the substance of my comments. Castilleja operates on a conditional use permit and, therefore, its operation in a single-family neighborhood is a privilege, not a right, as supporters of the school are trying to convince city officials. Consequently, it may not do anything that’s harmful or injurious to the public welfare as well as adjacent property owners. The project represents a substantial intensification of use of the Castilleja site to the detriment of the neighborhood, community at large, and sensitive biological resources such as the mature and protected trees it plans to remove. This is ultimately a loss to the community and this natural heritage we have. The sustainability plan is being undermined with the underground garage. 64,000 square feet over allowable use is being reviewed and a variance is requested. This school and city are trying to explain away the intensification and inconsistencies of this project. All we ask for is a code-compliant project that pays attention to public safety, neighborhood quality of life, and the wellbeing of the community at large. Thank you very much. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Mary. Our next speaker, please, Vinh. Mr. Nguyen: Yes, our next speaker is Cath. Hi, Cath, if you're there can you please unmute yourself? Catherine Garber: Yes, hello. Thank you. My name is Catherine Garber. I often present projects to the City as an architect representing client sin Palo Alto. Today I am speaking as a Palo Alto resident who also cares deeply about how our city continues to evolve architecturally. It becomes stronger as a community. With that perspective in mind, I want to voice my support for Castilleja’s designs and modifications. I am pleased to see the refinements that have been made along the Kellogg side of campus. The new breaks in the Kellogg façade parallel the look and scale of the new porches on Bryant. These changes address the goal to reduce the massive and to break up the eave. I feel it does so in a way that creates coherence along the different street views. The sections of the building along Kellogg feel more distinct from one another and connect visually with the facades on Bryant in many ways. The last I reviewed these plans I was pleased to see the porch that had been added on Bryant integrated elements from the historical Gunn Building. Specifically, it was nice to see the option to bring the green carved doors on the current entry over the new porch. Now for this presentation, the green tiles have been added to the outside of the building of the Kellogg breaks. I think this is a lovely new addition to the project, as are the touches of having the bellyband break the two floors and the added vertical battens on the second floor. With input from your commission, I feel Castilleja team has brought, in addition, attention to detail that serves to tie together the historic structures to the new (inaudible). This has been a long process for the City and the school but I truly believe we have arrived at the end of this productive road. The evolution of this project has brought important changes. It is not time to approve these plans. Modernization is desperately needed for Castilleja. The current structures are aging and do not enhance the neighborhood in the least. These new buildings and the thoughtful landscaping around them will settle in gently and create a beautiful backdrop for this with residential life in this corner of Palo Alto. Thank you for your time. Chair Baltay: Thank you Cathy Garber. Next speaker, please, Vinh. Mr. Nguyen: Yes, our next speaker will be Vania. Vania Fang: Hi, good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I am joining the hearing again today because I live directly across from Castilleja school on Kellogg and, therefore, I am very vested in this process. 5.a Packet Pg. 130 City of Palo Alto Page 13 Mr. Nguyen: Pardon me, Vania. For interrupting you. Veronica, can you reset the timer. Go ahead, sorry. Vania Fang: Can I go now? Mr. Nguyen: Yes. Vania Fang: I just want to reiterate that. I am joining the hearing again today because I live directly across from Castilleja school on Kellogg and therefore I am very invested in this process. The last time I spoke I shared my gratitude to Castilleja for the thoughtful design plans for the new campus. I look forward to the new building. As I mentioned before, I especially appreciate the gentle entry on Kellogg because it is subtle and beautifully landscaped. The current drop-off patterns do not negatively impact us as direct neighbors and I want to reiterate that I happy those will be the same on the new campus. Castilleja has been a good neighbor to us in so many ways with excellent traffic monitoring, no school parking outside my home, and quiet students who we are happy to see again now that campus has reopened to small groups. During the past ARB and PTC meetings I attended, traffic and noise were often raised as concerns about Castilleja modernization project. As a direct neighbor, I honestly have never experienced any traffic or noise issues from Castilleja. We used to live near a neighborhood school prior to relocating to our current house. Every morning going to work we would be stuck behind a long queue of cars doing drop- offs as well as yielding to heavy pedestrian traffic. None of that happened at Castilleja. Traffic was always well managed and never overflowed onto the neighborhood streets. In fact, we experienced much more traffic problems as we approached the nearby Palo Alto high school but we accept that fact because we bought our home knowing it is close to schools. While I understand public schools go through a different traffic regulation process, to me as a neighbor Palo A lot High and Castilleja are both schools. Castilleja is not the source of traffic issues in this neighborhood now, and I believe this fact will remain unchanged with the new campus. Regarding noise, we rarely hear any sound from Castilleja, and remember we are almost directly across from Castilleja’s pool. On the rare occasion that we do hear something it hardly qualifies as noise. It is a school after all and schools should not be silenced. I know at the last hearing as Board, you had suggested further adjustment to reduce the massing on Kellogg and now that I see the changes the architects have made I understand why that was important. I appreciate the new setbacks along the second story roofline and I think these incremental changes from the past two hearings now add up to a very different and much-improved result. I think this modernized building will be a new way that Castilleja will improve to a neighbor to me, creating a space that is beautiful and warm and scaled to match the textures and variety of our neighborhood. I am excited for this project to move forward and I thank you for your guidance and expertise in this process. I urge you to support this with a final vote today because I want to see this process start. I also want our neighborhood to be able to move forward. Thank you for your time and attention to this important project for the City of Palo Alto. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Vania. Next speaker, please, Vinh. Mr. Nguyen: Yes, our next speaker is Trisha. Trisha Suvari: Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I attended your hearing for Castilleja’s project in August, and in October, and I am here again today. As an observer, I appreciate the quality of the deliberation that you all have fostered in this process. As A Board, you’ve made thoughtful observations and asked excellent questions. Your guidance has helped to improve the project. Today we are reviewing the culmination of years of work from the school taking in feedback from neighbors, consultants, and other City leaders. This process has continued with input from all of you. I am impressed on how specific and reflective all of you have been in these recent hearings. As a result, I am also impressed with how responsive Castilleja has been making small and large adjustments to create an updated campus that will make the neighborhood more beautiful. The changes in feedback I’ve noted include clarity around the smaller Circle to increase setbacks, which offers up more space around the surrounding streets, two rounds of changes to the Kellogg façade to break up the massing, vary the rooflines, and modify the external materials, adjustments to the Bryant entry to include historical elements, thoughtful assessment of suitability elements, such as solar panels, and review of the best ways to enter campus and allow the school to relate to and interact with the surrounding streets. This has been a fruitful process and I sincerely hope you will vote to approve these plans as they are today. I remember that at a recent hearing as a 5.a Packet Pg. 131 City of Palo Alto Page 14 Board, you discussed the fact that you wanted to do more than just improve upon the current buildings, which I think we can all agree are dated and need to be replaced. But you talked about wanting to do the best you can to reach beyond that low hanging fruit to a bigger goal of creating a new campus that is beautiful on its own merits. I think you’ve done that here. The work that you have put into the process has made a difference and now I hope we can shift into concrete steps the school can take to begin to make these plans a reality. I thank you so much for your time. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Trisha Suvari. Next speaker, please. Mr. Nguyen: Our next speaker is Rob. Rob Levitsky: Hello. This is Rob Levitsky. Aren’t those wonderful scripted speeches. Let's reach out for that low-hanging fruit. Well, guess where that low hanging fruit hangs? It hangs on trees. And without the trees, Palo Alto is nothing but a bare landscape. Initially, Castilleja came in four years ago and said oh, well, there are 168 trees here and most of them will be impacted. A lot of them we will cut down. As arborist for the City for 20 years, Dave Dockter has a motto which was you design around nature and he had a tree ordinance that supported him that in Oaks and Redwoods of a certain size in Palo Alto are protected. Well, Castilleja came in and said we will cut down any tree we really feel like. We pushed back and because of our pushback trees started reappearing on the map but it’s really not enough. What's happened lately is in the EIR they have taken the position that any tree can be cut down, even protected trees, as long as you mitigate them. They play the game in saying well these Oaks are nice but we are going to plant so many of these little box oaks that we have twice as many trees. Or maybe three times as many trees, though they might only be ten feet tall and I’ll be long, dead, and gone before they are even hardly over my head. Oaks and Redwoods are important to Palo Altons and we shouldn’t, basically, throw away the tree ordinance like planning has done in justifying that any… in a reading of the ordinance saying that if there is a protected tree in a place where you want to put a building then the building always wins. By supporting this project, you guys on the Architectural Review Board, you would be supporting a precedent that said any Oak or any Redwood that’s protected can be cut down if we want to put a building there. That’s what you have done here. It is shocking. Not just buildings and not just repaired or upgrade schools, but parking garages. The trees have to die, Oaks and Redwoods have to die so you can have an underground parking garage excavating 35,000 or more cubic yards of dirt with 3,000 to 5,000 dump load trucks pouring thousands and thousands of tons of concrete where each ton of concrete emits 900 kilograms of CO2, which is killing the Earth so that a couple more juniors and seniors can drive to school. Well, we neighbors object. So much for promoting harmonious and orderly development and enhancing the desirability of the neighborhood. I stand opposed. We neighbors stand opposed. Upgrade your school, follow the rules, don’t build your underground parking garage which you can’t build anyway because you don’t have the square footage --because you’re looking for a variance on square footage and you pretend this -- Chair Baltay: Excuse me, Rob. We’re over the time limit. Can you wrap it up, please? Rob Levitsky: That’s enough. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Rob Levitsky. Next speaker, please, Vinh. Mr. Nguyen: next speaker is Jim. Jim Poppy: Hi. Thank you. Thank you very much Board Chair Baltay for doing some due diligence on this project and going out and looking at the trees. Tree 89 is a magnificent Oak tree which you see visible all the way down Melville Avenue as you approach the school. By threatening its existence with the pool and the garage it’s clear that that tree is in danger and it is a very important piece to softening the view of the school. As you’ve just seen in the plans, there are a number of fences that are going to be built right around the pool and at all angles. The removal of that tree, the killing of that tree would be a tragedy. Also, it has been mentioned earlier, why aren’t you looking at the garage? This is a huge oversight and the plans make it look like cars will just magically pop out of the garage and they exit onto Emerson and there is no detailed view of the entrance on Bryant. If you look at the garage closer they have planned for 5.a Packet Pg. 132 City of Palo Alto Page 15 an underground tunnel that would have students walking underneath the sewer easement probably through the water table and back up into campus. I mean, this is just stunning to me that the garage has been overlooked like it’s not any impact to the above-ground view. It is clearly a huge piece of this plan and is disruptive to the trees and it is a huge C02 burn. It is so environmentally friendly. This really needs to be looked at and I hope that you can continue this hearing to address these very important and real concerns that neighbors have. As Rob said, we are not being provided scripts by the school to tell you. This is all from neighbors who are impacted. Not from parents of students. Thank you very much for your continued diligence. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Jim Poppy. Next speaker, please. Mr. Nguyen: Our next speaker is Andie. Andie Reed: Hi. Thank you very much. My name is Andie Reed and I live near the school. We look forward to seeing the school’s spruced up new campus. The natural woods and colors and terraces and the diversity and vertical elements the architects have added makes it more interesting every time we see the drawings. As a close neighbor, however, it still feels bulky and stark. This building is based upon an enrolment increase of 30 percent more students; an enormous jump in attendees to the same small space that has served very well as a girls school for 100 years. The school has not made a case for needing to rebuild at such great extravagance. Of course, if the school wants to change its operational model and tech many more girls they have resources plenty to provide an array of options without increasing density and traffic in this small site and causing such enmity with the neighbors, which brings me to finding number one. I am glad you are all architects because this is something you are familiar with. The school is asking for a variance, and exception to Palo Alto muni code. In order to tear down five smaller buildings and build one large building, muni code says that the school needs to comply with current code. School basis their request for variance upon the size of the lot in which they claim harms them; however, they made it larger by land purchase and merging of lots over the years and getting the city to abandon the 200 block of Melville in 1992. This excludes it from consideration for an exception as the changes in size and shape were made by the owner. The variance the school is asking for is a 40 percent increase in GFA. Please see my written comments that I sent yesterday. If the underground garage is an accessory facility, which we all agree it is, and is not a basement, which we do not think it is, then this number doubles. This matters because traffic and congestion in the neighborhood is already detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. This project adds more traffic from 1198 car trips to 1477 car trips. An underground garage and large modern building are incompatible with the neighborhood of smaller, older homes. Comp plan L-3.1 states new builders to ensure new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. The underground garage adds addition driveways into our narrow streets, invites traffic in instead of reducing it, and takes away the charm of tree-lined school grounds replacing it with a more institutional project which we find aesthetically harmful. I ask you to please look at not only at how the building improves the campus but also how this project looks to us who live here. We don’t go to the school. Most Palo Altons don’t go to the school. We see the outsides of the buildings. Please do not make this finding number one until any new expansion plans reduce impacts, not increase them and residents needs and interests are on a par equal to those of the school. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Andie Reed. Next speaker, please. Mr. Nguyen: Our next speaker is Alan. Alan Cooper: Hello. Yes, I am Alan Cooper and I live directly across the street from Castilleja and I live at a point where the building now breaks. I appreciate all of the efforts of the commission and the architects of Castilleja in improving the appearance of the Kellogg side of the building. My question today is about noise screening along Kellogg. My experience has been that this noise has come through the brick and I am wondering if it is possible to add a transparent panel along this break in the building design on the inside so that it would deflect noise back into the Circle and away from the neighborhoods. I would also ask on a different topic that during the massive construction of the buildings that we add a system of real- time monitoring of air quality of particulate matters using the purpleair.com monitoring system that would 5.a Packet Pg. 133 City of Palo Alto Page 16 give us real-time and live control of the air position in the neighborhood. I will concede the rest of my time. Thank you for considering these requirements... these requests. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alan Cooper. Next speaker, please. Mr. Nguyen: Our next speaker is Hank. Hank Sousa: Good morning Board Members. I live at 160 Melville Avenue, about 185 feet from the planned underground garage exit. I noticed with interest that you have listened to the public and along with your input have influenced the school’s architects to submit new drawings for the proposed Kellogg Avenue building. My hope is you will also hear the neighbors of the school who don’t want the proposed underground parking garage. It is unhealthy in several ways including its excavation and construction. If it is allowed to be constructed it will continue to pollute and would likely be in place for a great many years. If it is built, the net gain is only 22 parking spaces. All of the thousands of dump truck loads of dirt to be removed and the hundred of cement misers lined up to pour the concrete, plus the dismay of many of the close by neighbors who will witness the commercialization of the neighborhood for 22 additional parking spaces. We don’t think it is worth it. Shuttling in the students who currently arrive singly by car is a greener technology. It is unlikely you Board Members would welcome construction like this next door or across the street from your house. We feel the same way. The campus already has 86 parking spaces at grade and they can continue to be used with the new buildings being slightly reconfigured. The 86 spaces allow for an enrollment of 450, which is an eight percent increase over the current cap. That is the percent increase that was given when the current CUP went into effect in 2000. Please see your way to recommending the plan going forward without an underground garage. Help preserve our neighborhood quality of life. Thank you very much. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Hank Sousa. Next speaker, please. Mr. Nguyen: Our next speaker is Randy. Randy Popp: Good morning. My name is Randy Popp. I am a resident of Palo Alto. I have been an architect here for 32 years and I have been involved on both sides of the table at the ARB. As I do with many projects, I have closely followed the progress of this project through the City process. I want to thank the members of the Board for their thoughtful and insightful review of this project. I am not affiliated with Castilleja School in any way but as a resident who cares deeply about the City, I appreciate the way your guidance has influenced the project. More specifically, I would like to voice my support of your suggestions regarding adjustments to the massing and refinement of the materials on Kellogg. With the revision before you, I feel the massing is not visibly reduced from the prior concept and I am pleased with the way the building is broken into smaller sections. I would suggest that any further breaks or changes might only become chaotic and I am hopeful you will feel the same way. I would like to commend WRNS Studio for their design and emphasize my feeling that the most recent adjustment strikes a good balance creating a pleasant façade that is not overpowering to its context. The design now nicely bridges to the scale of the surrounding homes and the over fabric of the neighborhood aesthetic. In regard to the trees, I see that they intend to remove three damaged Oaks. I would urge you not to resist this. I understand this is being done for a number of reasons, but if they were my client I would coach them out of an abundance of caution to proceed with this. Based on my read, those trees will need to be removed with or without improved new learning spaces. Tending to student and employee safety should be a paramount concern and now is your opportunity to balance the removal with replacement. At this point, I believe the applicant has satisfied your request for suggested changes. More than that, they have created an elegant replacement for an aging set of outdated and absolute buildings. I believe you can successfully satisfy the findings today and move this project forward. This is a great project which has improved nicely through the ARB process and I urge you to register your approval consistent with staff’s recommendation. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Randy Popp. Next speaker, please. Mr. Nguyen: Our next speaker is Jessica. 5.a Packet Pg. 134 City of Palo Alto Page 17 Jessica Resmini: Thank you. As many others, I have been following the collaboration efforts of staff, community, and Castilleja. I would like to commend the tremendous effort to balance many perspectives. My name is Jessica Resmini and I am not affiliated with the project but I am joining thus discussion as a resident of Palo Alto and a practicing architect. I also have experience with working with PAUSD on the bond project related to measure Z and modernizing learning spaces for students across Palo Alto. In both my personal and professional life, I support thoughtful progress and improvements to our education facilities. As we think about the future of our City it is important to remember that 100 years ago the neighborhood around Castilleja was farmland. The City we love was built by pioneers and visionaries. Leland Stanford opening a university here intended for agricultural studies that has now become one of the preeminent research institutions in the world. Birge Clark and Robert Eichler both became icons in architecture leading the way for movements and design right here on the streets of Palo Alto. Lucie Stern partnered with Clark and the City to leave a legacy to support the first children’s library in our country. Palo Alto is a City that has been shaped by visionaries in the service of education, including Mary Locket who founded Castilleja School in a novel effort to prepare young women to succeed and Stanford. The change before you in Castilleja’s modernized campus with underground is another important legacy in architecture and education in Palo Alto. The existing buildings are outdated and the new structures are sustainable and elegant. The materials draw from historic buildings on campus, settle gently into the fabric of the surroundings homes, and improve light and landscaping at the street level. The improvements suggested have improved the final product creating a cadence along Kellogg while maintaining a façade that feels cohesive and unified. Palo Alto is celebrated around the world for its innovators and visionaries, and Castilleja is an essential part of that fabric with its flexible learning spaces, sustainable architecture, and beautify aesthetics, WRNS has designed a building that will enable generations of young women to be educated as our future leaders. I hope you will approve these plans. I firmly believe Castilleja has arrived at an excellent compromise and I eagerly look forward to this new legacy for students in our community. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Jessica Resmini. Next speaker, please. Mr. Nguyen: Our next speaker is Neva. Neva Yarkin: Good morning ARB Commissioners. My name is Neva Yarkin. I live on Churchill Avenue. I live two blocks away from Castilleja. My family has owned this property on Churchill for over 60 years when Castilleja was a boarding school. A new development in the City regarding traffic issues is that six- and-a-half weeks ago on September 21st, the XCAP Committee presented to City Council in a 6 to 3 vote to close Churchill Avenue for the train crossings. Anew train coring will happen sometime to enable Paley students to get to school. Nowhere in any of the documents is it mentioned about train crossings which will have a major impact on traffic flow in Palo Alto. It needs to be added to this conversation. It was mentioned last night at the PTC meeting that there are construction management codes. If that is the case, I would like to find out where that is listed because I have real concerns about safety issues during the construction period. Students, pedestrians, and bikers should not be in a construction zone while attending school in temporary buildings. When Stanford was rebuilding housing, their construction zones were closed off to everyone. Enrollment should not be increased beyond 415 until all of the construction is finished. The ARB commission has an opportunity to make Palo Alto a more livable and innovative place to live. Looking at the Palo Alto Comp Plan 2030, we need to have new ideas and be creative rather than archaic as to how Palo Alto’s future will be shaped. I believe environmental issues are Palo Alto’s top priorities. Castilleja should take bold steps to be a leader for the Bay Area on environmental issues. This could really happen with a satellite shuttling service for all Castilleja students to alleviate traffic congestion and parking problems in this section of town. If satellite shuttling happens, a parking garage which is not environmentally friendly, would not be needed at all. This would make Palo Alto a role model and a better place for the neighbors and citizens to live in. Thank you for your time and consideration. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Neva Yarkin. And our next and last speaker, please. Mr. Nguyen: Yes, our next speaker is Becky. 5.a Packet Pg. 135 City of Palo Alto Page 18 Becky Sanders: Good morning. I am Becky Sanders over here in Ventura, 1.6 miles from the school. Why am I watching today? Well, I want to track how the City’s Boards and Commissions approach the overarching demands of privileged institutions to expand beyond legally allowed parameters. In Ventura, we are looking forward of the redevelopment of the Fry’s site and to welcoming new neighbors but we are aghast at how the concerns of a significant number of Castilleja’s neighbors are being marginalized and ignored. Concerns such as density, massing, and an underground parking garage that is not even included as floor area, green gas emissions, as well as the removal of heritage trees. An organization of privilege appears to be able to bend rules to the breaking point because it suits them to do so. I mean, I know your job is to check the plans but despite the claims of the applicant, I think the plans are still flawed. Plus, the applicant is in such a hurry that they show one set of plans in their presentation and a different set of plans in the packet. What is that about? Thank you for noticing that the plans didn’t match. I know that’s your job; that‘s what you do. But I point out that rushing through this process invited mistakes that will have lasting repercussions throughout the entire City. My primary concern is solving the mystery of the garage, but I also align myself with Andie Reed’s comments about the inconsistencies between the plan designs and the law of the City. Yes, the design is attractive and has been greatly improved over the course of this process. I just wish it could be built on a site suitable and consistent with this grand design. This design doesn’t belong at this site. Don’t you see it that way? I mean, if friends in North Palo Alto can’t get a square deal how can we in modest Ventura get a fair share? I would hope that you stop allowing equivocation for best evidence as pertains to the designation of the garage rather than on the City code. Thank you very much for hearing me today and thank you for your service to our fair City. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, Becky Sanders. Vinh, do we have any other speakers? Mr. Nguyen: We do not have any more speakers for this item. Chair Baltay: Okay. Thank you very much to the members of the public for your comments. You’ve all been fully heard. We would now like to ask the applicant if they would like to make a rebuttal to the public comments. They have ten minutes available. Is there anyone on the applicant team that would like to address or respond to these comments? Mindie Romanowsky: Yes, if you can hear me this is Mindie Romanowsky. Chair Baltay:Yes, good morning, Mindie. If you’d like to respond you'll have ten minutes. Vinh, can you start a timer, please? [Setting up presentation.] Mindie Romanowsky: I may at the end lend some of my time to some other people on our team. Chair Baltay: All right. Ten minutes total. Mindie Romanowsky: Thank you. I want to respond in no particular order to a number of the things we have heard this morning and in the narrative out there. There has been a narrative that Castilleja is getting a grant of special privileges and they are intensifying the use. I would tell you that this is simply untrue. To the contrary, our request to maintain the above grade FAR is the request to maintain the status quo that we have by right. Our campus predated zoning and due to our current permits which vest our square footage, those run with the land. Our application is simply asking to rebuild and replace a bit less FAR than we have right now. As our in the materials, when you compare the size of our parcel which is over six acres, to the other lots in our same zone on a relative basis our FAR is 7.2 percent less than what's allowed for other parcels in the zone when you do the math. This is all in the letters in the record. Next, I want to address the parking facility. With due respect, the comments we have heard today that our garage has not been looked at are simply untrue. The full set of plans show the garage details and our garage architect is here for questions. I would invite any of you to ask those of him. As we have shared over the years, this parking facility was conceived of by neighbors to reduce impacts after a multitude of facilitated meetings between the school, the neighbors, and our architecture team. We did this for over three years with professional facilitators and mediators. Those meetings were opportunities to share ideas, obtain 5.a Packet Pg. 136 City of Palo Alto Page 19 feedback, and then arrive at a plan. Indeed, the garage was what informed our site plan and was really a gating issue for how we moved forward with the design before you today. As we know, the EIR confirmed there are no impacts that come with this parking garage. We know that your comp plan and the municipal code supports this facility as an accessory facility to a use permit. It’s also important that the professional analysis be considered and that we cut through some of the lay person’s opinions that we’ve heard about whether it is safe to excavate, or whether we are hitting a water table because if you look at the reports we see that the professionals have determined it is safe to excavate and that this project does not impact a water table. Moving on, the tree comments we’ve heard, you know, this has been asked and answered many times. We are very proud of the trees on our campus. We have no goal to get rid of any tree that is not, you know, right needed to build a few buildings and that we have informed our site planning based on the tree locations. Our plans in the record show detailed locations of how we comply with the tree ordinance and how we are not even saving the mature Redwood Trees. We have changed our garage footprint, as you know, and then as recently as the last few weeks, we have even saved a few other trees that were flagged by members of the public throughout this public hearing process. Specifically tree 102, and tree 94 and 95. Our landscape architect is here and we also have feedback in the record from our arborist. I would invite everyone to see those materials. Chair Baltay, you did ask this morning about the steel beam and while we were listening to the comments I was able to confirm with our team that given the building rating, we believe we don’t need to fire rate those beams but we will provide that to you in writing if you're interested. We also heard questions today about noise. I want to just let you know our noise consultants are here if there are questions specifically and the Commissioners want to hear from them. Before I pass it over to any other members of our team that want to speak, I just want to, in conclusion, say that the emphasis needs to be on the journey that has gotten us here whereby our project has been driven by open communication, input from neighbors, input from City staff, analysis by professionals, including CEQA experts, noise consultants, traffic engineers, arborists. All of this was to ensure that not only we bring a project without significant impact from a CEQA standpoint, which is very technical, but also to address the perceived impacts and the impacts that are felt in the neighborhood that don’t always show up in a CEQA document. Things like how can we save more houses, how can we save more trees? That goal was balanced with the other goal of educating more young women on a sustainable campus that complies with Palo Alto’s very respectable sustainability plan and is an amazing goal that all of Palo Alton’s should feel very proud about. This campus does that in a very aesthetically compatible way, as you saw with the designs today. In conclusion, I would implore you not to let the voices of the few who do not always base their comments on data in the record and analysis by professionals to diminish the voices of the many supporters you have heard both in writing and in public comment. I would implore you to base your decision on real information that is proved with analysis. With that, I want to just remind you that we have a team here for questions today. Our garage architect, our noise consultant, our landscape architects, our traffic consultant, and even those some of these questions we heard today are not in your purview, things like the variance, if you have questions and you need clarification we are all here to answer those for you. I am going to stop my video and if anyone from our team wants to chime in you can do so now. Mike Bellinger: This is Mike Bellinger, Landscape Architect. I don’t know if you can hear me. Chair Baltay: We can hear you fine, Mike. The purpose of this ten minute period is to rebut comments from the neighbors. If you'd like to add to that please go ahead. Mike Bellinger: I just wanted to clarify a comment about tree 89. In July, the project arborist met with the City arborist and they agreed to do a complete re-inventory update of all of the trees on campus, canopy, diameter, and health condition. The current plans show the updated canopy that was established in July. I will clarify that with the arborist but he had it at 50 feet and that is what is shown on the plans. We will go check on that. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Mike. If there's nothing else from the applicant we will close the meeting to public testimony. Is that right, Mindie? There is no one in your gang who has anything else to add. 5.a Packet Pg. 137 City of Palo Alto Page 20 Mindie Romanowsky: If you would like we do have our acoustic consultant. We did hear some questions about noise. Phil are you able to just respond to that? I don’t know if you're able to at the moment but please do if you can. Phil: Yeah, the specific question I heard was about the noise coming through the opening in the existing building from the inside Circle across Kellogg Avenue. The new building will close off that gap at grade so there will already be a noise barrier there. We actually did do an analysis to see whether an additional barrier on the second floor would make much of a difference and what we found was that the difference would be imperceptible, less than a decibel for adding an additional barrier on the second level. Chair Baltay: Okay. Thank you very much. Why don’t we close the meeting to public testimony and bring it back to the Board? I’d like to then start our Board discussion of this project with David Hirsch. Whenever you're ready, David, you can go ahead. Board Member Hirsch: Thank you. Thank you, Adam. I really appreciate the further work on the details of the façade and I agree with a lot of the comments that it is a major improvement of the project. I reviewed the set of drawings. The drawings themselves, unfortunately, are not up to the same completeness as your presentation today. Next time around I hope you can come in -- or to other clients -- with a more up-to-date set of drawings that allows us to see where the project is going. It is a little difficult to not have those on hand and to get a project piecemeal like that. I am really happy to have a set of physical plans rather than just a Zoom set of plans because it is easier for us as architects to review a project in detail going back and forth through the plans, the elevations, the sections, the material, illustrations. Thank you for the updated plans when we did receive them a week ago now. Major concerns from the previous meeting were the unremitting length of the Kellogg elevation. In the new detailing of the one-story closer to Emerson side of Kellogg is a really significant improvement. The break in the entire volume, the interruption of the roofline, creating three discreet façade elements along Kellogg; it is what I was hoping for in the beginning would be a way of reducing the scale of the Kellogg elevation and making it certainly fit the street and the residential neighborhood. The accent tile is also an improvement and that use on the Emerson end of the building as another entry point really works quite well. I really wonder why it couldn’t have been used or actually I wonder why the break where it was first used closer to Bryant isn’t also an entry or an exit or in some way related to that kind of function. Then, I asked the question, well it seems to be serving a purpose. It is describing an entry as well as a reference to the Gunn Building and the fascia of the Gunn. Why not consider it symbolically in these other areas? This is a suggestion, but it appears that this is the direction you’re going in so I’d like you to take a look at that. Unfortunately, we don’t have elevations of the interior of the Courtyard. At a similar scale as the Kellogg façade, I don’t think it's appropriate to approve a project unless we can see the whole project. As you are improving the rest of the view of this building, why not give us the interior views as well. Who knows, we may have some comments to make but it is certainly significant that the building is one building and we need to look at the whole building. We always get that in any proposal to us. My most significant concern is really the limitation of this site to properly expand the program. As it is located in R-1 residential district surrounded by private dwellings, the program simply does not fit the site unless one-third of the space is located below grade. I don’t see it is our role to question the planning Department’s acceptance of the FAR calculation, except as it affects the review of the ARB findings. We have to also be cognizant of the history of this school as a significant educational institute with an important role to play in the education of women beyond Palo Alto’s borders, too. Going back in the history of the project, I was intrigued to see the earlier schematic design concept where the entire center courtyard was excavated so that the basement level, this questionable educational level below grade, is a sunken public space. The Kellogg side was exposed to daylight and the inside basement level was, of course, exposed to that sunken courtyard. I was disheartened to see that that bold idea had died. It would have been an amazing amphitheater space for the performance of Greek tragedies, women’s rights, lectures, ballet performances, and many public events, but it is no longer. You'll have to imagine present-day functions serving those purposes. But most importantly, it would have been a source of natural light for many classrooms and teacher spaces of the basement program. Now with these spaces entirely below grade, natural light and air has become the scarcest commodity. The Kellogg site, walkable glass skylights serves only four of the twenty or nineteen below-grade classrooms. The lobby staircase draws light from limited skylight areas two floors away. Clear stories windows into the three basement classrooms on a rendering perspective --that’s in your drawing 5.a Packet Pg. 138 City of Palo Alto Page 21 number 802 --showed up in an elevation or perspective drawing of the Kellogg façade but weren’t included in the section. You showed another picture of them today and they are there. They are there because the landscape on the perimeter has provided a recess that allows the basement wall to be revealed and clearstory windows to be placed in those below grade classrooms. You have a method for bringing light inside of the building and I think you overstated it, frankly, -- specifically Adam -- its function in it providing appropriate light in that basement area. I would suggest that you use your skylight idea, your perimeter walking light wells to provide light almost in the entire perimeter of the school so that you can really legitimately say that you have answered that issue of bringing natural light to the basement. There would be other ways of doing it, as well, and, of course, you know you could look into that. The light wells or whatever else you would like to do but if you could do more of what is there and bring natural light down to the classroom areas I think it would be a great service to this building and basically to the education of these young women to not be held off from that opportunity. I want to go on to something else here, and that is it seems to me there is another opportunity here. You have a 600 or 700 square foot stair enclosure that connects the Kellogg building to the library and to the art department there. That skylight, that element, could simply project through the roof creating a skylight and bringing much more light down to the basement area. I would like to ask you to look at that. I think it’s an opportunity that you shouldn’t give up on that you can make light well out of that that will provide much stronger light to the basement area. As you can see, that’s my major concern here is the light. I would’ve liked to have seen an illustration or put up an illustration of GOO6. If that were possible for the temporary campus plan, as well. Is that possible for you to do that? Chair Baltay: Vinh or any member of the applicant team, do we have the possibility to put up certain pages of the presentation? Mr. Nguyen: I'm sorry, which presentation did you want to be on the screen? Board Member Hirsch: GOO6. Chair Baltay: One of the pages of the applicants drawing set. I'm not sure they can pull that up at the last minute, David. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Ms. French: I have the web set open. I can look for that sheet. What is it? GOO? Board Member Hirsch: Six. Ms. French: GOO6. Board Member Hirsch: And the temporary plan. I'm not sure where that is (inaudible). Ms. French: It will take me a while. Chair Baltay: Do you want to go on to something else, David? Board Member Hirsch: I am just going to continue, then, Peter. Chair Baltay: Please do that. Let’s keep moving. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Castilleja has probably considered alternates to the phased construction but I wonder whether they’ve ever considered moving the program off-site so that the entire project could be built in one phase. Certainly this would benefit the neighborhood residences and be a better answer to our finding concerning promoting the orderly and harmonious development of this City. I note that based on some recent experience, that Cubberley is one reasonable place where it is possible to relocate temporarily to construct the temporary classrooms without unduly disturbing existing community program. Utilize the availability of the gyms, the pavilion, the auditorium, and the playing field that are all there. 5.a Packet Pg. 139 City of Palo Alto Page 22 There is plenty of parking space and the ability to make a much better campus while the present campus is being renovated. I mean, I suggest this because of my concern that this is just… have you really concerned and analyzed the traffic entering the campus on a normal day and the need for this parking garage, and the number of vehicles including the cans that go to the railroad station to pick up other students from other communities and bring them here. These are all going to be coming to this campus while it is in construction. There are workmen who need to arrive as well. There are trucks and trucks of dirt being hauled away and construction equipment coming onto the site and very loud demolition going on at the same time. I want to just read from a critique from packet number 22 that we received today. It says “as other construction projects in Palo Alto have shown, construction vehicles block traffic lanes restricting streets and sidewalk’s access throughout the area to concurrently allow a school to bring hundreds of students to the area with drop-offs, pick-ups, and parking. Adjacent streets will severely exasperate what neighbors see as an excruciating process of noise, disruption, et cetera. The idea of allowing unmonitored Access and parking during the process defies logic.” In any case, you know, I think it falls on us to comment about this because it could be a very serious problem with trying so hard to keep this school on the site at the same time as all of this construction, I state this with a lot of experience in construction where it is such a mess. There is no way of reducing it. The dirt flies all over. You put construction fences around a property and they don’t really sufficiently make it a useful place to have a school at the same time and to reside, since it is a residential community. I bring it to your attention because I think it is serious enough to deal with it now rather than wait for the disaster to happen later on. I also want to point out that there are benefits, of course, to moving the school temporarily. One of them is you can do the whole project and that is really significant because it is a three-year, which is I think a conservative estimate of time. Maybe it is a four-year project by the time you're finished with it. That is a hell of a long time for a disturbance to a whole community. If you could cut that in half by asking the school to relocate temporarily I ink it would be a benefit to all concerned. I haven’t really focused on the aesthetics because I really am concerned that this is more serious and Palo Alto should think carefully about this. To end on a good note, I think it is going to be a beautiful school. I am absolutely impressed through the roof with comments that were made by the architects today. The detail is beautiful and it solved the Kellogg Street side. You haven’t solved the lightning in my estimation and you can do more of a job on that but I look forward to his school and the way it fits into the residential community and the scale of it and the detail of it. With those comments, I will end. Thank you. Ms. French: Did you want me to put up that sheet you asked for GOO6? Board Member Hirsch: I guess so. Chair Baltay: Is that yes, David? Board Member Hirsch: Actually, to be honest, if the temporary campus plan was available that would be useful today as well. Ms. French: Okay. I have that handy in my slide but did you not want the GOO6 then? Board Member Hirsch: Well, I’d rather have the temporary plan at this point. Ms. French: Okay. Chair Baltay: Why don’t we continue on with other Board Member and come back to that as you get that ready. Ms. French: I have it ready. Chair Baltay: You have the temporary plan ready? Ms. French: Yes. Chair Baltay: Okay. Go ahead, put that up, please. Okay, David. What's your… 5.a Packet Pg. 140 City of Palo Alto Page 23 Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Let’s see. This is actually a new temporary plan. Ms. French: No, this is the same one. Board Member Hirsch: You know what's different about it is… it's new to me. It’s not in our set. It now is a redoing of it. I can see that one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight… okay. Originally, the plan extended into the Lockey property and there were two classroom elements in that plan. This is one module less than the plan that’s in our drawing. There were 20 classrooms in that one and there are only 18 here. Yeah, there are only 18 classrooms here. And what else is missing? There was a missing circle to imitated or bring back for the time being the Circle into this particular scheme and now that has been eliminated. This is an awful lot of construction in a very limited area, with an awful lot of kids in a construction zone. Not so much that they would be affected by the construction of the Kellogg end of the site, imagine what it would really be with all of the cars coming to this area. With all of the students being delivered to the area. With all of the trucks coming at the same time. With the workers coming early in the morning and trying to find places to park in the neighborhood. I think just reinforces what I am concerned about here. That really does go back to our concern as a Board about the effect on the neighborhood as a whole here. I ask you to consider that. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Okay, David, thanks for pointing all of that out about the temporary and the impact of construction. Are we ready to move on? If so, I’d like to see if Alex Lew would like to go next. Alex? Board Member Lew: Sure. First of all, thank the architect for the revisions. I think they were all done very well all considered. Also, thank you to Amy French and all of the planning staff on the project. I think that the staff report was done really well and everything was clear and easy to understand. I am in support of the project. I can recommend approval today, I believe. I do have comments but I think that those can all be addressed either by staff or by subcommittee. I think the first one I will go into is findings. For staff, on package page 23 where you're referencing comp plan policies, there is a policy about the streetscape neighborhood amenity and the draft language (inaudible) bike racks. As I was walking around the site this week, I think that there has been a dramatic improvement in the landscape. The landscape plans show a variety of plants at a very small scale and it provides a lot of visual interests for pedestrians. I would say that landscaping improvement is on Bryant, Kellogg, and Emerson. There is some proposed language for a public art piece along Kellogg. That would be a visual interest element there. I think also on Kellogg we are removing the existing maintenance building and trash areas. Those are pretty unsightly at the moment, so putting those underground makes a dramatic improvement to Kellogg. Also on Emerson, there is an existing fence covered with Ivy right at the back of the sidewalk, and in the new proposed project that fence is being moved back substantially and there is a large amount of landscape in front of that. I think that that actually makes Kellogg pedestrian experience a lot nicer. Also as I walk around the site, there are a lot of gaps in the existing street canopy and the proposed plans are showing that all of those gaps are being filled in. I think that it also makes it substantially nicer. Okay. On the new street trees, I did have a comment for staff that I think if you haven’t already reviewed it with the urban forestry is that there are utility lines above Kellogg and you're proposing large Coast Live Oaks on there. I am just asking if that was considered and if the City is able to prune the trees around the existing utility lines. Also, along Kellogg the proposed plans are showing new Manzanitas along the curb, like in between the curb and the sidewalk. As I was reviewing it, I think that there are several existing Magnolia trees. The Magnolia trees in Palo Alto typically have very shallow roots and they're really at the surface. Usually the soil is hard as a rock. I think if staff could review that perhaps on-site as part of the tree monitoring. I would really look at that carefully. I don’t want the surface roots of the Magnolias to be removed for new plants because it will kill the trees. Also, on Kellogg I think it was in our staff report about the sound impact at the building breaks. As I understood, it was less than one decibel for things that are happening the Circle. If there are seminars up at the second-floor terraces, if there was a solid railing you could reduce the sound by five decibels and I think that is what the neighbors were asking. I think maybe we should consider that in there as a condition of approval. Okay. My last item, which I really hate to go around in circles about, is on the Kellogg façade pull out drawer where you used to have where there was standing seam metal siding I think maybe we should consider putting that back in. I was looking at the details of the shingle and the parapet cap and I am not so crazy about that. I can agree with the project as is but I think we should maybe think about that. Typically, shingles tie into something more substantial than just sheet metal 5.a Packet Pg. 141 City of Palo Alto Page 24 flashing. Otherwise, I can recommend approval of the project today; I think David has a fair point about construction staging and also having a temporary campus on-site and all of the construction worker parking. It seems like it if the temporary campus was off-site it would give the construction crews a lot more flexibility and it would reintensify the use. I think that’s a good idea but I don’t think that would affect the way I vote on this particular project because we haven’t typically voted on construction impacts in the past. I know that sort of changed with the current comp plans but we haven’t historically done that. That’s all I have. Thanks, Peter. Chair Baltay: Alex, you were talking about going back to a metal finish. Can you show us which elevation that was on? Board Member Lew: That’s on the Kellogg elevation and it is on the one-story element on a drawer pull. If you want a sheet number… Chair Baltay: Yeah, what's the sheet number so I can see it? Vice Chair Thompson: I can share my screen. I have it open, I think. Chair Baltay: That’d be great if you could, Osma. Vice Chair Thompson: Is this it, Alex? Board Member Lew: Yeah. Chair Baltay: You're suggesting, Alex…. Board Member Lew: I think it looks fine… (crosstalk) Board Member Lew: I'm sorry? Chair Baltay: Make your pitch again on what you think that should be. I didn’t understand you the first time. Board Member Lew: The original plan had some sort of metal, perhaps, standing seam. I am just saying and throwing out to the Board to just consider that. It is really mostly looking when I look at the detail of the parapet cap and the shingles. Typically, you would hide… (crosstalk) Board Member Lew: I don’t have it in front of me but typically you would hide the top course of shingles. You would tuck it in under something, you know? Chair Baltay: Yeah. Board Member Lew: Here it is just a profile of metal. Chair Baltay: But are you suggesting increased detailing or just changing the material altogether? Board Member Lew: Perhaps it could be either. Chair Baltay: Okay. I just wanted to be sure we understand what you're saying here, which I do now. Thanks for sharing your screen. Board Member Lew: Okay. That’s all that I have. 5.a Packet Pg. 142 City of Palo Alto Page 25 Chair Baltay: Great. Thank you, Alex. Grace, your turn next if you don’t mind. Board Member Lee: Yes, thank you. I’ll start also with some thank you’s. I see that we have come on this journey and I do very much appreciate the process the City of Palo Alto upholds in terms of our multiple Boards and their various purviews. I wanted to first, though, thank the community for your attendance, attention, your careful listening, your communication of (inaudible) on the project. I also want to thank the City staff and our fellow Board Members at the HRB as well as the PTC and of course the Council as this is a joint effort. Our purview is really to make those findings and I do want to say that I am very impressed. Thank you to the applicant for being very thoughtful and layered in your approach and always trying to do better in terms of planning for sustainability. I feel like this project is building a future. As we know, the site is beloved as ever site in Palo Alto, but particularly this site for its history, and for the history of the use that has been at this site. Its integration with the neighborhood and how that related to our findings. I do want to say that I feel that the sets we have seen, and it is a lot of information -- thanks to the City staff and Amy, Jodie, and Ben -- in terms of providing so much data. The data is important because all of this adds up to how we interpret. I guess in an ideal world, I love how our Board -- and thank you fellow ARB Board Member in terms of looking at the sets very carefully, listening to each other -- I think that the applicant generally tends to hear what's loudest in terms of our volume and comments that are repeated. We try to come to a consensus and sometimes we don’t. Sometimes there are things that are slightly off and then sometimes we are aligned but I feel like the applicant here has done quite well and has been in-depth and versatile in sharpening their pencils and bringing forth responses, for example, to our comments from the previous two meetings. I am just going to go down this list where some of the comments I voiced and that others voiced a little bit more loudly. First, the findings that we are asked to uphold and hopefully we get to a vote today. I am very much feeling that the findings are definitely being met by this project in many different ways. I wanted to go back to my colleague Board Member Lew’s comments on some of the findings but first I will just start with what we have been discussing the most and focusing our comments on has been that Kellogg Street exterior elevation and important edge to this project. Thank you, applicant, because I do see that that has come forward. My comments were really related to the materials and color and it is so wonderful to see that there has been careful attention, again going back to the Gunn building -- which is part of our findings in terms of seeing how we are preserving, and respecting, and adapting -- here you have taken those keys very well and you have looked and seen the shingles; you’ve seen the green and the tile. Also, the real rich and textural approach. I very much appreciate how the green tile is being repeated on the Kellogg Street elevation. The battens definitely are reminiscent, I think, of a previous time and preserved and integrate into this new façade harmoniously. There also is this material of the shingles. I can just talk about it right now in terms of this thought that perhaps, and Board Member Lew brings up, there might be a little bit need for --I didn’t put it in my notes but I could see it -- making sure about the detailing about that cap. Perhaps that is something that could return to a subcommittee. Because the shingles are reminiscent and part of the Gunn Building it is so much a part of the overall materials template as we walk around the complete campus on the exterior. My preference is that the shingles would remain as presented in the set we are reviewing today. I also wanted to go to the comment regarding the shear wall and how it is showed in our set and the perspectives. I do see that vertical shear wall and the intent of the applicant to do even better in terms of integrating this -- I don’t like the word -- bellyband. It is a separation between the first and second-floor which decreases the mass. I am in support of that. I also would like to hear from Board Members just on their thoughts in terms of how it is shown in our set and then how it was shown in the presentation. I do feel that is a change that didn’t show up in our set; however, it is very easy to digest and understand it because you are proposing that material choice of the bellyband separating that first and second floor around the building in the current elevations. If that did want to go back to a subcommittee and just looking at that detail that would be one way to take a second look. I would like to hear from the others on that. In regard to the Kellogg elevation, I think members of the public and our Board Members have said it, for me, that one break that was presented at the second hearing was very much appropriate and appreciated. I think that the embellishment with materials and a finer grain and a further depth in how that façade comes in and out and recedes worked very well. I thank my fellow Board Members in asking for more in terms of even decreasing the mass further. I think you have achieved it very well and I appreciate the use of the tile that is in two planes. In terms of how it begins to model or define the porch, it is very positive. The other things that we discussed were a couple of other pieces that I discussed and other Board Members discussed was the landscape proposal. Thank you; the enlarged landscape plans are very clear. I teach a bit and I 5.a Packet Pg. 143 City of Palo Alto Page 26 would show that landscape set as a teaching set. It is very clear. It outlines the approach. It describes the sustainability of bioswales and plant species. The very minor comment that I had, and this is perhaps something about maintenance is that I love the ferns and the grasses and I am looking at the Calamagrostis, the feather reed grass, that actually grows quite large and the grasses can be unsightly if not maintained properly. I just want t make sure that there is proper maintenance, there is cutback when the weather turns, and how that actually… that feathery grass and because you show it also in your photos it can dominate in terms of its light brown color. It will decrease. I have mixed thoughts on that choice but I think it would be fine just make sure on how it layers with the other grasses and ferns particularly on the Kellogg Street façade. I saw that it actually is on three sides of the campus. On the enlarged landscape plans, it is wonderful to see that the landscape on all sides of the site and the proposals are terrific and there has been such a strong focus on how to preserve trees, how to relocate, and how to plan for the canopy and the shade. I have full confidence in our City staff in terms of arborists and who has been talking to whom. It is a lot of data and there may be is some places where you need to go back and make sure… I do think our City staff and our arborists and the applicants that they… I do feel that that will go forward in a positive way. I will leave it at that. The other piece that I wanted to talk about was -- and is part of my mind the landscape proposal -- this family of fences and walls and gates. Thank you, Amy, for showing that in your presentation, and to the applicant for making a small change to that acoustical wall in terms of a template now. There's just a family of fences and walls that begin, for me, to speak to the historic nature of the fences and walls and gates that exist on all sides. I think that the traditional and contemporary approach work together quite well. Now, let’s talk a little bit more about something new. Oh, in the materials I also did want to just mention that the champagne anodized color, which is arm, and also the additions a slight change from last. I am in full support of that in terms of the overall palette. Again, part of this landscape proposal the public that was just shown as some ideas right now I encourage that that might move forward. I know that would be at a future date and it might involve City staff and perhaps even a presentation to the Public Art Commission or some kind of putting heads together. I think that that with the landscape, if it is integrated well, could be a terrific addition. Thank you Board Member Lew in terms of going to the findings and finding where that public art price might show up in the language if we move forward to approve. Also, calling out that I fully agree with removing the unsightly maintenance building, fences moving back, and also landscape improvements on the three streets would be, I think, welcome additions for me and to the findings. In terms of acoustics, my feeling is there is a report; the consultant is here, and City staff has been working well. I don’t feel the need for that additional remediation on the second level. However, I also would like to hear from other Board Members regarding that acoustical improvement that was suggested by Board Member Lew. It might be something that could come back to a subcommittee. In closing, I think I have covered all of my comments. I do want to just thank my fellow Board Members, City staff and I look forward to a further discussion with some of our Board Members today before making a motion. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Grace, very thoughtful comments. Osma, it’s your turn if you'd like to go next. Vice Chair Thompson: Sure, thank you. I will try to keep this brief because I feel like a lot of what I wanted to say has been said in some way or another. I will start with saying that I do appreciate the updates to the Kellogg façade. I appreciate the comments from the Board encouraging those changes and I appreciate the applicant responding to those changes. This façade is looking better than it has ever looked, I think, since we have seen it. I would not support changing that part of the material to standing seam but I would support looking at the detailing of how that parapet meets the planter as part of the subcommittee, assuming that that detail will be visible on the façade. I think the shingles make sense but it is true that there is a treatment that needs to happen to that parapet that will be visible once it is further developed that is not currently visible. Let me cross these out while I write these out. It is interesting; when I was looking at the elevations I flagged those concrete shear walls as question marks. While it is too bad that that change didn’t get into our set I appreciate the applicant having the foresight to know that that is unsightly and the change that was made that we say in the presentation is an improvement. That would have been a comment that I would have suggested the applicant come back and do something else with those walls. I appreciate the change and I appreciate that we can see that here today. I do think that those are improvements to the façade and I don’t know if as part of the conditions that we make that note as well. One issue that I would like more detail on is the tile patterning. The tile sample that we saw in the materials board was quite tiny and it is a little unclear, especially with the renderings that we are 5.a Packet Pg. 144 City of Palo Alto Page 27 seeing, how that tiny tile is being applied across that whole surface. More detail needs to happen, I think, for that. That could go to a subcommittee, I think. I do think that is really important because what we are seeing in the renderings are kind of a multi-color tile that looks vertically aligned and the tile that I saw looked like it might be more of a subway tile, which are two very different feels. I want to make sure that the tile ends up getting to the feel that we’re seeing here in the rendering, which is sort of a light and glossy accent. Board Member Hirsch’s suggestion about adding more light around the periphery I think is a good one. I would be in support of that suggestion. I think the efforts that have been made currently in the drawings and per the application’s presentation that show all of the different ways that light makes it into the building through the skylights and through the walkable light wells. I would say having more of that wouldn’t be a bad thing at all. I appreciate how much there is and I think urging the applicant to consider more of that is a good thing. I really appreciate the other sustainability measures that are incorporated in this building. I don’t mind the solar panel on the roof. I think aesthetically having a little bit of visibility on there is fine. I kind of actually like that accent in some ways. I agree with Board Member Lew’s notes on the landscape. For the railing on the second-floor terraces, I have seen clear glass sound barriers that could be used there. I hesitate to require that unless I knew how frequently those terraces would be used. I don’t know if classes are being conducted up there or the noise level that is expended of those terraces. From the appearance it might be minimal. Potentially, I could be open to seeing something there if it makes sense but only if it makes sense programmatically, which would require further discussion with the applicant. Maybe that could be a subcommittee thing. I appreciate the mullion color champagne. That’s the majority of my notes. Overall, I can feel that I meet the findings with a few items going to subcommittee. This project is really good looking at it will be a really good project if it is executed the way it is present. Thanks. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, Osma. It’s my turn now. Before I start, I want to say that I am impressed that it really seems to me that we are really listening to each other. I like to hear our comments coalescing together. The building is improving and it feels good. That said, I am still having trouble with the overall compatibility; how well the building fits into the neighborhood it sin. I would like to just put for the record the three reasons why I think it really isn’t compatible. One is that the building has an 18-inch high metal finish façade which is 120 feet plus 76 feet along Bryant, 128 plus 55 plus 100 feet along Kellogg, and then another 160 feet along Emerson. I just feel that that size and that continuous length of element is too much to fit into the neighborhood that it’s in. That is compounded by the fact that it is exactly the same height, the same elevation, everywhere. It just reinforces that consistent size of the building. I believe that is inappropriate in a residential neighborhood. The other issue that I have is that the basic design motif is one of 12 8-foot tall curtain wall glazing panels facing out into the residential neighborhood. I am concerned. That is big pieces of glass that will need some sort of sun shading, especially on Kellogg. Even yesterday the sun was very bright out there. It will need some sort of privacy screen even on the second floor. Those classrooms will be very open to the street for wondering students’ eyes in or out. Then at night, anytime a classroom is occupied at night that is a large bit of night pollution for a quiet residential neighborhood. For those reasons, I am just really concerned that it doesn’t fit into the neighborhood. All of that said and having listened to all of the testimony today, I am not sure my concerns rise to the level of not meeting the required findings. I do not think they will prevent me from being able to support the project but I want to state that for the record. I am just concerned about that. I have a different set of concerns regarding the swimming pool and it has more to do with what I see as an incomplete presentation of what’s going on. Again, as I stood there yesterday for quite a while trying to understand how this was going to fit in and it really is a 15-foot deep in the ground concrete wall box with a swimming pool in it and at places the concrete, as best I can tell, is only a few feet from the edge of the pool. We don’t have any real details or elevations of how that is going to be treated or finished, how that is going to relate to the sound wall which will make it closer to 20-something feet tall. There is a very large Oak Tree, a beautiful Live Oak on the left-hand side as you're standing on Emerson which the drip line extends, I’d say, almost ten feet beyond the edge of where the retaining wall will be. I would like to have staff check and investigate that but I just can’t see how a tree at that stature could survive this much construction. A 15-foot cut 10 feet into the drip line of an old Live Oak Tree, and a really beautiful one, I think will be the end for that tree. I think it just needs to be addressed how they plan to do it. Additionally, the swimming pool has, what I say, the right side as you're standing on Emerson again, it seems to be a series of functional spaces. Perhaps a locker room or some mechanical stuff and on top of that is some sort of a roof element, which just hasn’t been described anywhere. I am just curious as to 5.a Packet Pg. 145 City of Palo Alto Page 28 what that is or how that’s going to be treated. As well as next to that again is that service ramp in which cuts into the ground there. Again, there is no detailing on how the fencing around that is going to be treated. That’s next to the main drive-in to the Circle and I believe that will be quite visible from the campus and from the center of the Circle. How that railing, which is a very important because it’s a big safety issue, is treated is critical and yet there is zero evidence of that. Additionally, there is a beautiful Live Oak tree; again, at what is basically the end of that service ramp right at the edge of the Circle. That’s tree number 155. Again, that tree is slated to be removed and I wonder if again thinking more about how that ramp works maybe you could save the tree which would help mitigate the impact visually from the center of the campus. But to me, the pool is really just a whole bunch of questions about how it is really going to work, what these spaces are going to be like inside around the pool, and how that is going to integrate with the campus. What is that structure to the right of it? I just don’t think we have enough information here, honestly. That really concerns me. I am hopeful that we can protect tree 89 so it really will survive and I am hopeful that we can get the applicant to revisit tree 155 to try to keep that one. I am concerned about some of the proposed exterior lighting. Osma brought this up. Fixture ZY1 A, B, and C are 16-foot tall some sort of uplights as I can tell proposed to be -- at least as I can tell, again -- along Kellogg Avenue and those don’t seem appropriate to me in that location. Again, at night they will be quite bright and certainly, we do not have much information; just a very small cut sheet of what they’re supposed to be like and how they fit into the project. Then my last concern, really, is coming around again. I just think again in spite of the improvement having a package of drawings it is still incomplete and it’s inadequate. To be honest, gang, we are getting 1/32 scale of elevations drawings of this project, which is tiny. I get that we have to be able to read plans but the native drawing of these is 1/16 scale, which is already pretty small. When was the last time we had a project of this magnitude where we accepted elevations at this scale? The floor plans are at one inch equals twenty. It is also a tiny scale reduced by half of what we’re looking at. It’s just not possible to understand and really warranty some of these details. David raises good questions, very legitimate questions about the daylighting. With these plans, I am really just unable to figure out what is actually happening and it is hard to pass judgment on it. It seems to me that it is not an unreasonable ask to get plans at a larger scale with more detail. I am also distressed to find that the elevations are inconsistent. This morning with the shear walls I get, but if you look at page A320 or 302 maybe. On 302 is their elevation sheet and elevation two, the west elevation, is intended to be the interior courtyard of the long building except on the left it is just not correct. The building is connecting to another building there and it’s just not shown properly. On the right, that’s where the building has an L; it comes back at you and it is just not a suitable drawing to explain what's happening. I am sorry but I don’t think these are complete or descriptive enough drawings to really justify what we’re about to approve. I really would like to see drawings that have a finer scale that have been completely updated. I can appreciate and I agree with Osma’s comments that the shear elimination is an improvement but what we are approving becomes a record and I think it really is a mistake to just leave it to staff to figure out what was said at a series of public hearings to take a few perspective sketches from the architect, which seems to change constantly, as the record. The record needs to be a full set of detailed drawings that are accurate and correct. I am having a tough time with that. I am also struggling with some of the more technical details that I have pointed out. If there are going to be drain pipes dropping down from the projecting eaves of the building I would really like to see how and where that is done. It’s not that I don’t have confidence that it can’t be done or that it will be done nicely, these architects seem very capable. But not to be figuring that out upfront it just seems inappropriate to be approving it at this stage when that is the case. If the ceilings inside the classrooms really do have a 24-inch or even 30-inch dropped ceiling there how that is reflected on the facade seems important to me. I would like to see what they are really thinking about that. There is a number of these kinds of questions that I just don’t think have been fully resolved. My goal will be to overall support the project but I would like to see it come back to us with a lot of these questions answered, as well as a number of questions that the rest of the Board Members have brought up. I do not support approving this and sending it to subcommittee. I just think there are too many things to go on that. That’s how I feel. Do we have any other feedback now that everybody has said their piece? Board Member Lee: I am happy to chime in with a few thoughts. Thank you everyone for comments. Peter, on yours I did want to make some remarks in terms of just having seen a lot of sets, all of us, on this Board over the years. On a project of this size often the elevations are of a smaller scale. There is an effort on the applicant in terms of enlarged elevation, multiple sheets, and also large perspectives that are 5.a Packet Pg. 146 City of Palo Alto Page 29 very well done in terms of showing materials without trees. I believe we didn’t ask for anything enlarged and beyond what they have… they have, in my mind, given us a lot of material but I understand your comment regarding the area we all see in terms of where the shear walls were shown. I did just want to go back to our group and see if there is consensus that that is where a portion of our Board may review it again. When I was taking notes of what all of us were saying, it seemed like that was one of the comments in terms of where we see a shear wall in the elevation and that that would come back. I would feel comfortable with a subcommittee to see that with the bellyband in that location. The other piece that I just wanted to bring up was in terms of this exterior landscape light, if there is enough of us on the Board that would like to see that come back that seems like it could be a large-scale cut sheet with the photo and an actual key plan and to show that at a subcommittee level. On the acoustical rating, that could be a discussion that is shown as well. I don’t feel strongly about that but if we were to craft a motion for this project to have a few subcommittee items… I did want to go back to what Osma said, the tile pattern is easily something that is seen at the subcommittee level in terms of what is that pattern -- we have a sample -- and the cap shingle. Those are the things that I wrote down and I would love to hear from others on comments now that have gone around the table. Chair Baltay: I have got six things in my quick jotted list here that I have heard people say that could take some more work. Grace, to me, that’s just getting to beyond where it’s an inappropriate thing for a subcommittee do deal with, they're not individually huge, although some of them could be. This is an important project and I believe we should really be getting a complete and thorough package that we can all agree on. The subcommittee’s approvals tend to be much less rigorous in my experience. Shall I go through this then and we can all chime in and see if there are other items? At least we are working at either a subcommittee list or giving the applicant instructions. Board Member Lee: That would be great. Chair Baltay: The shingled wall on Kellogg Avenue, what I have heard a majority of the Board say is we want to see more detail on how the top of that wall is finished off. Alex, I’m afraid I haven’t heard any support for changing it back to metal. I think the shingles are what the Board seems to be singling in on but I, myself, think it’s a legitimate that the detailing isn’t quite right. The second thing is to see some sort of tile patterning installation and patterning details for the green decorative tile. Is that about right, Osma? Vice Chair Thompson: Yes, how the time is implemented and the size. Chair Baltay: Okay. The third issue that I heard Grace mention --I didn’t hear anybody else but it seems reasonable to me --was a question about the feather grass and if that’s an appropriate choice for the landscaping. Grace, do you want to elaborate on what that really is. Board Member Lee: I should say that my comment is about maintenance. Just that there is an eye on how that is maintained so it doesn’t get too unruly since that it is a very versatile plant. They can do very well and create more of a dominant effect and I did see it both in the furmand [phonetic] and in the middle layer. It’s a minor comment that relates to making sure about maintenance. Chair Baltay: You're just asking the applicant to consider that choice once more. Board Member Lee: absolutely. No need for further review unless other people… Chair Baltay: Okay. That’s a minor thing. Do other members of the Board concur or feel that’s not appropriate? I’ll take silence as yes. David has asked strongly to consider additional means of getting daylight to the lower level classrooms. I heard Osma support that and I support that. That’s a bigger deal. David, do you want to make a pitch for explaining for that really is and whether that could be subcommittee item or if it needs more design work? [Adjusting Audio.] 5.a Packet Pg. 147 City of Palo Alto Page 30 Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, no, it is a very significant issue here. We have to make that basement work as a school building and it has to have as much natural light as is possible. I think that has to be explored in detail on the courtyard side as well because there are a lot of classrooms in the basement that face the courtyard, and that affects circulation on the ground floor. It affects the landscaping on the ground floor, et cetera. It really is a significant piece. The railings and whatever… Chair Baltay: What I'm trying to do, David, is come up with a sentence or two that we can give to the applicant. What are we asking them to do regarding the daylight? Board Member Hirsch: Explore expanding daylight methodology throughout the project. Chair Baltay: Throughout the project tor to the lower level classrooms? Board Member Hirsch: Well, to the lower level classrooms but I also suggested they consider taking the significant node between the art building and the main building and bringing in daylight from the top of it. It’s about a 600 or 700 square foot square that is circulation throughout the building. It could be a skylight element; it could go to the full height that’s allowable to this building. I think it’s a broader exploration… the broadest possible exploration of bringing light to the basement. Chair Baltay: Okay. I'm not sure you’re going to keep Osma with you on that one. Osma, what’s your take? Vice Chair Thompson: Well based on the applicant’s presentation I thought I did see a skylight that went to that circulation space that meets that request. My support of this was really more about… the applicant currently has some walkable glass that brings light down to the lower levels. Chair Baltay: That’s right. Vice Chair Thompson: I was in support of adding more of those conditions around the building because I did only see two conditions, which I think is a minor request and in subcommittee you can see they’ve added… it’s not something that is visible on the street so it’s not going to really affect the aesthetics of the project as it relates to the environment. It’s really more about adding more light to the lower levels and making more space, perhaps, between the building and the landscape to provide for that. Chair Baltay: Okay. Grace and Alex, do you want to chime in at all? Is there any more support for this idea? Board Member Lee: I will say I don’t feel strongly. It’s not a comment that I have made in the past two other hearings. I feel like daylight is a strength that they have brought to the project and… Chair Baltay: Okay. You're satisfied as it is then? (crosstalk) Board Member Lee: If the majority of the Board feels like it would want for further study and review it at a subcommittee level I am open to it. Chair Baltay: Okay. Alex, do you want to comment or do you stand with what you’ve already said? Board Member Lew: I am with Grace on this one. Chair Baltay: Okay, fine. I support what Osma says. I think a small level of additional studies could be appropriate. I am sorry, David. I don’t think it’s necessary to do a wholesale re-envisioning of the daylighting in all of the building at this point in the process. 5.a Packet Pg. 148 City of Palo Alto Page 31 Board Member Hirsch: I have one more that I did raise, Peter, and that is we haven’t seen a single large scale elevations of the courtyard façade. Chair Baltay: We’re going to come to that in a second, David. It’s on the list here. We’ve heard from the public and then I heard Alex and Osma discuss the possibility of having a sound barrier of some kind at the breaks between the building facing Kellogg. Is support again, in concept, doing that. I support, I think, what Osma said which is you'd like to make sure that its programmatically necessary first before asking an applicant to do that. David and Grace, where do you stand on that issue? Board Member Hirsch: Frankly, I have a comment about that. I was really surprised to see that as an open area and not a through connection. It’s sort of an internal connection. It is set back, of course. The corridor is set back from the facade and as it would b on the other Emerson end, which is also all the way up and is on the second level, it is an interior connection, I am surprised it isn’t (inaudible). It’s a whole other subject matter and no one has really talked about it today. Chair Baltay: Yeah, the point I am trying to bring up is one several Board Members discussed which was asking the applicant to put some sort of transparent sound mitigation barrier. Board Member Hirsch: I don’t see it as a major issue to have a sound barrier. Chair Baltay: You don’t think it’s necessary or you don’t oppose having it asked to do that? Board Member Hirsch: I think the use of that could be monitored by the school. Chair Baltay: Okay. Grace, I didn’t hear your opinion on that one. Board Member Lee: I don’t feel strongly. I didn’t bring it to the table and I don’t see a need; however, I guess I am confused. I am not sure if the majority of the Board is in support of having that come back for review. Chair Baltay: Well, I think we have… Alex mentioned it, Osma supported it and I support it in concept, although maybe, Alex, could you explain more carefully what you're thinking? Board Member Lew: I think the issue is sort of clear that there is a potential for noise if you have an outdoor terrace facing the neighbors. The neighbors are concerned about it. It seems like a small ask by the neighbors. I think that we should consider it. The acoustical consultant has weighed in. There is a 5- decibel reduction if we do some sort of solid railing. It seems like a small ask from my point of view. Chair Baltay: I support what you're saying that we’re asking them to essentially consider, right, or to study or find a way to potentially put a barrier there? I mean are we asking them… Board Member Lew: Yeah, I mean, I think that’s the right... yeah, consider it. Chair Baltay: Okay. I don’t see any harm. I support that. Vice Chair Thompson: If you look at… oh, sorry. Go ahead. Chair Baltay: Are you in support of it as well, Osma? Vice Chair Thompson: I am, yeah. If you look at the floor plan AV101 which floors the floor level I would say it is a bit more important on plan -- is it plan north -- opening north. The opening plan south looks like it’s more of a balcony. It’s not really like a potential circulation space but the space plan north looks like it could be a potential circulation space. Potentially something transparent there makes sense. Chair Baltay: Okay. Look, I support what Alex said, and I think you do too, Osma. I think that would be on a list of wither revisions to come back or subcommittee items. 5.a Packet Pg. 149 City of Palo Alto Page 32 Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, I think it’s a subcommittee item. Chair Baltay: We have had David repeatedly ask, and I've strongly asked, that the elevations get corrected. I haven’t heard from Alex, Grace, or Osma a definitive statement regarding whether you support that or not. Are the elevations sufficient as they are presented now? Vice Chair Thompson: I think in my comments I said that the change that was presented today with the shear wall is what I would like to approve but that would be the only change to the elevations. Chair Baltay: Okay. Vice Chair Thompson: I don’t think that warrants reprinting everything. Chair Baltay: Okay. Board Member Lee: I concur with Osma’s comment there. Chair Baltay: Okay. Well, look, David, there are only two people supporting what we are saying so… Board Member Hirsch: Yup (inaudible). Chair Baltay: … that’s the way to is. Vice Chair Thompson: Sorry, did we hear from Board Member Lew? I didn’t hear him say. Chair Baltay: Well, it sup to Alex to speak up if he wants to put into these things. I mean, Alex likes to keep his counsel, so what do you think, Alex. Board Member Lew: I am in agreement with Osma and Grace. I don’t really see a lot of… I am not sure I see the added value of having a complete set of drawings come back to a full Board. Chair Baltay: Okay. Well, we are even talking to a subcommittee now. Is this something we want to make them represent the correct set of elevations or are we happy with what we have right now? Vice Chair Thompson: A subcommittee… Board Member Lew: We do (inaudible) set of drawings and I think it could go to the subcommittee. Chair Baltay: Okay. I have three items but I'm the only one who brought them up, so lacking any more support I don’t know what to say. I was concerned about the swimming pool, about two of the trees, and the finishing on the service ramp. Does anyone else support that? Vice Chair Thompson: Let’s go one by one, Peter. Chair Baltay: Okay, I think the swimming pool is still poorly designed or poorly defined and the building next to it especially. We don’t even know what's going on there and how the roof of that is being treated or what it is really going to look like. I think they need to present to us what the full design is on the swimming pool area. Vice Chair Thompson: Which building are you talking about? The fitness and athletics center? Chair Baltay: Let me find it in the plan for you. Vice Chair Thompson: It’s an existing building I think, the fitness. Chair Baltay: No, it's new. Sorry, I am still trying to figure out where it is. 5.a Packet Pg. 150 City of Palo Alto Page 33 Board Member Hirsch: AB100. Chair Baltay: AB100, David? Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. Chair Baltay: Yes, AB100 drawing number two. With that showing let me explain that more carefully, I guess. The swimming pool itself, starting on the left-hand side when you stand in that parking lot that tree 89 is just to the left of the swimming pool here and the drip line extends well into the perimeter of the existing building. That’s how you can tell that it’s almost over the edge of the swimming pool itself. On the right-hand side there are some functional elements inside the building with a curved upper right corner to it and the top of that has some sort of a flat roof structure closer to grade, I gather. I just don’t know anywhere what that’s going to be. Then this surface ramp as it goes down doesn’t have any explanation of how it’s treated at the top level, again closest to the campus. Those are my issues with this whole thing. I don’t know that the design is bad; I just don’t know what here. I would like to see more detail and thought and make sure that tree 89, especially, is going to be okay. Vice Chair Thompson: Would be okay to ask the applicant? When I look at the south elevation on AB302, I don’t see anything that goes above that perimeter fence. Chair Baltay: Sure, if you want to ask the applicant back I am all for that. You're the one with the tight time constraint, I believe, Osma. Vice Chair Thompson: I do. I have to leave here soon. I think it would be good to get clarity on what… I didn’t read that as a building. It would be good to find out what that is. Chair Baltay: Looking at the 1 in 40 plan, there are clearly a bunch of doors into rooms. That’s where I would put a locker room of some kind. Vice Chair Thompson: It says below grade pool equipment storage. Chair Baltay: Is the applicant still with us? Can we ask the applicant for clarity? Vinh, is it possible to unmute them Ms. French: Adam is unmuted. [Adjusting Audio.] Chair Baltay: Adam, can you explain to us plan number two on sheet AB100, please? Adam Woltag: I am actually looking back up at… it is also important to look at AS101 just to get a sense of what’s at grade and what’s not. Chair Baltay: Okay. Adam Woltag: Peter, you picked out something really critical there. It is true that there is a ramp that drops down below grade that takes care of service and access to the project but the plan you're looking at that calls out all of that equipment is below grade. There is no building on top of it. It is literally going to be at grade. There is no structure there that you would see from the street. There is a retaining wall on the ramp side that basically holds grade. All of that storage equipment is at the level of the pool. It’s at the below grade level. Chair Baltay: Is there a roof over all of that equipment? Adam Woltag: There’s a structured roof there and the intent is to landscape that. There’s no roof as in a first-floor roof. It would literally be at grade. 5.a Packet Pg. 151 City of Palo Alto Page 34 Chair Baltay: Yes, so it’s a roof at grade. The entire building is below grade. Adam Woltag: That’s correct. Chair Baltay: Okay. What is the building to the left that says heat pump on our drawing here? What is the structure to the left of that? The long, narrow rooms there? Adam Woltag: Om the other side of the pool? One second, let me get to the same… Chair Baltay: Drawing number two floor plan pool. Vice Chair Thompson: Can you share that view, again, Amy? Adam Woltag: Yeah, could we pull that up so we’re all looking at the same thing? Ms. French: Sure. Adam Woltag: Thanks, Amy. Chair Baltay: On this drawing to the right of the swimming pool… Adam Woltag: Correct. Chair Baltay: …is a large narrow set of rooms, one bigger than the other with what looks like doors coming in from the swimming pool area. What is that? What are those spaces? Vice Chair Thompson: You're talking about this one and this one? Chair Baltay: Yes, exactly. Adam Woltag: It’s a series of stargaze spaces and mechanical spaces, pool equipment, heat pump; those are all the things that are servicing the pool. Chair Baltay: I see, okay. That, then, has a roof that’s at grade and landscaped somehow. Adam Woltag: That’s correct. That is correct. Chair Baltay: Is there any detailing on how that’s done and what the landscaping is like? Adam Woltag: We don’t have it here but we can definitely get that to you, Peter. Not a problem. Chair Baltay: Okay. Thank you, Adam. I think that, Osma, explains what we’re talking about. That goes back to what I'm asking for which is to have just a better description of how all this is working. Is there more support on the Board to make that ask or is that something we’re comfortable with? Board Member Hirsch: You have my support, yes. I think its a significant area and the landscaping should be part of the packet as well. And the study of the tree, as you’ve mentioned. That’s all part of the same package. Chair Baltay: I don’t hear anyone else, David. I think that’s where we leave that. Look, it’s now up to somebody making a motion. I do not support putting this to a subcommittee but if somebody else wants to make that motion now is the time to speak. MOTION 5.a Packet Pg. 152 City of Palo Alto Page 35 Board Member Lee: I’ll move that we approve this project as presented with a list of, I believe, four or five items that might return to a subcommittee for review. Would that be a complete motion? Chair Baltay: Why don’t you itemize what's on that list, Grace? You can just say the subject of it. Board Member Lee: The items that would come back to subcommittee review would include green tile pattern, cap of the shingles along the lower massed elevations element on Kellogg, a cut sheet of the exterior landscape light, and I believe that’s on Kellogg street as well. Chair Baltay: Okay. Was there anything else that anybody wants to make sure that’s the complete list that you want to put in your motion? Okay. It’s been moved. Do we have a second on that motion? Board Member Lew: Sure, I will second. Chair Baltay: Okay. Do either of you want to speak to your motion? No,okay, well then… FRIENDLY AMENDMENT Vice Chair Thompson: Is it possible to make a friendly amendment? Chair Baltay: Yes, please do. Board Member Lee: Absolutely. Chair Baltay: It’s not complete to what we just talked about. You folks should know that. Vice Chair Thompson: Could we add that the applicant look at an acoustic barrier on the second level? Board Member Lee: Sure, so that would be a sketch of… consider or please study the possibility of an addition… Vice Chair Thompson: Correct. Board Member Lee: …to the terrace at the terrace level an acoustical panel and describe the reduction in decibel projected remediation that would occur with that addition. Vice Chair Thompson: Yes. Yes. Board Member Lee: I am happy to add that to the motion. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT Board Member Hirsch: I’d like another friendly amendment… Board Member Lew: I will… Board Member Hirsch: …or do we vote on the first on? Chair Baltay: You're welcome to make a friendly, David. Propose something. Vice Chair Thompson: I think Board Member Lew has to second the friendly amendment. Chair Baltay: Oh, I am sorry, yes. Alex, are you okay with Osma’s amendment? Board Member Lew: Yes, I seconded it. 5.a Packet Pg. 153 City of Palo Alto Page 36 Chair Baltay: Okay. David, you were going to prose something. Board Member Hirsch: yes, I propose that the applicant explore the use of the light paths around the perimeter to expand natural lighting into the basement rooms. Chair Baltay: Okay. Is that acceptable to you, Grace? Board Member Lee: I think the language that -- maybe you can just clarify -- I believe that there was discussion about just some kind of, what is it -- to let in light in the way that has been shown already in one situation that is… (crosstalk) Vice Chair Thompson: It’s the walkable… Board Member Hirsch: Walkable light path. Board Member Lee: Is that what we’re agreeing on as the friendly amendment? Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, the walkable skylight. Board Member Lee: That would be the word, walkable skylight. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. Board Member Lee: I am open to adding that language as a friendly amendment. Chair Baltay: Alex? Board Member Lew: What is the exact requirement? Is it to study it or are you actually requiring it to be included at all… (crosstalk) Vice Chair Thompson: I think it’s a study. Board Member Lew: I will accept study. I would not accept requiring every classroom to have skylights. Board Member Lee: I too agree with further study. Chair Baltay: Okay. The amendment is to ask for further study of skylights at the lower level classrooms? Board Member Lee: I’ll accept. Chair Baltay: Okay. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT Board Member Hirsch: One other friendly amendment and that would be to present the committee with more full-scale elevations of the courtyard façade. Chair Baltay: Okay. The amendment has been proposed, Grace? Board Member Lee: Which amendment are we talking about? The walkable skylight first? 5.a Packet Pg. 154 City of Palo Alto Page 37 Chair Baltay: David is asking for an amendment asking full scale or larger scale elevation drawings of the courtyard faced. I think we already beat this one to death, David, but Grace it’s your… Board Member Hirsch: let’s find out. Let’s find out. It’s an amendment. Board Member Lee: Yeah, that wasn’t on my list and I just want to make sure we second the walkable skylight. Chair Baltay: Alex said that was okay, I think. Board Member Lee: Okay, great. Chair Baltay: Alex, did I misspeak? Board Member Lee: I didn’t have the -- oh, sorry, Alex, you go ahead. Board Member Lew: No, I am fine with that. Chair Baltay: Alex, are you in support of studying additional walkable skylights? Board Member Lew: Yes. Chair Baltay: Okay. David has now proposed requesting larger scale elevation drawings of the interior courtyard elevations of the building. Grace, what was your response to that? Board Member Lee: That one didn’t seem like we had a majority agreeing on that. Chair Baltay: Okay. You do not accept that amendment. David, you have the option of making an unfriendly amendment and try to gather votes for it. UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Let’s change the word. Chair Baltay: That’s the territory we’re in now on this, unfortunately, but do you want to do that. I don’t think you have the votes for it. Board Member Hirsch: Well, I’ll do it anyhow and they can vote it down. Chair Baltay: Okay. Jodie, can you correct me? Are we doing this the right way now? Ms. Gerhardt: I am looking that up as we speak. We don’t do that very often. We’re usually a very friendly Board. Chair Baltay: I don’t think this is unfriendly. I think we have people who feel strongly about things and we want to make sure that we are doing it through the proper mechanism. Ms. Gerhardt: We do have Albert here if need be but I am also looking this up as we speak. Chair Baltay: Alex, do you have any guidance for us? You’ve been through this, perhaps. Ms. French: I have some ideas too. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, Amy’s been here longer, too. 5.a Packet Pg. 155 City of Palo Alto Page 38 Ms. French: Certainly when building permits… well, assuming… not assuming anything but any building permit is going to have to show elevations on all sides of the building and what it’s going to look like. That’s always an opportunity. Vice Chair Thompson: I think we are looking for guidance on unfriendly amendments. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, if there is an unfriendly amendment not accepted it would occur with the main motion but Chair has discretion to bifurcate the issue. Chair Baltay: So, it’s up to the Chair’s discretion? Vice Chair Thompson: To do an unfriendly amendment? Ms. Gerhardt: I am just reading the rules. Mr. Albert Yang, Assistant City Attorney: I'm just jumping in here. The rule should allow for an amendment, which is by definition unfriendly amendment. It’s a secondary motion that can be made while the main motion is pending as long as it has a maker and a seconder. Then you would vote on that amendment before you would go back to the main motion. Chair Baltay: Right. That’s what I thought. Okay. David is making a secondary motion that we request full scale or larger scale elevation drawings of the building elevations. Is that right, David? Board Member Hirsch: That’s correct. Chair Baltay: Okay. I’ll second that and then we’ll have a vote on it. Let’s have a vote on that issue, Vinh. Vice Chair Thompson: Sorry, I have a quick question. That’s not contrary to the motion that’s happening, right? The request is part of the subcommittee request? Ms. Gerhardt: It’s a separate motion. Chair Baltay: Yes, this is something that would then be made as part of the main motion. Is that right? Ms. Gerhardt: If it gets approved then it would be incorporated into the main motion. Chair Baltay: Right. It’s still not fully approved as to the package of what we’re saying but we’re sort of forcing Grace’s hand on the motion. Board Member Lee: To be clear, I want to make sure about what is the new motion. Is it for full-scale elevations that your back is to the courtyard and you’re looking at interior elevations… Chair Baltay: Okay, David? Board Member Lee: …to return to the subcommittee for review? Board Member Hirsch: No, just the interior façade of the courtyard. Chair Baltay: Be more clear, David. Let’s really be precise here. What are we looking for them to do? Board Member Hirsch: Larger scale drawings of the façade… Chair Baltay: What’s the scale? What scale do you want to see, 1/8 inch? Board Member Hirsch: I am just saying as they did on the perimeter (inaudible). 5.a Packet Pg. 156 City of Palo Alto Page 39 Chair Baltay: Well the drawings now are at 1/16th inch scale. Is that what we’re asking for? Vice Chair Thompson: And it’s just for the inner courtyard. Chair Baltay: These drawings are sort of here. It’s just they're not correct. Board Member Hirsch: They're 1/16th right now. That’s the scale of the drawing (inaudible) and we were looking at 1/32nd. I would say if they're going to be produced at this scale they should be two-times the scale. Chair Baltay: I didn’t understand you, David. Board Member Hirsch: Two-times the scale that is shown on the drawing. Chair Baltay: Okay. We want to see 1/16th scale drawings of… Board Member Hirsch: They are 1/16th right now, Peter. The drawings that are shown on our set are 1/16th. Chair Baltay: Yeah but they're reduced… Board Member Hirsch: But they're half-sized. They're half-sized. Chair Baltay: That’s not the applicant’s issue. That’s just the size drawing we get. So, we want to see 1/16th inch scale drawings of the elevations of the building? Board Member Hirsch: That’s what we have as present. If they're going to make them into half-scale (inaudible). Ms. Gerhardt: Do you want 1/8th on reduced size paper? Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Chair Baltay: Okay. We are asking for 1/8th scale drawings. Vice Chair Thompson: Are you asking for all elevations of the building or just the interior courtyard elevations? Board Member Hirsch: That would be the three interior courtyard elevations. Basically, the classroom building, and the art building, and the dining room (inaudible). Chair Baltay: Okay. We are asking for 1/8th scale, which is twice as big as they are now elevations. David, just make it of the buildings. Board Member Hirsch: Make it which? I'm sorry. Vice Chair Thompson: Of all the buildings. Chair Baltay: We want 1/8 th scale of all the buildings. Board Member Hirsch: Okay, fine. Chair Baltay: That’s the motion. I second the motion. Any other comments on it before we vote if that becomes included? 5.a Packet Pg. 157 City of Palo Alto Page 40 Vice Chair Thompson: Can we also add that the change to the façade that we saw today is incorporated in this? Chair Baltay: Yes, of course. That should be completed 1/8th inch scale elevations. Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. Board Member Lee: To be reviewed by the subcommittee is what I understand. Chair Baltay: That would go into the motion as a subcommittee item, that’s right. Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. Chair Baltay: Let’s have a vote on that. Vinh, can you call a vote? Aye: Baltay, Hirsch, Thompson (3) No: Lee, Lew (2) Absent: MOTION TO APPROVE UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT PASSES 3-2-0. Chair Baltay: Okay. To be clear, that’s been added to Grace’s motion. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT Let me try one more friendly amendment. I want to be quick. Grace, can we ask them to study the health of tree number 89. That’s the one I think is impacted. Board Member Lee: Yes, I’ll accept that as a friendly amendment. Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. Alex, are you okay with that? Board Member Lew: Yes, but I think, Peter, that’s already being addressed in the last meeting. I think they talked about reconfiguring the staircase there and changing the paving to DG but if you want to revisit it I will… Chair Baltay: Yeah, Alex, this is important to me that the tree gets saved. I just don’t have confidence that it has been studied yet. By this, at least, it gets… (crosstalk) Board Member Lew: …revisit it again. Chair Baltay: Okay. I am asking that to go back to, it looks like, a subcommittee. Okay. With that, we have a motion… Vice Chair Thompson: Question. Sorry, one more. It’s a question for you, Peter. Did you also want to study the impact on Oak Tree 22? Chair Baltay: I didn’t mention that. Which tree is that? Vice Chair Thompson: I thought that was the one that you noticed that the diameter was bigger. Chair Baltay: That’s Oak Tree number 89. 5.a Packet Pg. 158 City of Palo Alto Page 41 Vice Chair Thompson: Oh, sorry. Okay. I guess I wrote down the wrong number Chair Baltay: The other tree I mentioned was tree number 55 but I don’t want to go there right now. It’s too much, I think. Vice Chair Thompson: Okay, never mind. Chair Baltay: You guys are going to agree with me and I don’t want to push it. Vice Chair Thompson: All right. I don’t have anything to add. Chair Baltay: Anything else to our motion, gang? Okay. With that, we have a motion that’s been made and seconded. Let’s have a vote on that, Vinh. Aye: Hirsch, Lee, Lew, Thompson (4) No: Baltay (1) MOTION TO APPROVE PASSES 4-1-0. Chair Baltay: Okay. Thank you very much, everybody. I appreciate the hard work and consideration and I hope none of us take this personally. It’s all about trying to do what we think is the best thing to do. With that, congratulations to the applicant, your motion has carried. Let’s see, can we quickly go through the rest of our agenda here? Osma, how much time do you have left? Vice Chair Thompson: I have five minutes. Approval of Minutes 3. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 1, 2020 Chair Baltay: Okay. Next item is approval of minutes. Do we have any comments on the round of minutes here? Board Member Lew: Peter, I have comments. They're all very minor like typos and things that I can send directly to staff. I don’t think we have to discuss them. Chair Baltay: Okay. I’ll move that we approve the minutes subject to the comments that we haven’t seen yet from Alex, which he is going to send. Talk about a vote of confidence, Alex. Vice Chair Thompson: I’ll second. Chair Baltay: Okay. It’s moved and seconded. Let’s have a vote, Vinh. Aye: Baltay, Hirsch, Lee, Lew, Thompson (5) No: Absent: MOTION TO APPROVE PASSES 5-0-0. Subcommittee Items Chair Baltay: Okay. Alex, next item is subcommittee report. Do we have anything for North Ventura? 5.a Packet Pg. 159 City of Palo Alto Page 42 Board Member Lew: Yes, there is a meeting tonight. It’s a joint meeting with the Parks and Recs Commission. I think it’s at 6:00 tonight to review the feasibility study of naturalizing Matadero Creek. Chair Baltay: Okay. Are you suggesting we should all go to that meeting? Board Member Lew: No because we don’t want to have a quorum there. Chair Baltay: Okay. We are counting on you to report back then from your attendance at the meeting, right? Board Member Lew: Yeah. Chair Baltay: Okay. Anything else, Alex? Board Member Lew: No, I think the only other thing I think we should mention is the City Clerk’s Office extended the deadline for ARB applications but I don’t have the exact date. I would think it’s sometime soon. Board Members Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Baltay: Okay. That comes into Board Member comments or announcements. Yes, I haven’t gotten a clear answer on whether the actual recruitment period has been extended for the ARV. Jodie, do you know what the status is? Ms. Gerhardt: I hadn’t heard officially but there was some possibility of extending the application period but then I have also heard from the Clerk’s Office that they will still make a decision by December 14th. So, any extension is not going to go past that. We will have new Board Members at the appropriate time. Chair Baltay: great. That’s what’s of interest to us. Anything else? Okay, then we are adjourned. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you, staff -- Amy, Jodie, and everybody. Thank you to the applicant. Have a great day everybody. Adjournment 5.a Packet Pg. 160 To: City Council of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission of the City of Palo Alto From: Architectural Review Board of the City of Palo Alto Re: Annual Report from the ARB Date: December 17, 2020 PAMC Section 2.21.030 directs the Architectural Review Board to report annually our “concerns… with respect to the city’s plans, policies, ordinances and procedures as these affect the projects which the board reviews.” Our reviews are site specific – we look at individual development proposals, not broad policies. At the same time, we are directed to look at each project in both its physical and regulatory context – how it will enhance its neighborhood (or not) and how it will implement the City’s polices, from the Comprehensive Plan to the various design guidelines the City uses. Because we look at many projects each year, and because many board members have years of experience in Palo Alto, patterns emerge and specific areas of concern have been identified. Our comments this year are centered on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and the increasing importance of housing projects to the city. A. Remote Design Review. Since March 2020 we have been conducting Architecture Review Board meetings by Zoom teleconference. Baring our initial technical stumbles, we feel that we have been able to successfully review projects and conduct business in this manner. A few concerns have arisen: • Digital only plans have limitations-on larger and more complex projects printed drawings have allowed us to more easily and fully comprehend the proposed work. • Material samples-due to virus related logistical limitations, we have been unable to fully review the proposed materials for projects, forcing us to delay or have less confidence in our approval recommendations is there anything Staff or Council can do to help this during the pandemic? • Public participation-while we have not experienced a decline in public participation, some people have difficulty with the communication format. While remote meetings are a necessary temporary alternative, they are not an equivalent substitution to in person hearings. Do we want to explore a hybrid model in the future? So more working people could participate? B. San Antonio Corridor Design Standards. San Antonio Avenue is experiencing increasing development but our zoning regulations for the area are outdated. • The existing one-story light industrial and commercial buildings will be substantially replaced in the coming decade. What are the best uses for this area? What size buildings are appropriate? • How will the transportation infrastructure be upgraded? • Other commercial areas in Palo Alto have benefited from specific design guidelines (El Camino, California, SoFA). What is our vision for this neighborhood? Do you want to include a conclusion sentence? What would the ARB like the Council to do with this info? Council has already direct staff to come back with some ideas and budgets for a Corridor Plan, how would the ARB like to be involved? C. City Council/Planning Commission communication. The Architecture Review Board has very little formal interaction with the City Council, the Planning Commission and the Historic Resources Board. Board members are forced to act on individual initiative to gain input from council members and other commissioners. Joint meetings with full boards are rarely productive; yet uncoordinated serial meetings leave commissioners unaware of feedback from colleagues on other boards. Applicants often feel that they are ‘running a gauntlet’ of approvals rather than facing a coordinated review. • Appoint a city council member as liaison to the ARB. (The HRB had a Council rep in the past, if you want to research how this may/may not work) • Take direct feedback from the ARB on reviewed projects up for council approval. The ARB can appoint a member to represent the board directly to the council. • Request staff to schedule joint preliminary discussions between the ARB, PTC and HRB chairs/vice-chairs on projects of common interest. These ‘preliminary meetings’ would not be to review specifics of a project; rather they would serve to coordinate the review process between boards and planning staff. D. Objective Design Standards. In response to recently enacted state legislation, Palo Alto is being forced to adopt objective design review standards for housing projects, effectively eliminating architectural review on residential and mixed-use projects. The Architectural Review Board is working closely with the planning department to develop and refine prescriptive standards for these projects in an effort to ensure high quality design without subjective review. Due to time constraints we have been unable to make a comprehensive outreach effort to local stakeholders, the professional community and the public at large. We have thus received no community input on the proposed objective standards. While some of our new standards will be effective, many others attempt to address issues that are inherently subjective and simply cannot be reduced to a series of specific requirements. Ultimately, these prescriptive standards will prove a poor replacement for our review process and design quality will decrease. When reflecting back on the entitlement process for Palo Alto projects many applicants agree that architectural review improved their buildings. The typical complaints are often related to the length of time required to garner approvals from the various permitting agencies rather than a dissatisfaction with the changes required to meet our standards. Why not focus instead on streamlining our review process by improving coordination between reviewing agencies bodies and increasing staff support to allow faster and more efficient project reviews rather than accepting a reduced quality of design in our built environment? These buildings will affect many Palo Altans and will outlast most of us; we owe it to future generations to build lasting quality. E. Architectural review is important. A number of new buildings are taking shape in our community. Compare the end product to the initially proposed projects-architecture review makes a real and significant difference! • Marriot Hotel on San Antonio Avenue • California Avenue Commercial District parking garage • 4115 El Camino Real – demo complete as of Feb • 3705 El Camino Real (Wilton Court) – likely early construction phase • 3265 El Camino Real • 3225 El Camino Real (former Footlocker) – under construction as of Feb • 2585 El Camino Real (former Olive Garden) – close to complete • 2342 Yale Street • 3406 Hillview Avenue – well under construction as of Feb • 355 University Avenue (Design Within Reach/Masonic Temple) - complete Need to verify if buildings are mostly complete. Need to provide before and as built images. Commented [GJ1]: The HIP process is the start of this and is our local alternative to the state density bonus law. This process could be made “by-right” vs. requiring ARB recommendation and Director approval (FAR increase would be automatic for housing/mixed-use projects). In what other ways could we improve upon this? Staff will also be discussing “by-right” streamlining as part of the larger Objective Standards/Streamlining project that PTC/Council will review Commented [GJ2]: Assuming you mean PTC and Council or “Departments” if you mean internal staff. “Agencies” would be CalTrans, VTA, etc. Commented [GJ3]: Need sufficient Planning staff, but also need time/support from other development review departments to streamline review. Commented [GJ4]: Could ARB confirm completeness and take photos? Staff can find the before and approved plan sets, as needed.