The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021-06-17 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: June 17, 2021 Virtual Meeting 8:30 AM ****BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY*** https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491 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. 160 Waverley Street [20PLN-00301]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of the Existing Residential Structures (3 units total) for the Construction of Two New Structures Containing Three Apartment Flats and Six Tuck Under Parking Stalls at Grade. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: RM-30. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3241 Park Boulevard [20PLN-00032]: Recommendation on a Major Architectural Review to demolish an existing 4,501 square foot building and construct a new 7,861 square foot office building. Environmental Assessment: Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303 and 15332. Zoning District: GM. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Garrett Sauls at Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org. 4. Discuss the Draft Architectural Review Board's (ARB) Draft Work Plan, Suggest Changes, and Recommend Submitting the Draft Work Plan to the City Council; and Discuss the ARB's Annual and any Bylaw Changes Needed. Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2021 Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Working Group Updates – Boardmember Lew Adjournment Ad Hoc Committee Items 6. 4256 El Camino Real [21PLN-00034]: Ad Hoc Committee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Additional Details to ensure that the garage changes do not change the exterior design of the building. Environmental Assessment: An EIR was certified on June 3, 2020. Zone District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The ARB Boardmembers are: Chair Osma Thompson Vice Chair Grace Lee Boardmember Peter Baltay Boardmember David Hirsch Boardmember Alex Lew Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ or on Channel 26. 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: 965 6189 1491 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 # 12360) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 6/17/2021 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 2021 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2021 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/7/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled 1/21/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled 2/4/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 2/18/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 3/4/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled 3/18/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 4/1/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 4/15/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 5/6/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 5/20/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled 6/3/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled 6/17/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 7/1/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 7/15/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 8/5/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 8/19/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 9/2/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 9/16/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 10/7/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 10/21/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 11/4/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 11/18/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 12/2/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 12/16/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 2021 Ad Hoc Committee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair on the day of the hearing January February March April May June 3/4 – Lee/Hirsch 4/15 – Baltay/Hirsch 5/6 – Baltay/Lew 6/17 – Thompson/Hirsch July August September October November December 1.a Packet Pg. 7 Architectural Review Board 2021 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics July 1, 2021 x Castilleja School Project 1.b Packet Pg. 8 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 12256) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/17/2021 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 160 Waverly St: New Triplex Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 160 Waverley Street [20PLN-00301]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of the Existing Residential Structures (3 units total) for the Construction of Two New Structures Containing Three Apartment Flats and Six Tuck Under Parking Stalls at Grade. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: RM-30. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Consider the proposed project and provide feedback on the applicant’s proposal. Report Summary The project is a Major Architectural Review application to redevelop 160 Waverley’s three detached dwellings into two new structures containing three apartment flats. Parking for the proposed project is provided within the ground level of the front building. The project's site plan provides large open space areas and both buildings have rooftop terraces. The project site is located within the North Downtown neighborhood and consists of a mixture of residential zones that include R-1, R-2, RM-20, and RM-30 zones. The project site is Zoned RM-20 and is adjacent to R-1 zoned properties with low-density single-family uses to the northwest of the site and RM-20 zoned properties with multi-family uses to the southeast. The project has been analyzed by staff for consistency with zoning and been found to be zoning compliant. The project requires additional analysis to determine if the sites existing buildings are historic resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The application processing would be adjusted accordingly based on the findings of the CEQA analysis. 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 Staff seek ARB’s comments on several areas in particular. These areas include the proposed architectural design, landscaping plan (lack of native planting), and privacy impact on the adjacent R-1 zoned property. It is not clear to staff at this time that the project is consistent with all of the required ARB findings for approval. After ARB feedback is provided and project revisions are complete, staff will evaluate the project's consistency with the required findings and will be providing draft conditions for the ARB's consideration at a future hearing date. Public comments have been received and focus on the privacy impacts to the adjacent R-1 zoned property, noise, and the compatibility of the proposed project with the neighborhood. The comments are provided in Attachment E of this report. Background Project Information Owner: MC-Z Waverley LLC Architect: Heather Young/ Heather Young Architects Representative: N/A Legal Counsel: N/A Property Information Address: 160 Waverley Street Neighborhood: Downtown North Lot Dimensions & Area: 50’ x 250’; 12,500 sf Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: 1 Street Tree Historic Resource(s): Not Historic Existing Improvement(s): varies 1 to 2 story; 1912 Existing Land Use(s): Multi-Family Triplex Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Single Family Residential R-1 West: Multi-Family Residential RM-20 East: Single Family Residential R-1 South: Single Family Residential RM-20 Aerial View of Property: 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 Source: google maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Multi Family Residential RM-20 Comp. Plan Designation: Multi Family Residential RM-20 Context-Based Design Criteria: N/A Downtown Urban Design Guide: N/A South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: N/A Baylands Master Plan: N/A El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): N/A Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes, adjacent to R-1 zone & low-density residential uses Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: N/A Prior City Reviews & Action 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 City Council: None PTC: None HRB: March 19, 1997 (Attachment F) ARB: None Project Description A request for Major Architectural Review to allow the demolition of three existing residential structures (Detached Triplex) for the construction of two new structures containing three apartment flats. Each apartment flat is a three-bedroom three and a half bathroom dwelling unit. The front building is two stories and has one apartment and six tuck-under parking stalls at grade. The front building also has a large rooftop terrace proposed. The rear building is set back on the site, two stories, and has one apartment on each story. 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 and 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 B. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The project site is located within a neighborhood with a mix of residential zones that include R- 1, R-2, RM-20, and RM-30 zones. The properties to the rear (southwest) and left side (southeast) are also RM-20. The property on the right side (northwest) is in the R-1 zone and the properties on the other side of Waverley Street are a mix of R-1 and RM-20. The neighborhood includes an eclectic and diverse mix of architectural styles and massing. There are single-story and 2-story buildings, oftentimes with multiple structures on one site. The subject site is zoned RM-20 and is adjacent to an R-1 zoned property with a duplex (150 Waverly Street). The subject site has three units (detached triplex), and each unit has a different architectural style with the front unit presenting a traditional ranch-style architecture and the center and rear units having boxy mid-century architecture. Access is provided via a 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 single-width driveway that runs along the left side of the front unit, bringing vehicles to the carports located at the center of the property. Design The project proposes a modernist design with minimalist details and bold rectangular two-story forms for each building. Each of the buildings has rectangular forms presented in a neutral color palette of tans, greys, and pale earth tones. Adhered brick veneer (weathered brick) is applied to the majority of the exterior of the buildings and is contrasted by cement plaster façade elements. Windows that are recessed from the façade are colored dark grey and surround the buildings, with balconies and sliding doors at each of the narrow ends. The design calls for brick headers above each window and exterior jambs and sills are shown to have brick returns (sheet A-19 to A-22, A-27). These treatments provide a break in the brick façade pattern and add character to the design. The front building provides a second-story unit with the site parking (carports) underneath. From the street elevation, the lower parking portion of the front building a façade treated with warm white engineered stone veneer. The design of the lower portion of the building provides openings in the façade which helps to break up the scale of the flat stone façade. The carport section of the building has a cement plaster façade on the sides, with compatible color and texture with front-facing stone. The cement plaster façade is also applied to the rear of both buildings which features projecting central massing element. The top of each building has a finished parapet designed with cornices. Dark grey open picket aluminum guards line the second-floor balconies and create a sense of transparency. Balconies edges would be dark grey painted metal with cement plaster undersides. Overall the design is a departure from the existing architecture, however, in context with the variable architecture of the area, the proposed design appears to be compatible with the neighbor character. As mentioned the design appears to provide some elements that provide character, articulation, and have a consistent design throughout. It is unclear, however, if the design is sufficiently meeting ARB findings #2 and #3, and for this reason, the ARB’s feedback on the architectural design is sought. Parking & Circulation The proposed site design adjusts the existing driveway location slightly to the right, where the new driveway enters the building's lower level to allow for tuck under parking under the building at the front of the site and to respect the side daylight planes. Within this ground, level garage is proposed six carports that provide two covered parking spaces for each dwelling. The garage features two large openings on the exterior southeast elevation that allow vehicles to have sufficient backup area to enter and exit each parking space. The circulation of vehicles was studied by staff and as designed the proposed garage allows for vehicle circulation in a manner that is consistent with the required parking facility design standards (sheet Ex-1). To maintain proper clearances staff would place a condition of approval 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 for the project that requires a 2.5-foot clearance on both ends of the parking stalls (bookend stalls) to remain unblocked for vehicle maneuverability. Placement of any fixed or temporary structure would not be allowed in 2.5 feet clearance area. As such, striping marked with “KEEP CLEAR” would be required to maintain these areas stay free of any obstructions. Pedestrian access to the entire site is also found to be sufficient as there are walkways along the interior property lines and access points between the private open space areas. Bicycle parking is provided on-site near the entry of the garage. With the low density of the project, the location of the bicycle parking is compliant with code requirements. Open Space The proposed design provides more usable green open space than the existing development as the parking is not repeating the existing centralized design. By providing the parking at the first level of the front building, the center of the site now allows for green open space for residents of the second-floor units. There is also open space behind the rear placed building with additional green open space. Both the front and rear buildings have rooftop terraces and feature balconies at the front and rear of the second-floor units. The front of the site is showing common open space for any of the residents to use. The submitted plans provide a set of diagrams indicating the private open space and the common open spaces for the site (sheet A-10). Though the diagram does not include the rooftop terraces they are each approximately 1,600 sf and after deducting the area where the solar panels and staircase area located (~250 sf). Overall, the table below shows that the project is providing more open space than is required, including more than required usable, common, and private open space per unit. Required Open Space Unit 1 (front 2nd fl unit) Unit 2 (rear 2nd fl unit) Unit 3 (rear 1st fl unit) Total Site Open Space 35% (4,375 sf) - - - 6,229 sf Usable Open Space 150 sf1 2,869 sf 2,036 sf 3,432 sf 2,779 sf/unit average Common Open Space 75 sf 193 sf 193 sf 193 sf 579 sf Private Open Space 50 sf 2,676 sf 1,843 sf 3,239 sf 2,120 sf/unit average 1 Usable Open Space is a combination of common and private open space Lighting The project's proposed lighting plan appears to be appropriate for the size and context of the project. The proposed exterior lights vary between different wall sconce styles that focus light up or down the exterior façades (sheets A29-A32). The light fixtures all have a modern design and dark finish that are compatible with the building's dark window trims, providing elements of consistency for the project. 2 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 In terms of performance standards, the submitted photometric plan indicates light output near the interior property lines ranges from 0.1 to 4 footcandles, with the highest output near the ground level carports. Though the light output is high, in context the light fixtures beam patterns and beam direction in combination with six-foot-tall wooden property line fences. It appears that the lighting would meet the requirement to have no light projecting beyond the property line. Landscaping The landscaping for the project provides variation in terms of trees and shrubs. Of the 14 plants proposed only 4 are regional indigenous, while six of 14 are drought resistant, and nearly all of the proposed plants are suitable habitats for birds or pollinators. Though the landscaping lacks regional indigenous plants, the proposed planting selection looks to meet two of three of the required ARB findings for landscaping. To increase the native planting staff suggest the following replacements to the planting selection; Toyon (native) for Dogwood, California Wax myrtle (native) for Swamp Myrtle. Staff seeks the ARB’s thoughts on the proposed planting and the suggested native replacements. Additionally, staff asks that the ARB consider the planting along the interior property line for privacy screening. Privacy for Adjacent Parcels As mentioned previously in this report, the project is located directly adjacent to an R-1 zoned property with two family use (detached duplex, 134 & 150 Waverley St). For context, the image below includes additional information on the privacy diagram provided in the plan set and assigns 160 A (front building) and 160 B (rear building) to the project buildings for clarity in the discussion of privacy. 2 Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 8 As shown, the proposed building 160 A has a staircase and second-floor walkway along its’ right side (northwest) providing exterior access to the second-floor dwelling unit. The second-floor walkway continues around building 160 A leading to the street-facing balcony. Though the stairs and walkway are narrow, they would overlook the patio area and side yard of 150 Waverley. The windows on the right side of building 160 A are set back in context with the walkway. The walkway provides an outer solid railing that would obscure visual vantage points from the windows but views from the staircase and walkway of building 160 A to the patio and side yard of 150 Waverley would not be obscured. Similarly, building 160 B has a staircase and second-floor walkway along its right side to access the second-floor unit. These features overlook the 134 Waverley patio and could have some views of 150 Waverley’s patio. 134 Waverley has two green open areas (see existing conditions image), one located off the front right side of the home, and the other being located off the rear of the home. This area is overseen by the existing (two-story home) on the project site, where there is a small second-floor terrace. The project is required to have a 10-foot rear setback but is proposing a 27-foot placement from the rear property line, increasing privacy for the rear yard of 134 Waverley. 2 Packet Pg. 16 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 9 The project includes rooftop terraces for 160 A and 160 B that have 42-inch-high solid parapet walls. As proposed, the entire roof of each building is accessible except for the areas proposed for solar panels and staircase access points. The size of these terraces is a point of concern for the adjacent neighbors. The rooftop terraces could impact privacy most significantly for both 134 and 150 Waverley (sheet A-7 and A-8). A point of consideration is that the existing two-story building (162 Waverley) is located at the center of the project site where second-story views to 134 and 150 Waverley are at their greatest due to the height and central vantage point. However, the existing configuration of 134 and 150 Waverley provides limited areas for useable open space which would now experience further privacy impacts. The majority of privacy impacts to 150 Waverley would be focused on the small private patio area, while minor impacts would be associated with the side yard. While the privacy impacts to 134 Waverley would be focused on the patio and the rear yard areas. It is unclear whether the private front yard area of 134 Waverley would be impacted by the project. The image below provides the existing view from the front yard area of 134 Waverley for context. The performance standards require visual screening for privacy between properties where appropriate2. Therefore, privacy considerations would apply to the identified patio areas adjacent to the common property line between sides. The project proposes evergreen screening trees along the side of the property line, however, the planting is spread out. Therefore, it’s not clear that privacy impacts from the rooftop terraces are fully addressed with the planting. Attachment E provides photos from the adjacent neighbors’ yard for additional perspective. Staff seeks the ARB's comments and guidance regarding the potential privacy impacts. Zoning Compliance3 The staff has reviewed the project for compliance project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards and found that the project meets the site development standards for multi-family use within the RM-20 zone. A set of zoning compliance tables are provided in Attachment C. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans, and Guidelines4 2 PAMC 18.23.050 (A) 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 2 Packet Pg. 17 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 10 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Multiple-Family Residential, which prescribes a density range of eight to 20 dwelling units per acre. The project site has a density between two and six units, with a proposed density of three dwelling units per acre, which complies with the intended multiple-family residential density. At this time the project is brought before the ARB to provide comments on the design of the project and the aforementioned points of concern. At a future hearing, the consistency of the project with the policies in the Comprehensive Plans goals and applicable findings as shown in Attachment B. Environmental Review The subject project is being 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. Initially, Staff reviewed the project and believed the project would be exempted from CEQA via a Class 3 exemption, 15303 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”. Late in the review process, however, additional information was brought to light that may change the historical resource analysis of the project. In 1997, the project site was subject to a Historic Resources Board (HRB) recommendation and a Director's decision applying a historic status of a “contributing residence” to the property, applicable via an interim ordinance that was later repealed (Attachment F). Due to this, the project is being reassessed per CEQA. The project will have a historic resources evaluation completed to clarify if the subject property is an eligible or ineligible historical resource, and adjust the project processing accordingly. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing to 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 June 4, 2021, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on June 4, 2021, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, three public comments were received. Larry Alton is opposed to the project and commented that the project appears similar to a commercial office building and 4The PaloAlto Comprehensive Plan: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 2 Packet Pg. 18 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 11 does not fit in the neighborhood. Andy Pregam (adjacent neighbor) provided comments concerning the project's privacy impacts to his yard, open space, sun exposure, and included photos from his yards. The Wiser family (adjacent neighbor) provided similar comments during a phone call with staff concerning privacy impacts on their property and open space as well as noise. A letter was also submitted by Edith Weiser that detailed privacy concerns regarding the rooftop terraces, and proposed setback of the project. The complete comment letters are provided in Attachment E. It should be noted that Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez met with the neighbors during a site visit of the neighboring property at 150 Waverley on June 8, 2021, to make observations of the existing conditions from the perspective of the neighboring property. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Continue the project to a date (un)certain Report Author & Contact Information ARB5 Liaison & Contact Information Samuel Gutierrez, Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2225 (650) 329-2575 samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: x Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) x Attachment B: Project Findings (DOCX) x Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) x Attachment D: Applicant Project Request Letter (PDF) x Attachment E: Public Comments (PDF) x Attachment F: 1997 HRB Decision and Ordinance History (PDF) x Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) 5 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 19 120-12-020 120-09-040 120-09-042 120-09-044 120-14-014 120-12-025 120-12-027 120-12-018 120-12-016 120-12-015 120-12-036 120-12-008 120-12-007 120-12-058 120-12-062 120-12-061 120-12-006 100.0' 150.0' 50.0' 200.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 50.0' 250.0' 50.0' 250.0' 50 250.0' 50.0' 110110.0' 45.0' 145.0' 50.0 145.0' 50.0' 145.0' 50.0' 145.0' 50.0' 145.0' 50.0' 145.0' 50.0' 145.0' 140.0' 150.0' 75.0' 50.0' 108.6 108.6' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 142.0' 5.0' 108.0' 50.0' 250.0' 250.0' 50.0' 108.0' 5.0' 142.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 40.0' 100.0' 40.0' 150.0' 60.0' 100.0' 10.0' 50.0' 50.0' 250.0' 50.0' 250.0' 50.0' 250.0' 50.0' 250.0' 50.0' 250.0' 50.0' 250.0' 50.0' 250.0' 50.0' 250.0' 50.0'60.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 70.0' 150.0' 130.0' 50.0' 130.0' 50.0' 50.0' 130.0' 50.0' 130.0' 101.6' 3 1.7'36.0' 130.0' 50.0' 55.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 50.0' 250.0' 50.0' 250.0' 50.0' 250.0' 50.0' 250.0' 50 250.0' 50.0' 250.0' 50 250.0' 50.0' 250.0' 50 250.0' 69 179 364 354 171 181 110 177 134 120 185 183 311- 317 126 150 341 327- 335 160- 164 319- 323 357 168 339 343 170 363 359 176 151 365 381 159 375 375 A 169 173 350 426-428 3 356 EN U E W A V E RLE Y S TR E ET RM-20 1 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0'68' 160 Waverley Street 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 sgutier, 2021-05-24 10:58:19 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 2.a Packet Pg. 20 ATTACHMENT B FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 160 Waverley Street 20PLN-00301 In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. 2.b Packet Pg. 21 Performance Criteria 18.23 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. 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. Consistency will be finalized when a formal application is submitted. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. 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. 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 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 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Project Consistency 18.23.030 Lighting 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration Project Consistency 2.b Packet Pg. 22 subject to these requirements. The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. 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. The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. 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. 18.23.070 Parking 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access 18.23.090 Air Quality 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials 2.b Packet Pg. 23 CONTEXT-BASED DESIGN CRITERIA PLEASE NOTE – these requirements are proposed to be replaced by Objective Standards in the summer of 2021. See the Objective Standards webpage for more information - https://bit.ly/ObjectiveStandards Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project 2.b Packet Pg. 24 ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 160 Waverley Street, 20PLN-00301 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.13 (RM-20 DISTRICT) Regulation Required Proposed Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 8,500 sf area, 70 foot width, 100 foot depth 12,500 sf, 50 foot width, 250 foot depth Maximum Residential Density 20 units per 1 acre 3 total units Minimum Front Yard 20 feet 20 feet (to the closest front exterior wall of Unit 1) Street/ Rear Yard 16 feet 27 feet Interior Side Yard (for lots w/widths of < 70 feet 6 feet 10 feet 4 ૜ ૡൗ inches (left); 6 feet 6 ¾ inches (right) 7 feet 9 ¾ inches (left); 7 feet 9 inches (right) 6 feet 2 ૠ ૡൗ inches (left); 6 feet (right) Max. Building Height 30 feet 23 feet 2 3/8 inches 23 feet 4 ½ inches 16 feet 4 ½ inches Side Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at interior side lot line then 45 degree angle Compliant Rear Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at rear setback line then 45 degree angle(1) Compliant Max. Site Coverage 35% (4,375 sf) plus an additional 5% (625 sf) for covered patios or overhangs 35% (4,347 sf) 5% (591 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 0.5:1 (6,250 sf) 0.50:1 (6,237 sf) Minimum Site Open Space 35% (4,347 sf) 35% (4,347 sf) Minimum Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit (450 sf total) 1,802 sf 1,802 sf 1,802 sf Minimum Common Open Space 75 sf per unit (225 sf total) 527 sf 527 sf 527 sf Minimum Private Open Space 50 sf per unit (150 sf total) 1,627 sf 1,627 sf 1,627 sf (1) For lots with width of less than 70 feet, limited to the first 10 feet from the property line (no daylight plane beyond 10 feet) 2.c Packet Pg. 25 Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Multiple-Family Residential Type Required Proposed Vehicle Parking Two (2) spaces per unit, of which at least one space per unit must be covered. Two (2) spaces per unit, all are covered parking spaces Bicycle Parking One (1) Long-term bicycle parking space Three (3) total; one (1) for each unit Loading Space Multi-family use none are require None proposed 2.c Packet Pg. 26 December 14, 2020 ARB Written Project Description Planning Department City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Waverley Residences 160-164 Waverley Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 New Multi-family Project This letter of application requests Architectural Review Board Approval for removal of three structures and a 3-car carport. The application proposes to construct two structures containing three apartment flats and a parking facility. Neighborhood Overview The neighborhood is a mix of residential zones, including R-1, R-2, RM-20, RM-30, and PF zones. The subject site is RM-20. The properties to the rear (southwest) and left side (southeast) are also RM-20. The property on the right side (Northwest) is in the R-1 zone and the properties on the other side of Waverley Street are a mix of R-1 and RM-20. The neighborhood includes an eclectic and diverse mix of architectural style and massing. There are single story and 2-story buildings, often times with multiple structures on one site. site 2.d Packet Pg. 27 Heather Young Architects Waverley Residences The site currently consists of 3 separate single family homes and a common carport on a narrow deep lot providing (4) on-site parking spaces. There are two single story homes and a 2-story home. All three residences are rented. Scope of Work This project proposes removal of the existing structures and construction of two structures containing three apartment flats. Each flat is 3 a bedroom, 3-1/2 bath unit with two covered parking spaces. The front building has at grade parking for all flats with a second floor apartment above and a roof terrace. The rear building has a ground floor flat with a front and rear yard, and a second floor flat with a roof terrace. Utility improvements to the site include undergrounding of line voltage and low voltage to the property and along Northwest side of property and the removal of one utility pole in the side yard utility easement. Design Concept The primary goal is to replace the existing and tired wood frame residences with new construction designed for long term use and durability through the use of sensitive site design and quality materials. The proposed project breaks the Multi- Family project into two brick clad structures. The ground floor of the front structure is widened to provide a base for the second floor and formally address Waverley Street. The mass of the rear structure is broken through the use of projecting balcony elements. Both structures feature a stucco clad projection at the rear and private roof terraces. The inclusion of private roof terraces ensures that all tenants have access to ample private outdoor space. The proposed design relocates the driveway slightly to the Northwest to allow for tuck under parking under the building at the front of the site and to respect the side daylight planes. A single story area at the front setback line breaks up the mass of the two story structure and setting the second floor living spaces further from the street. It is substantially open with 6 punched openings breaking down the mass and providing light and ventilation for the covered bicycle parking and compost / recycling area. This single-story stone clad element also allows for private terrace open space for the second floor unit. Although the required rear setback is only 10 feet, the nearest rear wall would be 27 feet away from the property line, increasing privacy for both future tenants and neighbors. A second set of goals are to reduce existing site hardscape, create more useable outdoor spaces and improve site circulation. Currently the central carport only provides for 4 cars on-site and includes a long driveway which not only consumes a lot of the site, but forces other tenants to drive past and behind the front residence. The new design consolidates the parking facility under the front structure, reducing impact to the site, tenants, and neighbors. In addition to increased privacy and better use of the site, the proposed design strives to respect the transitional nature of the RM-20 zone from higher density multi-family properties to single family 2.d Packet Pg. 28 Heather Young Architects Waverley Residences properties. In contrast to the single, long apartment block on the adjacent neighboring property at 168 Waverley, this project proposes two separate structures separated by 50 feet, opening the site to light and landscape. The scale is broken down into more transitional masses while also creating more privacy and additional yard space for tenant use. Materials: The façade is proposed to be predominantly a weathered brick with large grout joints, eased rustic edges in neutral color palette of tans, greys and pale ochres. A running bond pattern would be highlighted by subtle rows of Flemish bond aligning with windows heads and repeating roughly every 13 courses. The metal clad wood windows would be punched openings in the brick, subordinate in nature due to their recessed dark grey frames and lack of casing. Above each window would be a header soldier course of brick. The exterior jambs and sills would have brick returns. The single-story element which houses the bicycle parking, compost and recycling as well as the driveway entrance, would be a warm white engineered stone veneer. The stone helps break up the scale of this low element and gives a warm inviting airy feel to the streetscape. The garage would be wrapped in cement plaster in a similar warm white tone and smooth texture. Cement plaster is also proposed for the pop-outs at the rear of both buildings, creating a play between the main structure and a lighter cantilevered appendage, breaking up the scale of the building further. The parapet walls would be adorned with cornices, stately but simple in form. Dark grey open picket aluminum guards line the second floor balconies and create a sense of transparency. Balconies edges would be dark grey painted metal with cement plaster undersides. Findings The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of Title 18 (Zoning). The new structure will be code compliant, fully parked and free of hazardous materials. The immediate area has a rich mix of residential buildings and styles including multi-family, single family and single family with accessory dwelling units. The proposed project will be fully parked on site with six spaces. Four bicycle parking spaces would be provided in the front of the parking facility to support and emphasize a commitment to biking in Palo Alto and the bike boulevard, just one block away. Additionally: Policy L-3.4: Ensure that new multi-family buildings, entries and outdoor spaces are designed and arranged so that each development has a clear relationship to a public street. The front building and parking structure are located centrally on the width of the site with clearly a designated driveway for vehicular traffic. The parking facility is designed as a stone and stucco clad base to the building and provides a private terrace for Unit 160 looking onto Waverley. Individual unit numbers are prominently displayed on the front façade adjacent to their 2.d Packet Pg. 29 Heather Young Architects Waverley Residences pedestrian entries. 160 and 164 Waverley are accessed through a gate on the North side of the site; 162 Waverley is accessed through a gate on the South side. Policy L-6.8: Support existing regulations that preserve exposure to natural light for single-family residences. The proposed structures fit well within the daylight plane envelope and are lower than the allowed maximum height. The two structures are spaced 50’ apart bringing light and air into the middle of the 250’ deep site, the benefits of which are shared by the adjacent parcels. Policy L-9.10: Remove or mitigate elements of existing infrastructure that are unsightly or visually disruptive. Design parking lots and parking garages to meet high quality urban design standards: A power pole and some overhead lines will be removed as part of the project and undergrounded. The existing long driveway and a 4-car carport visible from the street will be removed and replaced with a shorter driveway and 6 cars parking facility out of sight from the neighborhood. Policy N-2.5: Improve overall distribution of citywide canopy cover, so that neighborhoods in all areas of Palo Alto enjoy the benefits of a healthy urban canopy: Six small on-site trees, most of which are in poor to very poor health, are being removed and replaced with 26 new trees, three of which will be mature 48” box size. In addition to complimenting the existing urban canopy many of these trees will provide visual screening to the neighboring sites and between the front and rear structures. Sincerely - Heather Young, Principal Heather Young Architects Cc: Zach Trailer Mc-Z Waverley, LLC 2.d Packet Pg. 30 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET City of Palo Alto Department of Planning 'HYHORSPHQW6HUYLFHV GENERAL INFORMATION: Date Filed_________________ 1. Address of Project: _______________________________________________________________ 2. Assessor's Parcel Number:___________________ Book #:__________ Page #:______________ 3. Application Number(s):_______________________ 4. Applicant: Name____________________________________________ Telephone ______________________ Address__________________________________________ Fax # __________________________ ________________________________________________ E-mail ________________________ 5. Owner: Name____________________________________________ Telephone _____________________ Address_________________________________________ Fax # __________________________ _________________________________________________ E-mail ________________________ 6. Current Zoning:___________________ Comprehensive Plan Designation ___________________ 7. Application for: Site and Design____________ Parcel Map______________ ARB Review_____________ Use Permit________________ Zone Change_____________ EIA, EIR________________ 2.d Packet Pg. 31 81 ENCINA AVENUE ZTRAILER@ZACHTRAILER.COM HEATHER YOUNG ARCHITECTS PALO ALTO, CA 94301 TIM@HYARCHS.COM 361 LYTTON AVENUE 650.906.8008 RM-20 120-12-011 650.459.3200 PALO ALTO, CA 94301 X 81 ENCINA AVENUE EXISTING SITE: 8. State all known or suspected prior uses, operations, or other activities on the site over the past 20 years____________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________________ 9. Size of site: Gross_______________________ Net_________________________ 10. Site is owned ____________ Rented ________________ by applicant. 11. Existing use of property:_________________________________________________________ *Attach photographs of project site, also include an aerial photo of the project site. 12. Number of existing structures________ Current Use________________________________ 13. Size of existing structures_______________ Condition______________________________ 14. Will any structure be demolished for this project Yes_______ No________ 15. Total square footage to be demolished__________________________ 16. Total number of building occupants for existing use__________________________________ 17. Number of parking spaces ________ % compact spaces________ # Bicycle spaces________ 18. If current use is residential: Number of owner-occupied units ______________ Number of renter-occupied units _______________ PROPOSED PROJECT: 19. Project description________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ 2.d Packet Pg. 32 BY OWNER UNKNOWN STRUCTURES CONTAINING 3 RESIDENTIAL FLATS, EACH WITH 3 BERDOOM X 4 UNKNOWN X UNKNOWN 0 0 REMOVAL OF ALL STRUCTURES ON SITE. 2 NEW 2-STORY AND 3-1/2 BATH. AT GRADE GARAGE PARING FOR 6 VEHICLES. 12,500 RESIDENTIAL UNKNOWN 4 3 BY OWNER UNKNOWN 20. Future tenant if known_____________________________________________________________ 21. Number of structures proposed____________ Size (in square feet)________________________ 22. Number of floors and building height_____________________ FAR_______________________ 23. Percentage of site to be covered (including bricks and pavers)______________________________ 24. Estimated number of employees per shift______________________________________________ 25. If the proposed project is residential: Total number of units_______________ Number of units per acre___________________ Expected sales price or monthly rent per dwelling unit_____________________________ List kinds and size of community buildings________________________________________ Area of private open space_____________ Area of common open space_______________ Provision of low/moderate income units: 1) Number of units provided for: Sale______________ Rent___________________ 2) Sale and / or rental price__________________________________________________ 26. Total number of vehicles expected daily for proposed project__________________________ 27. Number of proposed parking spaces_________ Percentage compact spaces______________ Number of bicycle spaces________________________________________________________ 28. Are there any toxic wastes to be discharged? Yes____________ No_____________ (If yes, please complete a Sewer Discharge Questionnaire, which is furnished by the Building Department) 29. Has the facility in the past or will the operation of the proposed facility involve the storage or use of Hazardous materials? Yes_____________ No_______________ (If yes, please complete a Hazardous Materials Disclosure checklist, which is furnished by the Fire Department) 2.d Packet Pg. 33 2 FLOORS, 27'-6" 527 SF X 6,250 0.5 NONE 10.3 4,881 SF NONE 6 0% X N/A 2 61% (7,610sf) NONE ~ $ 7,500/month 4 NONE 2 FLOORS, 27'-6" 527 SF 30. Expected amount of water usage (except for residential developments of fewer than 4 units not located in the foothills) Domestic_____________ gal/day Peak use________________ gal/day Commercial___________ gal/day Peak use________________ gal/day 31. Daily sewer discharge (over 30 fixtures only) _____________________________________ 32. Expected energy use: Gas_________ therms Electric_________ KWH Peak electric demand_________ Uses and equipment sizes A. Space heating: Gas_______________ BTUH_________________ Solar____________________ Electric__________ KW________ Heat pump__________ Tons_____________ Other_____________________________________________________________________ B. Air conditioning: Number of units__________________ Total tonnage____________________________ C. Water heating: Gas________________ BTUH_________________ Solar_____________________ Electric___________ KW___________ Heat Pump__________ Tons_____________ Other_____________________________________________________________________ Type: Central system_______________ Individual system_______________________ Recirculating Loop? Yes___________ No______________ D. Other: Indoor lighting________ KW______ Outdoor lighting________ KW___________ Cooking_________ KW___________ Refrigeration__________ Tons or ft_________ Motors__________ HP_________ x-ray__________ Computer_________________ 2.d Packet Pg. 34 N/A 10 20 Yes NONE N/A 20 kW NONE Yes Yes 6 NONE Yes Yes yes 3 1 30 12 ft. 200 10000 8 kW 6 8 kW 1 Yes Yes N/A 10 33. Air pollution emissions (Check applicable BAAQMD regulations). Commercial / Industrial only: Source________________________________________________ Type_________________________________ Amount_________________________________ 34. Noise generation: eg. Generators, chitlers, HVAC, drive through speakers, etc. Source________________________________ Amount (dBa)__________________________ Please list outside noise sources that may affect the project: eg. Traffic, train etc.____________________________________________________________________________ Sound proofing/mitigation proposed__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ 35. Site drainage provisions____________________________________________________________ 36. Amount of proposed grading (cubic yards)_________Cut_______________Fill_______________ 37. Disposition of excavated material____________________________________________________ 38. Permits required from other agencies: Santa Clara Valley Water District____________________________________________________ Bay Area Air Quality Management District____________________________________________ Army Corps of Engineers___________________________________________________________ Other___________________________________________________________________________ Environmental Setting: 39. Percent and direction of ground slope at site___________________________________________ 40. Is this site within a special flood hazard area? Yes____________ No______________ 2.d Packet Pg. 35 NONE N/A 48 UNITS WILL COMPLY WITH STANDARDS, NOT LOCATED IN SETBACKS 90 40 N/A 0.6% TOWARDS STREET CONDENSING UNITS SEE GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN N/A X NONE 41. Existing site vegetation (please list, and indicate any to be removed) *Also include a tree disclodure statement. The size and location of all public, protected private, and heritage trees must be shown. (This form can be obtained at the Development Center or by calling (650) 617-314)_____________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ 42. Existing animal and bird life on site__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ 43. Detailed description of conditions and uses of adjacent properties___________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ Prepared by___________________________ Date_______________________ Note: More information may be required before the application for which this assessment has been prepared can be processed.Please call the Department of Planning 'HYHORSPHQW6HUYLFHV at (650) 329-2442 if you have any questions. PLEASE RETURN COMPLETED WORKSHEET TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING '(9(/230(17 6(59,&(6, DEVELOPMENT CENTER, 285 HAMILTON AVENUE, 1ST FLOOR. 2.d Packet Pg. 36 SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY NONE KNOWN HYA ARCHITECTS SEE SITE PLAN AND ARBORIST REPORT 12/10/2020 SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY © HEATHER YOUNG ARCHITECTS 2020 MATERIAL BOARD HEATHER YOUNG ARCHITECTS 12/14/2020 160 - 164 WAVERLEY | SCHEMATIC DESIGN ELDORADO STONE VENEER - FRONT COVERED AREA DARK GREY METALS - RAILING, LIGHT FIXTURES, METAL TRIM OF CANOPIESRENDER OF GFRC CORNICE, BRICK SOLDIER COURSE AND BRICK IN RUNNING BOND PATTERN W/ FLEMISH BOND EVERY 13 COURSES GREY PAVER - PATH BRUSHED CONCRETE - DRIVEWAY CEMENT PLASTER - WALLS DARK PAVER - TERRACEPENINSULA BUILDING MATERIALS SAMPLES GENERAL SHALE IRONWORKS THIN BRICK AND ELDORADO DOVE TAIL STONE VENEER STONE REFERENCE FROM BUILT PROJECT GFRC AND BRICK REFERENCE FROM BUILT PROJECT 2.d Packet Pg. 37 © HEATHER YOUNG ARCHITECTS 2020 LIGHT FIXTURES BOARD HEATHER YOUNG ARCHITECTS 12/14/2020 160 - 164 WAVERLEY | SCHEMATIC DESIGN FEATURE LIGHTING AT BUILDING FRONT BEGA - 24 008 - LED WALL LUMINAIRES TWO SIDED LIGHT OUTPUT - 4 3/8” x 19 5/8” x 6 3/8” DOOR ENTRY LIGHTING BEGA - 33 344 - LED WALL LUMINAIRES SHIELDED TWO SIDED LIGHT - 13 7/8” x 5 1/2” x 7 3/8” GARAGE LIGHTINGSENSCAPE - SPG18 SERIES 18 1/2” x 5 1/4” PATH LIGHTING BEGA - 22 215 - LED WALL LUMINAIRES DIRECTED LIGHT - 3 1/2” x 3 3/4” x 2 3/8” TERRACE LOW WALL / STAIR STEP LIGHTINGBEGA - 22 248 - LED RECESSED DOWNLIGHT NARROW BEAM - 5 7/8” x 4 1/8” FRONT BIKE AREA OVERHEAD LIGHTING KUZCO - ELLE EC44113 - CEILING 13 3/8” x 2 1/8” 2.d Packet Pg. 38 From: To: Larry Alton Gutierrez, Samuel Subject:160 Waverley Development Project Date:Friday, June 4, 2021 4:35:53 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mr Gutierrez, This project is an architectural disgrace to this neighborhood. It looks like a commercial office building and does not fit in this residential area. Tearing down a nice looking residential building to put up this very boxy ugly building does not make any sense to our city and our neighborhood. Please stop this project before it goes any further. Sincerely, Larry Alton 2.e Packet Pg. 39 From:Andrew Pergam To:Gutierrez, Samuel Subject:Plans for 160 Waverley St Date:Thursday, May 13, 2021 10:14:27 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mr. Gutierrez, Thanks for your time a few weeks back to discuss the plans for 160 Waverley St. We're neighbors at 134 Waverley, the single family residence adjacent on the NW side of the property. Generally, we're supportive of anyone's right to improve their property. As we discussed, however, we have a few areas that we wanted to raise with the city and the developer. In our review of the current plans, we're primarily concerned about two issues -- the privacy and sun exposure we currently have in our back and side yards. Our fear is that this new construction of taller buildings may infringe on our enjoyment of both. As we see it, the rear unit will be at least a story higher than what is currently on the property and the middle unit, which is centered in the property now, will be much closer to our house. The current middle dwelling is lower as it approaches the property line, allowing more sunlight in our side yard. And generally there doesn't seem to be much between the buildings and the property line. If the buildings can't be set back further or reduced in height, at the very least we hope to see the addition of privacy cypress trees (like the image attached here from the opposite side of our property) and an equal or greater number of trees once the buildings are complete. We're also hoping that any roof terrace is constructed in a way that it does not allow for people to peer directly into our house or yard. We've attached images here which may help demonstrate the abundant sunlight and sky view that we currently have. If you need help interpreting the locations of the pictures or would like to see it first-hand, we'd be happy to have you visit. Relatedly, we trust that the construction firm will take rodent management seriously throughout the work. We have had problems with rodents in the area and are hopeful all proper abatement measures will be taken. We're hoping you'll confirm you've received this email and the photos. Please also advise us on any next steps we should take to help make sure these concerns are addressed. Many thanks for your time, Andy Pergam 134 Waverley St 2.e Packet Pg. 40 2.e Packet Pg. 41 2.e Packet Pg. 42 2.e Packet Pg. 43 2.f Packet Pg. 44 2.f Packet Pg. 45 2.f Packet Pg. 46 2.f Packet Pg. 47 2.f Packet Pg. 48 2.f Packet Pg. 49 2.f Packet Pg. 50 2.f Packet Pg. 51 2.f Packet Pg. 52 2.f Packet Pg. 53 2.f Packet Pg. 54 2.f Packet Pg. 55 2.f Packet Pg. 56 2.f Packet Pg. 57 2.f Packet Pg. 58 2.f Packet Pg. 59 2.f Packet Pg. 60 2.f Packet Pg. 61 2.f Packet Pg. 62 2.f Packet Pg. 63 2.f Packet Pg. 64 2.f Packet Pg. 65 2.f Packet Pg. 66 2.f Packet Pg. 67 2.f Packet Pg. 68 2.f Packet Pg. 69 2.f Packet Pg. 70 2.f Packet Pg. 71 2.f Packet Pg. 72 2.f Packet Pg. 73 2.f Packet Pg. 74 2.f Packet Pg. 75 2.f Packet Pg. 76 2.f Packet Pg. 77 2.f Packet Pg. 78 2.f Packet Pg. 79 2.f Packet Pg. 80 2.f Packet Pg. 81 2.f Packet Pg. 82 2.f Packet Pg. 83 2.f Packet Pg. 84 2.f Packet Pg. 85 2.f Packet Pg. 86 2.f Packet Pg. 87 2.f Packet Pg. 88 2.f Packet Pg. 89 2.f Packet Pg. 90 2.f Packet Pg. 91 2.f Packet Pg. 92 Attachment G Project Plans During the ongoing 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 “160 Waverley St” 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-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/160-Waverley- Street?transfer=f52da9c2-82b5-4470-91c3-5e84ae6f0758 2.g Packet Pg. 93 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 12275) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/17/2021 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 Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3241 Park Boulevard [20PLN-00032]: Recommendation on a Major Architectural Review to demolish an existing 4,501 square foot building and construct a new 7,861 square foot office building. Environmental Assessment: Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303 and 15332. Zoning District: GM. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Garrett Sauls at Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Development Services based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB. An earlier staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies; that report is available online: https://bit.ly/3tskdAt. The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the Board and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report and modified to reflect recent project changes. 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 3 Packet Pg. 94 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 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. For more details regarding the project, please see https://bit.ly/3tskdAt. Background On December 3, 2020, the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online: https://bit.ly/2RqRPB6. The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Study ways to break up the building wall that faces the Palo Alto Utility substation. Show it in context with substation. x Sheet A3.1 shows the wall length is broken down into three major parts by introducing [2] three-foot-wide vertical stripes where the plaster finish is replaced with contrasting metal panels. These stripes correspond to the main landings of the internal stairs at the front and rear of the building. As the stripe closest to the street will be more visible, they have also inserted a section of fire rated glazing to further punctuate the division of mass. x The plaster finish of each of the three remaining wall segments is further broken down using a horizontal reveal at the second-floor line, and vertical reveal breaking each segment into 4 sections. Study glass projection at second floor on front of building. Consider extending the roof line over glass enclosure to connect element with the design around the building. x The renderings on sheets A3.1-A3.4, A4.1, and A5.1 have been updated to better represent the forms and materials. The applicant believes the composition as proposed does the best job of staying true to the project language of visually light weight soaring elements that project from the building to impart a feeling of lightness, and connection between interior and exterior. Provide additional context images of the proposed building with the surrounding buildings to understand relationship with style and materials. x Sheet A4.3 shows an additional rendering has been added showing the building in context. Consider use of London Place for street tree to x Sheet T.03 and the site plans show the 3 Packet Pg. 95 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 encourage consistent street tree context. street tree species has been changed per the ARB suggestion. Investigate whether the building will be able to remain given the extent of work proposed. Provide study that guarantees structure will remain. x The project description has been changed to reflect new construction rather than remodel of an existing structure. Operable windows should be used on building to introduce natural air flow to the building. x Sheets A3.2 and A3.3 shows operable windows have been added to the second floor. The ground floor refuge screen wall interrupts the visual clarity and pedestrian design of the building. Consider different materials that would soften this experience and make it a more open/inviting space. x After studying alternatives, the applicant believes that the best way to visually open up the garden space and soften its appearance while staying true to the overall project aesthetic is to enlarge the width of openings between panels, and to reduce the panel width to increase the number of openings. The previous design was based on panels roughly 48-inches wide with approximately 1-inch gaps between them, resulting in an open-ness of 2%. Sheets A4.1 and 4.3 show the panel widths have been reduced to 21-inches, with a gap of 3.5-inches, resulting in an open-ness of 14%. Renderings have been updated to better illustrate the form and materiality of this screen and the project in general. Consider festoon lighting and modifying the pedestrian environment at the rear parking lift area to lighten up the area and make it more pedestrian friendly. The rear parking area has been modified/clarified in the following ways to improve safety and pedestrian friendliness on sheets A1.1 and A4.1: x The pedestrian walkway against the building is elevated like a sidewalk to create separation from the vehicular drive aisle. x Additional overhead lighting is provided over the pedestrian walkway. x Two vertical strip windows have been added to the rear façade of the one- story volume to establish visibility and a sense of openness and connection. x The drive aisle corner has been ‘bulbed 3 Packet Pg. 96 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 out’ to allow for a tree to provide additional shade and soften the space. The shade materials appear to be darker than what is provided in the plans. Consider different colors to ensure the building does not come off as too dark. Consider only using roof cantilever instead of shades. x Shade material has been lightened. See sheet A3.0b and A4.2. Consider increasing the number of evergreen trees used in the proposed plant palette. x Key drivers in selecting the tree species were: Making sure the tree will have a large enough canopy to provide the required shading of the parking area; and making sure the root structure will work with the soil conditions and not pose unnecessary risk to the adjacent retaining wall. For these reasons, the applicant felt the species on site should remain as proposed. See sheet T.03 Analysis1 Staff finds the proposed project plans adequately address ARB and staff comments stated during the December 3rd hearing. 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. City staff uses its policies to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires development design 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. The proposed 7,861 square foot office building would comply with the intended commercial office uses noted in Comprehensive Plan. 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 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 3 Packet Pg. 97 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 The proposed project is located within the boundary of the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) that is currently being developed. A primary goal of the NVCAP is to create more opportunities for housing. The project parcel is located within an area of the NVCAP that has been proposed to consider multi-family residential development. The NVCAP development is still in progress and, at the time of this report preparation, Council has not yet provided guidance as to the preferred plan for the area. Since the NVCAP is not an adopted plan at this time, the analysis of the proposed project’s consistency would not be applicable. Draft plan alternatives will be presented the City Council on June 14, 2021. The Council is recommended to select a preferred plan alternative. The development of the plan will continue based on Council’s selection. For the latest details on the NVCAP, please see the June 14, 2021 Council report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes- reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/2021/id-11930.pdf . 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. 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. Zoning Compliance3 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards is provided in the Attachment C table. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. 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 environmental regulations. As noted earlier in this report, the City’s consultant, M-Group evaluated the existing building and found it ineligible for the California Register of Historic Resources. 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/3tk183l. 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 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3 Packet Pg. 98 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on June 4, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on June 3, 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 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Garrett Sauls, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, 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 Attachmnet E: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX) x Attachment F: Projects Plans & Environmental Review (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 99 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'sElectronics Alm ChestnutAvenue Ash Park Boulevard E m erson Street Alm a Street ElDorado Avenue 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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b Packet Pg. 102 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 Max. Site Coverage none 16.42% (3,358 sf) 33.30% (6,808 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 50% (10,221 sf) 44.03% (4,501 sf) 76.91% (7,861 sf) Max. Building Height 50 ft or 35 ft when located within 40 ft of residential zone (5) 21’-5” 32’-6” Daylight Plane for site lines having any part abutting one or more residential districts. N/A, 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 Bicycle Parking 1/2,500 sf (80% long term and 20% short term) equals 3 spaces 0 spaces 4 (4 long term, 1 short term) Loading Space 0 loading spaces for 0-9,999 sf 0 0 3.c Packet Pg. 103 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-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 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 3.d Packet Pg. 104 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: 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 for this area. 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: 3.d Packet Pg. 105 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 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 3.d Packet Pg. 106 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: 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. 107 ATTACHMENT E 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 April 29, 2021 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 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 3.e Packet Pg. 108 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. 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. 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 3.e Packet Pg. 109 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. 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 3.e Packet Pg. 110 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. 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 3.e Packet Pg. 111 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. 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, 3.e Packet Pg. 112 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. 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 3.e Packet Pg. 113 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. 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 3.e Packet Pg. 114 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. 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. 3.e Packet Pg. 115 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. 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. 3.e Packet Pg. 116 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. 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 3.e Packet Pg. 117 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 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 3.e Packet Pg. 118 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 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 3.e Packet Pg. 119 103. 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. 120 Attachment F Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans and environmental documents are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “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-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/3241-Park- Bouldevard-20PLN-00032 3.f Packet Pg. 121 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 12330) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/17/2021 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: ARB Workplan and Annual Report Title: Discuss the Draft Architectural Review Board's (ARB) Draft Work Plan, Suggest Changes, and Recommend Submitting the Draft Work Plan to the City Council; and Discuss the ARB's Annual and any Bylaw Changes Needed. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Discuss the Draft Work Plan, Suggest Changes, and Recommend submission of the Draft Work Plan to the City Council; 2. Discuss process for the ARB Annual Report and Bylaw changes that may be required. Background On November 30, 2020, the City Council adopted a new City Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook (can be found online).1 The Handbook included the need for a Work Plan that would be approved by the City Council, as described below. Work Plan • The ARB is expected to prepare an annual work plan by the second quarter of each calendar year, starting June 2021. • The work plan should include information on equity in the work. • City Council will review the work plan and provide feedback annually at a dedicated City Council meeting. • The work plan should include the results of the prior year’s plan, metrics of community involvement in meetings and activities included in the commission’s work. • The Handbook has a template for work plan development. 1 Handbook: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/city-clerk/palo-alto-boards-commissions-and- committees-handbook_final_adopted_november-2020.pdf 4 Packet Pg. 122 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 • If new issues arise during the year, the work plan should be amended and forwarded to Council for review and approval. Discussion On May 6, 2021, the ARB discussed the Handbook. Board member Baltay suggested combining the newly required Work Plan and the ARB’s Annual Report which is usually done in December. The ARB’s work plan is required in the Bylaws and does a look backwards, while the Council’s new work plan requirement is a look forward. The ARB may wish to combine these two documents and have them due at the same time, with a change to the Bylaws. However, there is not sufficient time to complete this year’s Annual Report prior to Council’s Work Plan hearing on June 22, 2021. A draft work plan has been prepared by staff (Attachment A). This plan will be reviewed by the City Council on its consent agenda on June 22, 2021. This meeting will be the final meeting before the Council’s summer recess. Any changes made to this draft will be provided to the City Council via an at-places memorandum. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code does not require notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper. ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2575 jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: x Attachment A: 2021 ARB Workplan Draft (DOCX) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Packet Pg. 123 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT 2021-2022 Staff Liaison Name and Contact Information: Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Manager of Current Planning Lead Department: Planning and Development Services (PDS) General Purpose and/or Purview of Board/Commission: The Architectural Review Board reviews and makes recommendations to the Planning Director on design and related issues for certain new construction, and changes and additions to commercial, industrial and multiple family projects, as described in the Municipal Code. The Board's goals and purposes are to: • Promote orderly and harmonious development of the City • Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the City • Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements • Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas x Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other • To implement and enforce the city’s ordinances pertaining to architecture and design The Board is composed of five members, at least three of whom are architects, landscape architects, building designers or other design professionals. Terms are for three years and commence on November 1. See Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Sections 2.16 and 2.21. Residency is not required. For the ARB webpage, go to https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/ Anticipated Item/Topic Description and/or Info Quarter (July 2021 – June 2022) Review of projects Review Planning applications for conformance with ARB Findings On-going Comprehensive Plan Implement specific Policies, Programs? Objective Standards Ad Hoc Committee to work with staff, PTC, and Council to finalize the creation of Objective Standards that were approved by the full Board on April 1, 2021 First Quarter ARB Awards (every 5 years) Review projects constructed from 2015 to 2020 for ARB Awards. (Awards were postponed due to the pandemic) First Quarter By-laws Update By-laws as needed to be in conformance with Council’s new Handbook After Council adoption of necessary Ordinance changes 4.a Packet Pg. 124 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 12361) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 6/17/2021 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes of April 15, 2021 Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2021 From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the April 15, 2021 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: April 15, 2021 Draft Minutes (DOCX) 5 Packet Pg. 125 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Osma Thompson, Vice Chair Grace Lee, Board Members Alexander Lew, Peter Baltay and David Hirsch. Absent: None. [Roll Call] Oral Communications Chair Thompson: Our first item is oral communications. The public may speak on any item not on the agenda. Vinh, do we have any members of the public who would like to speak? Vinh Nguyen, Administrative Associate: We do not have any raised hands for oral communications. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Thompson: All right. Thank you. The next item is agenda changes, additions, and deletions. Jodie? Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: We do have changes today. We are asking to change item two and three, just to flip those items so that we would be hearing 300 Pasteur first and then we would do the study session on the height transition. The other item of note, action item number four is a continuance. There are some additional things that needed to be fixed before the hearing on that item. It will be heard May 6th and not today. Those are the changes. Thank you. 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 Thompson: Great. Thank you. The next item is city official reports. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. As per usual, we are still in virtual meetings for the time being and we will continue that way. The next page should show the future items. On May 6th, again, we will be talking about 4256 El Camino, which is a hotel project that we did but this would be some basement changes that there are asking for. We also have the 233 University -- that’s just an ad hoc review. For the main Board, we would be talking about the handbook that the Council recently published. We would be going over that. Thank you. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: April 15, 2021 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue Virtual Meeting 8:30 AM 5.a Packet Pg. 126 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Study Session/Preliminary Review 2. 300 Pasteur: Preliminary Review Request by Stanford University Medical Center to allow a 38,000 Square Foot addition to the 1989 portion of the existing Stanford Hospital. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. Zoning District: HD. For more information, please contact the Project Planner Emily Foley. Chair Thompson: Thank you. Our next item is the study session preliminary review. As Jodie mentioned, we will be talking about 300 Pasteur first. This is a preliminary review request by Stanford University Medical Center to allow a 38,000 square foot addition to the 1989 portion of the existing Stanford Hospital. I’ll hand it over to staff. [Setting up presentation.] Emily Foley: Good morning. Today, this is the preliminary review for the Stanford University Medical Center Nursing Pod extension. The building that we are looking at is centrally located within the Stanford Medical Center Campus. The red rectangle represents the existing nursing pod building as well as the promenade that is between the new portion of the Stanford Hospital and the older portion of the Stanford Hospital, as well as the Children’s Hospital to the north of the site. As a general overview of the Stanford University Medical Center project, in 2011, the overall renewal and expansion project was approved. This included the Stanford Hospital that was built over the last couple of years, which has been more or less completed, the expansion of the Children’s Hospital, New School of Medicine buildings, one of which has been built, updates to the Hoover Pavilion site, which is located north of the main site, as well as new parking facilities and road improvements. A current application that is also being reviewed is an application for a road extension that was part of the original project entitlement. The project that we are looking at today is not part of this original entitlement, which is why it is an Architectural Review Board-level project. In terms of the overall site, there are 3.6 million square feet of building allowed and this project would require the site to temporarily be over this; however, this is allowed under the CUP. It would start a three-year conditional period to reconcile the floor area between the newly built area and parts that are proposed to be demolished as a party of the original entitlement project. There are three main guidance documents for this project: the conditional use permit, the development agreement, and the design guidelines, as well as the EIR. I am going to take a minute to go over some of the items from the design guidelines documents. The first one is to explain the context that the nursing pod building project is within what is called the Pasteur Mall District of the Stanford Medical Center. Some of the key points from this are to concentrate the height towards the center of the site to reduce the impact on adjacent properties, looking at the intermingling of the buildings and courtyard landscape, and to provide courtyards to allow natural light and landscape between the buildings. This view also shows the promenade. On the right, you have the existing nursing pod buildings and on the left, you have the Stanford Hospital with the promenade in between. This is the main pedestrian pathway through the campus going from the School of Medicine buildings in the south to the Children’s Hospital, which is not shown in this picture, to the north. Staggering is also an important massing technique in the guidelines to have the buildings offset and have the in-between areas used for landscaping and open space. Another technique is to have equipment penthouses setback from the edge of the building to reduce visibility. Something unique about the nursing pod buildings is they do have what the design guidelines call a daylight basement. This picture in the upper middle shows the nursing pod building and the daylight basement as it currently exists. One item that the design guidelines call out is that this can create a moat-like space around the building. Something to consider is whether the proposed project improves this condition. This guideline also talks a little more about the importance of courtyard and in-between landscape areas. The design guidelines also include a palette of materials and colors. One important aspect of this is dividing the materials of a building into primary, secondary, and accent categories; however, there are many buildings throughout the medical campus, and while they need to work together, they are not necessarily all the same materials and colors. Looking at the nursing pod expansion project, the proposal is to add 38,000 square feet to the existing 134,000 square feet building. This new addition would have a 71-bed capacity which includes some new beds under the total 5.a Packet Pg. 127 City of Palo Alto Page 3 600-bed limit for the hospital as well as relocating some beds from older portions of the hospital. The proposed height is four stories, which matches the existing nursing pod building, and one of these is the below-grade daylight basement level. There are below-grade courtyards and that would be modified as a part of this project as well as landscaping modifications to the promenade. The exterior of the building would be matching façade changes that were approved in a staff-level architectural review for the main nursing pod building last year; however, work on this project has not started yet. The top image shows what the existing nursing pod building elevation looks like and the below shows the additions that will protrude to the front towards the promenade, as well as the façade change that was previously approved. This shows side elevations, as well as the promenade between the nursing pod building and the main Stanford Hospital building which is this side. This image shows the three courtyards. Currently, there is no access from the promenade to the courtyards. This design would add gates and paths for maintenance in the two courtyards on this side. The third courtyard to the right is more unique. It would have recreational facilities for the psychiatric ward of the hospital and there are certain requirements that go along with that. Overall, the particular plantings would be looking at more so in the formal application phase. The key input that we are looking for from the ARB today is on the overall size, form, massing, and scale. The integration along the promenade and throughout the site, the materials, the design of the gathering spaces including the promenade and the courtyard and the overall access, as well as the height and character of the proposed fencing and elements on the promenade. This concludes my presentation and the applicant has a presentation as well. Thank you. Chair Thompson: Thank you. Go ahead. Molly Swenson, Senior Program Manager: Good morning, Board Members. My name is Molly Swenson and I am a Senior Program Manager in Stanford Medicine’s Planning, Designing, and Construction Department. On behalf of our entire team, I would like to thank you for your time this morning to discuss our proposed addition to Stanford Hospital’s nursing pods. I’d like to start by providing a brief overview of the overarching Stanford Medicine renewal project scope of which our project represents one small but key component, and also shares some of the public space considerations that have guided our decision-making as this project has progressed. Our design team will then share some of the specifics of the design intent as it relates to both the architecture and the landscape. To first reorient you to the renewal project, as Emily mentioned, nearly 10 years ago Stanford Health Care, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, and Stanford University entered into a 30-year development agreement with the City of Palo Alto which allows for roughly 1.3 million net new square feet within the boundaries identified here, our main medical campus, and the Hoover Medical Campus. The renewal project scope includes new and replacement hospital and clinic facilities for the adult and children’s hospital, some of which are now complete, as well as replacement research and laboratory facilities for the Stanford University School of Medicine, the first phase of which has recently been completed. For Stanford Health Care, one of the key goals of the renewal project was to achieve timely compliance with state seismic safety requirements, including replacement of the original 1959 hospital in its entirety and moving in-patient beds from the 1959 buildings into seismic complaint facilities. Another key goal was to provide modern, state-of-the-art facilities designed to deliver high-quality healthcare services. To this end, the project scope included the renovation of the existing 1973 and 1989 portions of the hospital. These interior renovations, which began late last year, include transitioning shared patient rooms to single-patient rooms, which will temporarily reduce bed capacity in this portion of the hospital. Before we move on from the broader overview, I wanted to point out one of the key elements of our site context. Our proposed addition, what is known as the promenade, the primary north/south pedestrian access for the medical campus which connects the hospital facilities to the School of Medicine facilities. The promenade is a key thoroughfare for staff and medical residents, but it really is a space that is quite interior to the medical center rather than a typical public street. Now zooming in and looking at the promenade and our proposed project in more detail, the two extensions to the nursing pod shown here would add a total of 58 net new inpatient beds, which would enable the relocation of the remaining beds from the 1959 facilities all within a minimum building footprint. As this proposal was developed, we relied on the medical center’s design guidelines approved by the ARB in 2011 to guide our decision-making, and with the project’s proximity to the promenade, we felt that this presented an opportunity to really think about the types of public spaces we were creating along this key thoroughfare to even allow it to become a destination in itself. Thinking about the levels of activity along the promenade, it was our goal to build 5.a Packet Pg. 128 City of Palo Alto Page 4 upon existing nodes of activity and really reinforce the nodes at either end of the promenade and allow the middle segment to become more of an opportunity for relaxation and rest. With that in mind, our project would create a new outdoor seating area at the southern end of the promenade proximate to retail, food and beverage service at the adult hospital, as well as the adult hospital entry plaza. The middle segment would offer amenities geared toward more quiet activity. Thinking about some of the specific programming opportunities, for the terrace area at the southern end of the promenade, some of the possibilities we are considering include health screenings, farmers markets, temporary interactive art installations, and healthy cooking demonstrations just to name a few. For the middle segment of the promenade, we are planning for interpretive panels that would speak to the history of Stanford Medicine and offer an educational opportunity as one walks along. We are also planning for benched seating amongst plantings and beneath trellises giving an opportunity for quiet contemplation. Finally, at the northern end of the promenade in the space known as Wang Plaza, as part of a separate scope, we are planning for ping pong tables and eventually a mobile library cart. With this background context, I would now like to hand it over to Pam Kurz with Perkins Eastman who can speak to the building design. Pam Kurz: Thanks, Molly. I am Pam Kurz, Principal at Perkins Eastman and LEED on this design effort. First, a look at the existing conditions on the promenade. The two images at left show the existing landscape as it meets the promenade and the upper image. At the base of the building, in the lower image, where you can see that this consists of a steep ivory-covered slope. The images at right show the existing view of the promenade looking north where you have a clear view of the long, beige stucco façade of the existing 1989 building and looking south from Wayne Plaza. Then turning to our proposed plan; for orientation purposes, north is roughly to the right. At the top, we have the new adult hospital, the promenade, the bridge connection to the preexisting hospital, the 1989 nursing pods known as D, E, and F pods, the proposed extensions, DX and EX, two view gardens and a courtyard for psychiatric in- patients. Looking at the west elevation, you see that the massing follows the staggering technique identified in the medical center design guidelines. We took special care to make sure that there wasn’t an alignment with the extensions and the new adult hospital. The scale is in keeping with the existing hospital buildings. Here you can see the relationship to the new adult hospital with similar window modules and articulation but scaled down to the pods. The north and south faces are both glazed providing a connection to patients and families to the garden spaces, the view, and garden terrace down one level from the promenade. In terms of material selections, we have again taken direction from the medical center design guidelines including a neutral beige color palette for the high-performance concrete panels, and replacement stucco at the existing pods. Shadow boxes at the patient window view horizontal-fitted glass drawing on the language of the window baffles at the new adult hospital, but appropriately scaled down. Our design effort has given great focus on the promenade at the pedestrian level where the pods and extensions really serve as a backdrop. Simple canted tactile panels provide subtle visual interest with shifting shadow lines throughout the day; trellises provide human scale. With that, we will move on to views as experienced at the pedestrian level. A view from the southern end of the promenade with the terrace area on the right with loose seating. You can see the rhythm of the trees and trellis elements and large garden spaces between the new extensions. The trellises pick up the accent color used at the soffits at the new adult hospital, reinforce the pedestrian focus, and reduce perceived building mass. Here is a view from Wang Plaza at the northern end of the promenade. You can see the continuity of fencing and planting along the length of the promenade. I would like to now turn it over to Adit Pal who will provide more detail about the landscape design. Adit Pal, Associate Landscape Architect: Thank you, Pam. I am Adit Pal, Associate Landscape Architect and Associate Principle at BFS Landscape Architects. As Pam has already noted, the landscape consists of essentially four parts: three courtyards and a redesigned promenade edge. The Courtyard themselves are essentially west-facing spaces with the old hospital and the new extensions wrapping around the southeast and north sides. This first slide shows the south and the center courtyards. For now, these are referred to as D and E. There are terraced landscapes for viewing only and without visitor or patient access, as Emily had implied earlier; except for E which is the top-right courtyard, which is also an emergency exiting courtyard with a ramp. In scale, these two lower-level courtyards are similar in size at about 7,500 square feet in area and the frontages, to give you an idea, are 140 linear feet for D on the left and 110 linear feet for E on the right. They will contain a variety of small to medium-sized trees that flower in different seasons along with a lot of planting, which we will get to. The sections below show 5.a Packet Pg. 129 City of Palo Alto Page 5 that the landscape has been envisaged as a continuous green buffer with seasonal flowering. These gardens address viewing as well as patient privacy extending all the way from the building to the promenade with only a fence separating the two. Chair Thompson: Sorry; I’d like to let the applicant know that your ten minutes is up. Please wrap it up if possible. Thanks. Mr. Pal: Yes. The F courtyard is a carefully programmed outdoor space with psychiatric patients approximately 4,500 square feet in area with activity areas and garden planting. This is actually a regulatory requirement for the psychiatric facility that is being relocated from the main hospital. For patient privacy, that fence between the upper public space on the bottom-right and the courtyard on the lower-left basically has a sandwich construction of warm wood on the inside and slated metal on the outside. The plantings at the D and E courtyards consist of a two-layered approach. The layer closer to the windows will have heavily flowering garden plants that can be seen all around Palo Alto to bring comfort to patients and this is balanced by a textured yet seasonally flowering landscape back further in the middle of the courtyard. This large variety of flowering really supports the habitat creation goals of the City’s Urban Forestry Master Plan. The steel fence that separated the courtyards from the promenade is slated in a modern yet random pattern for relief and balances the need for privacy with transparency. It is dark brown in color and it varies in height from about four feet in the middle of the courtyards to about six or seven feet closer to patient room windows for privacy. It is a long element, about 450 feet but broken into three different portions so we would really like your suggestions on this element. This is the last slide. It pictures the interpretive signage, which Molly referred to. It will narrate the story of the Stanford Hospital through text, graphics, and historical photographs. The vertical panels will be lit up at night as part of a lighting scheme for the entire promenade. Once again, we welcome your suggestions on this element as well. With that, we end our presentation. Thank you. Chair Thompson: Thank you. I did forget to ask the folks in the applicant’s team that presented to state and spell your name for the record. Ms. Swenson: [Spells name]. Ms. Kurz: [Spells name]. Mr. Pal: [Spells name]. Chair Thompson: Thank you so much. Does the Board have any questions of the applicant? Board Member Baltay: I have a question, Osma, if it’s okay. Chair Thompson: Yes, please go ahead, Board Member Baltay. Board Member Baltay: To the applicant, could you pull up again slide number 19, please, on your presentation. That one there. What is the distance, please, from the edge of the pedestrian walkway to the face of the building? Mr. Pal: At the building itself it is about five feet and in-between buildings back to the fence it is about eight feet I believe. Board Member Baltay: Okay, Thank you very much. Chair Thompson: Are there any more questions for the applicant? Board Member Hirsch: I have a general question. Chair Thompson: Go ahead, Board Member Hirsch. 5.a Packet Pg. 130 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Board Member Hirsch: I note in the drawings that A and B, I guess it is, are completed but C is not. Can you tell us what is it? Is it part of a future schedule? Some of the floor plans have been left kind of empty. Ms. Kurz: I am not sure if you are referring to the F pod. Board Member Hirsch: Okay, F pod. Ms. Kurz: A portion of the F pod is coming at a later phase. It is part of the Children’s Hospital and will likely be rolled into the project at a later date. Board Member Hirsch: Okay, fine. It is not included in the bed count as present. Ms. Kurz: Correct. It is part of the Children’s Hospital. Board Member Hirsch: Oh, it really is. Okay, fine. I understand. Ms. Kurz: Yes, it is a maternity floors. Chair Thompson: Thank you. Any questions, Board Member Lew? Board Member Lew: I have a question. When I was at the site earlier this week, I noticed that the existing pod building has two different colors and different types of stucco joints that appear to be different colors. I was wondering what are those and if those are being retained. It seems in our plan set all of the drawings of the existing building are just showing one color. Ms. Kurz: Yes, there are two colors currently in the existing pods. One is kind of an ochre color and the rest is beige color. We are proposing a more neutral color base for the future finish. It will still have horizontal banding that you see articulated, which is pretty typical of a 1980s vintage building but we stepped away from the two-toned color on the background. Board Member Lew: Okay. Also, a follow-up on that: it seems like the stucco joints aren’t normal control joints. Are those something special? Is that a special detail? Ms. Kurz: Yeah, they are a special detail. They are more of a metal trim piece that we are retaining through improving the waterproofing details around them. Board Member Lew: Yes. Okay, thank you. Chair Thompson: Just to clarify on that question, the two-tone will become one-tone in the proposed? Is that right? Ms. Kurz: Correct. Chair Thompson: Okay, thank you. I have a question on that last slide where we see the facade that’s facing the promenade. Can you describe physically what is happening in each of those depressions? Is it a triangular depression? Ms. Kurz: It is a canted panel. It will probably feel a little crisper than our rendering is showing on the left side but we have canted those about 15 degrees or so side by side. That is what you're seeing there. It is pretty subtle but you do notice a change during the day, which I think is a plus. It is also something that the adult hospital looks down on in addition to the promenade, the higher beds at the new adult hospital. Chair Thompson: Okay, thank you. Do we have any members of the public that would like to comment? 5.a Packet Pg. 131 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Mr. Nguyen: Chair Thompson, we do not have any raised hands for this item. Chair Thompson: Okay. Thank you. I guess we will close the public hearing and bring it back to the Board. Who would like to go first? Board Member Lew? Board Member Lew: Sure. Thank you for your presentation. I do find this particular project really interesting mostly because I have never been crazy about the existing hospital pod buildings. It is a pretty blank box and it sort of hides all of the interesting and lively activity that happens inside the hospital. I think my first impression was that the building was too close to the promenade, but in thinking about it more carefully I actually think that the promenade is really pretty long and generic. I think the effort to make individual courtyards is a good strategy. The end walls that are blank with the canted panels I think could probably use more work. I think I appreciate the effort for the interpretive panels and the canted panels. I think that helps. I think there may be ways to make it even more pedestrian-friendly. On the materials, I think that those are all acceptable. I think we have only had one other project in Palo Alto propose the tactile panels before and it hasn’t been built yet. I think it is still under construction. I think, from what I have seen, it really has more depth than any other option on the market. I think that those are acceptable. I did look at the plant list and I think that looks good. I do like the designs of the individual courtyards. I am not crazy about the fence on the north end but I think I understand why it is there. I kind of like the idea of the slated metal panels there because in a way it ties to original stone panels with the screens. I think that that is okay. The 450-foot length seems to me to be problematic, but I will look at that more carefully next time. I didn’t realize it was that long. I think my last comment is that the trellises along the promenade might be too small and too repetitive. I didn’t really think about it when I was at the site earlier this week, but I think I will look at that more carefully for the next meeting. It seems like they are pretty small and I would like to look at the design of those more carefully. That’s all that I have on this particular one. I think generally it looks good. I think you guys are on the right track and I am curious to see what the other Board Members think. Thanks. Chair Thompson: Thank you, Board Member Lew. Board Member Baltay. Board Member Baltay: Thank you, Osma. I generally share Alex’s comments pretty closely actually. Almost everything he brought up is on my list. I am going to focus on the one thing I think is negative -- because otherwise it really is a very good proposal -- which is that I think the buildings are too close to the pedestrian promenade. Maybe the applicant could pull up slide 19 for us. That would be helpful if it is possible. Chair Thompson, can we… yes, there we go. This confirms to me what my fear was walking around there the other day that the edge of the building is a three-story blank masonry wall for the most part and it is very close to the pedestrian promenade. When I thought twice and three times around it, the way Alex is also struggling with this, I just don’t see that situation much of any place else on the medical campus. Almost always the tall buildings are set back a little bit more with more landscaping in front of them; trees and things like that which really works very well to integrate very large buildings into what is a very pedestrian-friendly place. This one spot, the end of the two nursing pod extensions, where I don’t think it is working, it is possible that some change in the treatment to make it a little bit more interesting; maybe more interesting at the pedestrian level would help. Perhaps some way to maybe even narrow the pedestrian pathway slights to get some trees in there or something would help. I think the real answer would be just to push the building back on room bay. I know the applicant doesn’t want to do that but that is what it would take to really keep this in sync with the rest of the wonderful work that is being done on the medical campus. I am going to limit my comment to this one item because I think this is really important and I think this slide shows it pretty well. I just don’t think this is working. It is too close to the pedestrian pathway right now. Thank you. Chair Thompson: Thank you, Board Member Baltay. Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: We are all focused on the same thing here. I went back to the Lucile Packard façade and took a look at that since the architects are the same here. It is such a wonderful softening of a building and treatment of the vertical element as a graphic and my thought was somehow to do something with the end of the building; that would work much better than what you have at present. I 5.a Packet Pg. 132 City of Palo Alto Page 8 thought the possibility even of that stairway opening onto it in some way could begin to change the façade. Each one of those pods has a stairway on it which frankly I don’t quite understand. Does that connect you back to the promenade itself? Is it going to be used that way? My biggest concern is also the ends of the pods. I think that the fact that it is kind of an element that continues the format of the inner pod is broken with landscape allows it to be more of a solid element and it is only a portion of that promenade that you actually are adjacent to it and that affected by it. But there is a significant difference between this space leading up to the new hospital building adjacent that relieves it to some extent, but yet it is a hard surface and ought to be softened in some way. How wonderful that the work of the Lucile Packard does exactly that with the planters, et cetera, and the break up in the panels that extend out. Even if you extended out something that was a softer element and broke up the mass of it I think there is much more study that needs to be done on the ends. Talking a bit about the window bay and the verticals, nobody has mentioned the fact that we are going to predominantly see that mechanicals on the top of the building. I wonder if it is really necessary to have that big of a mass. Does it have to be an interior room of some sort with a roof on it or how is that going to work? Is the mechanical equipment going to be really that tall? I know it parallels the mechanical equipment on the existing building but I find it really an impressive piece of work up there that you are going to see so prominently. As to the window façade, it certainly would be nice if there was more of a broken-up feeling of the Packard way of treating a façade than such an emphasis on the big squarish windows on each of the floors. I know it looks very much like the rooms at the top of the new hospital in that large open look but my preference is that it is a softer feel as it is related to the landscaping and the courtyard below. I am wondering about how the courtyard will be used. I see that the first opening as you enter the promenade from the south with all that activity… by the way, the programming is just fantastic for all of the promenade and I am quite pleased with that. I think all of the people that are going to be using this even in an off-time, like yesterday when I was there. It is going to be a quite wonderful space. The fact that the dining is setback on the opposite side and that you're going to bring some of that out to the promenade should you get an extra merit prize for just making a space that is going to be quite unique in a hospital, I think, and a unifying activity space like that I think is great. The courtyard themselves are quite beautiful and I wonder if the first one in some way could be extended even a little deeper… actually the middle one is the one I am thinking of, extended somewhat deeper into the inner space so that you get away from the promenade and the linearity of it and connect to the landscaping within the courtyards. I don’t see that there is any other use in that space so it doesn’t need to be quite so linear all the way. You could take advantage of the fact that you are creating a garden space in between these two pods that you're extending and bring some activity from the promenade into the space in the center so it isn't adjacent to any windowed area. Then, the middle one is really an egress passage of some sort from the lower area. It is not going to be a really used path particularly so maybe you could bring more activity into it from the promenade. The paving patterns, you didn’t really deal with the paving patterns too much in the diagrams. The fencing I actually like that a lot and I am surprised to see it blown up there because I didn’t see that detail in our drawings. I would just say that I go along with my cohorts here that the biggest problem is the ends of the buildings and that there are a variety of ways in which you could treat them and I think you should try some other design ideas for the façade themselves. I agree it would be nice if there were plantings or if those walls became more of a planted wall, at least for a part of it, and the actual mass of the building has some greenery on it and extended either at the base or higher all the way up or that it was some form of extended elements that came out of the wall to soften and created more of a horizontal shadowing rather than just the verticals that make your eye run full height. I really do believe you could do a better job with the window walls in the hospital itself. Think more of the way you did Lucile Packard. Okay, that’s it for me. Chair Thompson: Thank you Board Member Hirsch. For me, it is very similar. I have a lot of similar comments. I am a fan of the design of the courtyards. There are a lot of good things that are happening with this application. The main concerns I have as well is the façade that faces the promenade, as well as Board Member Hirsch, the smoothness of the façade that goes inward that face the courtyard. I think in concept, the connection that is getting creating there is really great but I do think more articulation could benefit the design as well in both of those planes. There is going to be a lot of people walking there and there is a lot of opportunity. That is why I was asking for clarity on that façade because I see that there is an attempt at visual interest and I think it is a start but there is more that could be done that could benefit this. I was looking at the floor plans and I do see that one side is a 5.a Packet Pg. 133 City of Palo Alto Page 9 stair and the other side is a room and I am sure there is some desire to have some uniformity so that all of the rooms can be designed the same. Not necessarily to say that windows that create interest necessarily; I think there are other things that could be done, especially in these large expanses. Just to echo my colleagues’ comments on that. The fence, I am also not in love with the fence. I think it is a fence that I have liked in other situations but for whatever reason, in this particular application, I am not quite sure it is the right one. I like the idea of creating something specular and random in pattern, but I think that particular application with that material and that style, I am not quite sure it works with the rest of the building. Going back to the façade where we have these canted panels, maybe there is an opportunity to work in clear stories or maybe there is an opportunity to partner with an artist to allow them to create something that may be really interesting to look at there. I will leave my comments there for now. I wanted to ask the applicant if they had any questions of the Board or if there are any other comments from Board Members? Ms. Swenson: We were seeking feedback specifically on the fence design, which I think we have heard, and, also, any preliminary feedback on the interpretative panels. Those were the specific items we were hoping to get feedback early on. Chair Thompson: The interpretative panels are the items on the right in this picture? Ms. Swenson: Yes, and we just have some precedent images here. Chair Thompson: I see. Board Member Baltay: I have a more general comment. Chair Thompson: Go ahead, Board Member Baltay. Board Member Baltay: The interpretative panels look fine to me but it has been about a year-and-a-half since I have been over at the campus. We last looked at the Biomedical Innovations Building and I have to say that I am blown away by the quality of the design, the construction, the execution of the way that the place is operating. It is really world-class what we are seeing over there. Board Member Hirsch: Absolutely. Board Member Baltay: I can’t say I have seen a better medical facility with so many good things going on. It is a clear sense of direction, it is really pedestrian-friendly. It is very clear how you get in and out of the place. You really feel like you’re in a great environment. I am also really pleased to see the Biomedical Innovations Building come to life. There are a number of big Oak trees that we really pushed hard for them to save and they have not only saved those trees but they are thriving; I haven’t seen happier live Oak trees in a long time. It just makes me so pleased to see an applicant take to heart what we ask and really make it work. They also have these sunken basement rooms with a landscaping courtyard outside and, again, it is really successful. It is wonderful to see. All of that really left me thinking that these guys know what they're doing; this is really a great thing coming along and I think as a city, Palo Alto should be grateful and delighted to have such a wonderful organization helping them out. I really felt wonderful about the whole thing yesterday. I wanted to be sure to put that out publicly. They are doing great work. It doesn’t change the sense that this particular façade I think needs work but I wanted to put out there the general sense that I, at least, really appreciate this facility and this work that is being done. Thank you very much for that. Ms. Swenson: Thank you for your comments. Board Member Hirsch: Can we all join in on that one? I think this idea of a promenade and the promenade with all of those uses that are going to be planned for it is really a socially wonderful thing for all the medical people who are going to be using it. I asked a few people on the mall to give me some reactions to who uses this mall and it is really a connection of all of the facilities that are around it. It is a tremendous thing to have a mall like that. You just don’t see that in other hospitals, to see an activity 5.a Packet Pg. 134 City of Palo Alto Page 10 mall like that and to use it functionally. Peter was talking about the landscaping being so great and I am really intrigued to see all of the activity space being used here and program space that you're thinking of. It is not just a nine to five work space, it is going to be a place where they are going to really enjoy the outdoors and that becomes a really wonderful space to be in. The linear mall reminds me of other places, Scandinavian open spaces, and whatnot that really work so well. We are asked to speak about the panels that we are looking at here. Are there a variety of choices that are being proposed? That’s a question. Ms. Swenson: It is just in the very early stages of development at this point. We just have a few precedence’s that we are looking at. Board Member Hirsch: I like the one on the top. It is so light-feeling and fitting into the landscape. The one down below is a little heavier metal frame or doesn’t seem to be as pleasant as the one on the top. Chair Thompson: Are there any other comments from other Board Members? Board Member Hirsch: One more comment is that nobody else mentioned or was concerned about the mechanical space up above. Is there some way in which that could be decreased in its volume and impact? Chair Thompson: I would agree with you, Board Member Hirsch, in that it is quite big and it might be worth looking at. Board Member Baltay: I share that comment. It did catch my eye that it was so tall. I agree it may be too big. Ms. Swenson: Pam, is that something that you're able to speak to? Ms. Kurz: Yeah. The nursing uses are increasingly high in their demands. We had BMT floors, oncology floors, so the HVAC systems are incredibly robust. It is a stacked system that does require and pretty much just fits within that volume. That is the size because of the demands of the uses. It is much greater than a typical acute care hospital. The demands are much greater. Board Member Hirsch: It’s a shame. It really overwhelms. Ms. Gerhardt: I think as part of the formal application we would be able to see a little more detail about this equipment that is going in there, correct? We would have a better understanding of why that height is needed. Ms. Kurz: Right. Chair Thompson: And probably a better understanding of what the screen itself is. Ms. Kurz: Yes. Chair Thompson: Any other comments from Board Members? No? Any other questions from the applicant on our review. Ms. Swenson: No. Thanks for all of your comments today. Chair Thompson: Thanks. I actually had one last comment on the panels. I think as you guys are developing these, panels have a tendency to look like junk sometimes on a façade. It is filled with a lot of information and I think what is really successful about a good information panel is how it brings out what is important. I know Board Member Hirsch liked the one above which has sort of a clean look where you have evenness to the lines on the panels. That is something successful, but I would also encourage -- I think you guys are already starting this with your design and coloring -- what goes to the 5.a Packet Pg. 135 City of Palo Alto Page 11 background and what goes to the front is key here. Maybe it could integrate if there is art or something; it could be a nice way of creating something a little bit more three-dimensional than the two-dimensional option. That’s my note. Thank you. I did cut you off a little bit ago. Did you have anything else to say, Molly? Ms. Swenson: No, that’s it. Thank you. Chair Thompson: Thank you, everybody. We will close this item since it is a study session and we will take a ten-minute break. Reconvene at 9:45. See everybody then. [The Board took a short break.] 3. Study Session: Request for Comments on Staff's Proposed Changes to the Height Transition Code Sections, Which are a Part of the Larger Housing Streamlining and Objective Design Standards project. Chair Thompson: I think we are back. Please state for the record that Vice Chair Lee has joined us. Vice Chair Lee: Hello, everyone. Board Member Baltay: Hi, Grace. Chair Thompson: Let’s move on to our next item which is the study session on the objective standards project height transition item. Should I let staff take it away? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, thank you, Chair Thompson. Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning. I just wanted to introduce the item and then I will turn it over to Jean. As you know, the ARB made a recommendation for approval of the objective design standards in our last meeting. Today we are just focused on the height transition conversation. This is part of the larger objective standards housing streamlining project that will be reviewed by the PTC and ultimately the Council sometime this summer. While today’s discussion is a little outside the purview of the ARB, we believe that you as architects are uniquely qualified to discuss this conversation. We want to get some of your opinions about the specific code changes, but then also get some opinions about changes that might be needed in the future. With that, I will let Jean take it away. Jean Eisberg: Thanks for the great intro. Good morning, Chair Thompson and members of the Board. Just when you thought you were done with me, I am back. I am going to go ahead and share my screen and jump right in because Jodie gave a great intro. In addition to the short staff report that you received, we attached the At Places Memo that Jodie and Amy had prepared several weeks ago. That really goes into the details of discussion and this scary-looking table is consolidating what each of the development standards table in Title 18, the zoning ordinance, says about height transitions. Depending on which district you're in, there is different language about when the lower height standard applies. We have the typical height standard, and then when you are next to a generally residentially zoned district that is a lower density, you are subject to a lower height limit. Sometimes, like in the RM-40, it is when you are within 50 feet of that adjacent site. In other districts, it is when you're within 150 feet of another residential district but the reduced height limit only applies when you're within 50 feet of that property line of the abutting district. There is different language used across the entire ordinance, as you might imagine creates some confusion for staff and applicants when both interpreting what each of these means and then remembering across districts what is going on. To show it more graphically, we showed this last time but just to make the point clear, the graphic on the right is showing this conceptually. We’ve got a lower density residential district in yellow, a higher density, typically commercial district, in the blue over here. The way that staff has been interpreting this is when you're within 50 feet of a property line the height limit is subject to that lower standard. Maybe you're at 50 feet over here beyond the property line but it is this lower 35 height limit when you're closer to the property line. Staff is proposing to modify the language just to make it clearer. We are not trying to propose substantive changes to the language at this time, but just to make the standard clear. For example, when we are 5.a Packet Pg. 136 City of Palo Alto Page 12 looking at the 18.16 (CN, CS, CC district) this is what the existing language says. It says when you are within 150 feet of a residential zone district abutting or located within 50 feet of the side. It is not a very clear standard. Again, the way staff has been interpreting it is that lower height standard only applied when you are within 50 feet of a property line. The proposal is to change that to just within 50 feet of a residential district. That’s when these lower height standards apply and disregard the language about 150 feet. The CD district is more clearly written but it is different. The existing standard says that when you're within 150 feet of abutting residential zone this lower height standard applies. In that case, that 150 feet would extend off of my screen somewhere over here and you would be subject to that lower height limit across the whole plane. We do want to talk to you about whether this standard makes sense. Is that too much? Is that right? But, for now, we are not proposing substantive changes. We are not proposing to make any substantive changes to that language. In the At Places Memo, there are text edits that are proposed as part of the objective standards project. We were working with you on design standards; we also, as you recall, have another series of changes to other parts of Title 18 and this is the language that is proposed as part of those other changes. This looks a little less scary as a table. It is generally more consistent across each of the districts, but again we are not trying to make substantive changes at this time. Then, I just wanted to pause for a minute to talk about where this 150-foot threshold came from. You can see it on the zoning map at the graphic at right. All of the hashed blue is showing where that 150-foot distance applies. Here is El Camino; you will see it all up and down El Camino where you have got commercially zoned sites abutting lower density residential districts. The other place that the 150-foot threshold appears is in the performance standard section of the code where it talks about if [distortion]. [Adjusting Video and Audio.] Ms. Eisberg: The performance standards when you're within 150 feet are these lower density districts. The performance standards apply relating to visual screening: noise, parking, glare from potential lighting, air-quality hazard materials, et cetera. Now over the course of time, the City has applied the performance standards more broadly to all different types of projects regardless to those adjacencies but this is just to give you a sense of the number of places in the code where that 150-foot threshold appears. In practice, how has this been getting applied? Again, staff’s interpretation is this 50-foot limit. Here is the Wilton Court project. It is fronting El Camino here; it’s adjacent to an RM-30 site over here and you see that lower height limit getting applied within 50 feet. If the City had been interpreting it more conservatively, more broadly within 150 feet, the entire project would have had reduces height out to El Camino. Another example of this application is a hotel site on El Camino. You can see this Hilton Garden Hotel is beyond the 50 foot limit of this RM-30 site. In this case, the reduced height was not required. Again, if the standard was interpreted as within 150 feet this would have had a lower standard across this portion of the site. We have two buckets of questions for you. The first directly relates to our objective standards projects. That is asking you if you support the City’s text edits in the At Places Memo to change the language now. This is really clarification language so it is clearer for staff, applicants, and decision-makers. Our second series of questions is more holistic, or philosophical, or really wants to tap into your expertise as practitioners and thinking about the housing element process that is coming up and how we think about height transitions in general. From your perspective, what is the appropriate distance for when to require reduced height? Is it that 50-foot distance? Is there some other way we should be achieving height transitions? Second, should height transitions be different depending on context or depending on the district? Should the height transitions, for example, in downtown or other locations compare to maybe residential neighborhoods further from the business district or father from transit? Third, thinking about the other ways that the City regulates height and regulates height transitions is the existing daylight plane a good technique for transitioning buildings? Should we be thinking about other ways you make those transitions, such as upper-story setbacks or other techniques that you have in mind. Those are our series of questions for you and that is the end of my presentation. Chair Thompson: Thank you, Jean. I wanted to ask if there were any comments from the general public on this item. Mr. Nguyen: Chair Thompson, there are no raised hands for this item. 5.a Packet Pg. 137 City of Palo Alto Page 13 Chair Thompson: Thank you. Do we have any questions of staff from the Board? Vice Chair Lee: Chair Osma, I do have a question for Jean or staff. Chair Thompson: Sure. Vice Chair Lee: I just wanted to see if you could point to an area where it is written or codified that described the intent of building height transitions? Where do we see that and how is it worded in terms of intent? Is it in several places per specific districts or is there an area where we could just talk about that? I just thought it might be a good starting point in terms of understanding how the City defines intent of building height transitions. Ms. Gerhardt: We do have Amy French here, our Chief Planning Official, who may have more background on this, but as best I know these height transitions are in the development standards tables. They are just in a table; there is no extra language that comes with them. Vice Chair Lee: That’s what I was wondering. Maybe my follow-up question is where does staff think it is appropriate to have some kind of codified or some description of the intent of building height transitions? I know it’s a big question, I am just wondering. Ms. Gerhardt: I don’t know that we need intent as long as our development standards are clear. I think we are trying to move towards more objective standards. I think just having proper language in the table is good. Vice Chair Lee: Okay. Thanks, Jodie. Chair Thompson: Are there any other questions of staff? Board Member Baltay: I do, yes, if I could, Osma. Chair Thompson: Go ahead, Board Member Baltay. Board Member Baltay: I am curious about the required setbacks. If you could just refresh my memory when you're putting up one of these commercial properties or an RM-40 next to a residential neighborhood, is there a ten-foot setback requirement? Do I remember that correctly? Ms. Gerhardt: I am looking it up as we speak. In the commercial zones, there would be a ten-foot rear setback for the residential portion of a project. Actually, there would also be a ten-foot setback when abutting a residential zone. Board Member Baltay: Yeah, my experience has been that we always seem to have a ten-foot setback against residential zones and properties. Then, do I remember right that the daylight plane, however, does not apply? Residential properties have a daylight plane relative to each other. Does that apply? Ms. Gerhardt: There are definitely some zones where it says to take the daylight plane from the adjacent residential and to replicate that on the commercial zone. There are definitely instances where that happens. Board Member Baltay: Okay, thank you. Chair Thompson: Any other questions of staff? Board Member Lew: I have a question. Chair Thompson: Sure, go ahead. 5.a Packet Pg. 138 City of Palo Alto Page 14 Board Member Lew: The zoning map shows the height transition is required for RM-40 as well as PC’s but those are typically excluded in the written language of the code and I was wondering if anybody recalls when that change was made to exclude RM-40 from planned communities? I have a vague recollection of a discussion with Lee Lippert, who did three terms on the ARB and two terms on the Planning Commission, and that was about if a new PC comes in it shouldn’t downzone existing zoning. I think that was the logic for not requiring the height transitions for PC’s. I was wondering if there was any recollection of that. Ms. Gerhardt: I don’t have any specific recollection of that. [Adjusting Audio.] Ms. Gerhardt: I don’t have any special recollection other than RM-40 is our highest residential density. I think that is why it is called out differently, and usually our PC’s are higher density as well. Board Member Lew: Does the old zoning map get updated? The one that I have that I got from staff electronically and the one that I have had since I started on the ARB, dating back to 2007, are those old maps continuing to be updated or is staff relying on the GIS? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, the maps are updated on a regular basis, although we don’t do many. We have only done a handful of rezoning, and a handful of PC’s and that sort of thing. There wouldn’t be many changes. Board Member Lew: Okay, thank you. Chair Thompson: Any other questions of staff? Amy, were you able to get your audio to work? No, okay. Okay. Board Member Hirsch: I do. Sorry, I was on mute. Is the 50-foot height limitation throughout all zones? Ms. Gerhardt: No, all of the different ones have different height limits, although 50 feet is generally our maximum height limit. Board Member Hirsch: Just downtown exceeds that? Ms. Gerhardt: No, we are not speaking about the height limit itself; we are just speaking about the transition and the lower height limits that are required in those areas. We are talking more about the distance, not the height. Board Member Hirsch: I understand that, but certainly the height limitation is also a factor relative to the distance because if you figure the daylight plane or daylight issues, the height issue does come into play. It isn't being discussed here, basically, at all. Is that correct? Ms. Gerhardt: Not the actual allowed height number, just when to implement a lower height limit is what we are discussing. Does that answer your question? Board Member Hirsch: I guess. Chair Thompson: I think I hear Amy French now. Ms. French: In answer to Vice Chair Lee’s earlier question about purpose, Chapter 18.23, which is the performance standards chapter related to the 150-foot boundary area that is adjacent to residential, it does have a couple of sentences there. I can read a sentence, it is pretty broad though. It is not specific to height transition. It just says, “The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses.” It says, “The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby 5.a Packet Pg. 139 City of Palo Alto Page 15 residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses.” It’s a pretty broad statement. Then, just to echo Board Member Lew’s statement, yes, I recollect around that -- I don’t remember what year that was -- but something that you said about Lee Lippert… I have been here a number of years so that resonates with me. I can’t place the year, though. Thank you. Vice Chair Lee: I appreciate that Amy, and I just want to be clear when you said general language just out in front of 18.23. Is that what you said? Ms. French: Yes, it is section 18.23.010, purpose and applicability. I was reading from the purpose section A. Vice Chair Lee: Thank you. I have a question for staff and maybe you can answer it, Amy, if you want. When we talk about it was previously in terms of the language that is a little bit hard to decipher in terms of 150 feet from a residential -- I understand that is staying sometimes -- is that distance sometimes a diagonal distance? Is there ever a case where it is a diagonal distance where it is unclear what that means? Ms. French: Yes, it is just as the crow flies from the building to wherever the property lies. Vice Chair Lee: That’s what I thought. Is there somewhere where we… I am just wondering to get to the nitty gritty, is that something that can be from a corner of a building diagonally out into a neighborhood? Is that what I am understanding or is there a way it is described somewhere? Ms. Gerhardt: It’s from the lower density property line to the corner of the new… well, from the lower density line to the corner of the new building. Vice Chair Lee: Okay, so it is not property line to property line, for example? Ms. Gerhardt: No. Vice Chair Lee: Okay, thanks. Ms. Gerhardt: Jean, if you show that slide. Vice Chair Lee: That looks like it is going to the building but I see now that it is going to a fence which is probably on top of the property line. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, and you can see it on Wilton Court as well. It is from the RM-30 property line to the Wilton Court building. Vice Chair Lee: Okay. If you stay on this slide can I ask one more question? I am sorry I am taking so much time up, but if that was an RM-30 it might have been 1540, right? Is that what I am understanding? Ms. Gerhardt: No, if it was downtown it would have been 150. Vice Chair Lee: Right, so this situation downtown would have been 150 feet? Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. Vice Chair Lee: Okay, thank you. Board Member Lew: Actually, Grace, on Wilton Court this one is under the affordable housing overlay. Vice Chair Lee: Okay, so that might supersede. 5.a Packet Pg. 140 City of Palo Alto Page 16 (Crosstalk) Board Member Lew: But if it were not affordable housing it would be 150 feet. Vice Chair Lee: Okay, thank you. Ms. Gerhardt: The affordable housing has the same… actually no; I’m sorry. It is workforce housing that has the same confusing language as the commercial zones. Affordable housing does say within 50 feet but it also gives the director a little bit of latitude. Wilton Court is actually 46 feet. It is a good representation of what would happen in a standard commercial zone. Vice Chair Lee: Okay. Then, for Jean or all of you, this is something when you say these questions you want us to discuss, the future housing discussions, this is something that will be posed to the housing element group, right? Those newly formed; I assume that you're going to bringing this to them. Ms. Gerhardt: That is correct. Chair Thompson: Okay. Should we go question by question or just the bigger topics? Ms. Gerhardt: If we could start with just the objective standards project for today, the specific language. Let’s do a round of that and then a round for the future discussion. Chair Thompson: Okay, sounds good. Let’s do that. Who’d like to start? Board Member Baltay: I am happy to support what staff is doing. I think it makes a lot of sense to bring everything to the 50-foot distance, as Jodie has done. My answer to the first part is yes I support that strongly. Chair Thompson: Thanks. Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: I agree with Board Member Baltay that 50 feet seems reasonable to me, especially looking at Wilton Court and seeing the way the massing is done. It seems an appropriate dimension, and the restriction that is involved there seems to be working very well with that particular planning in that zoning program and should work in all others as well. Chair Thompson: Thank you. Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: I am actually strongly opposed to this as a minor revision. I think the logic that I am using is that the zoning mass is drawn to scale. The (inaudible) is shown as 150 feet and I think this is a very substantial change that really requires the full city review process to make that change. I think the case needs to be made that it is necessary for housing. I think that is fine and I think the argument can be made but this is not the way to do it. It seems like we have made revisions in the past. I don’t see why we couldn’t make another revision in the future. I would actually do something much more tailored, much more site-specific and not make it a blanket 50-foot throughout all the different districts. There is a lot of old stuff in the code and I agree with staff that it is (inaudible). I do agree that it should be cleaned up a little bit. I think my general thought is that the way forward, at least for the CF and CM zones and maybe CC, is to bring back the old residential zoning. We used to allow all residential building on El Camino. Then after the (inaudible) project the council decided they didn’t really want to see that type of project so they eliminated all residential zoning. It seems to me that we should keep the existing standards as they are and tailor something for an apartment building on El Camino. What that transition should be I am not exactly sure; I have looked at several different projects. I think the Wilton Court is sort of my maximum, or minimum; the 50 feet. I have looked at the Mike’s Bikes site, which is 3001 El Camino project, and there is 150-foot distance ended up making the building to be like a single-loaded corridor apartment building, which is really inefficient. It means it is very expensive for the developer. I think in that case, I was measuring it out at 100 to 125 feet would have made the building much more 5.a Packet Pg. 141 City of Palo Alto Page 17 efficient. I would be in support of some sort of reduction in there and maybe a sliding scale depending on the size of the lot. I think applying the 50 foot to the ROLM, which is along West Bayshore and a lot of Eichler neighborhoods behind there I think would be completely inappropriate. I think the one area we should really focus on is DS and R1, for example in the North Ventura CAP area so we have some things on major transits center areas and California Avenue, and you have R1 zoning right behind it. I think those types of areas we have to look very carefully at to try to allow larger buildings and provide a buffer for the R1. I think that is all I have on this particular one, but I am opposed to this particular minor edit. Chair Thompson: Thank you, Board Member Lew. Vice Chair Lee. Vice Chair Lee: I want to thank staff for bringing this to our attention and applaud their efforts. I do agree and support the staff’s text edits. I would like to move forward as proposed, and I really look forward to the future housing discussion piece. I think that Board Member Lew brings up some very interesting points and I look forward to discussing that and see how it may unfold with other bodies, like the Planning Commission, Council, and the Housing Element Group. Chair Thompson: Thank you, Vice Chair Lee. For me, it is interesting; I appreciate Board Member Lew’s comments. It has given me a bit more to think about than I had originally addressed or assessed, rather. What is nice about this change is that it feels like a very local choice that you’re talking about something that is abutting something else and it is not really thinking about something that’s 150 feet out, which as a pedestrian you may not notice as much but potentially from a further-back perspective it might be noticeable. In general, I am okay with the change. I think Board Member Lew’s suggestion of doing a tailored approach is actually a really valid suggestion, even though it seems the majority of this Board is in favor of the change that is something staff should really consider. Potentially something might come up when you look at those things item by item just the way that table is laid out that something may appear that just doesn’t make sense. Is there any other discussion from other Board Member’s after hearing everyone’s first round? Board Member Baltay: Osma, are we going to broaden our discussion now about this topic? Chair Thompson: Yeah, I think we can do that. Board Member Baltay: I made a sketch on the back of my pamphlet here. I am hoping to share that. I sent an email copy to you and Jodie Gerhardt. Did either of you get it? Are you able to screen share somehow? Chair Thompson: I’ll check right now. Ms. Gerhardt: I can look as well. Board Member Baltay: I sat at a coffee shop on the avenue when I read these packets and I made a sketch for myself to understand and help me clarify; I like to draw things down. I think it would be helpful if I could show that to everybody. Chair Thompson: Did you email it to us? Ms. Gerhardt: I don’t see such an email. Board Member Baltay: Is it possible for me to screen share? [Setting up screen share.] Board Member Baltay: I did a cross-section through a commercial property abutting a residential one and I gave a lot of thought to what we are trying accomplish with this transition and it seems to me there are two fundamental things. One is what you call light and air, which is what a daylight plan regulates. 5.a Packet Pg. 142 City of Palo Alto Page 18 It is the sense of a building towering over another property blocking sunlight, blocking access to fresh air, et cetera. The other is just having privacy. What I was surprised by is when I sketch out what the daylight plane requirement is for a residence against another residence, for example, it goes up starting at ten feet at the property lien and goes up at 45 degrees to the height limit. Then I sketch on my diagram a heave red line what the current allow is where you have to be ten feet away from the property line but then you can go to 35 feet in height, and then you have to go over a full 50 feet before you can go to the full 50-foot height limit. What jumps at me is that we are a little bit backward here. We really ought to have the limit be 40 feet to accomplish the daylight plane protection of residential property. The 50 feet is additional even to what a residential protection would be. At the same time allowing the 35-foot height limit within 10 feet of a property is too much. It seems to me that some sort of analysis of a daylight plane regulation would make more sense if our goal really is to protect the light and the air impact on residential properties as a whole. I think a ten-foot buffer is wonderful for allowing landscaping screening for privacy and things like that. I guess my conclusion -- I am not saying it is a strong conclusion but rather I thought this sketch was helpful just to clarify my thoughts -- is even 50 feet is more than the protection afforded residential properties with the current daylight plane standard, and yet also the extra height very close in is a much bigger impact. A 35-foot tall building 10 feet from your property is a greater impact than a 50-foot tall building 50 feet from your property. I just throw this sketch out for everybody to see. I can stop sharing this screen. Board Member Hirsch: No, keep it up. Board Member Baltay: I put it out there; I was just sketching, drinking coffee and I spent the rest of the week thinking is there a conclusion to draw from this. I am not sure there is but this analysis is to me, at least. Board Member Hirsch: I’d like to comment on that. I just think that the daylight plane is such a useful tool. It really is more useful than a specific dimension. I think this sort of proves it here. It is commonly used in the New York area; I can tell you that except for concentrated center urban areas. The daylight plane in most residential areas is the key where it clearly is against commercial zones which may not work as well, but it looks appropriate here to me. The 50 feet, you're right, it is more restrictive. It is more restrictive to be that much further back than the daylight plane. It is a reasonable number if you’re going to choose a number. That is what this diagram shows me. Chair Thompson: Any thoughts from Vice Chair Lee? Vice Chair Lee: I appreciate that, Peter. Thank you for sharing that. I also appreciate Amy French’s description. When we talk about mitigating impacts and balancing needs and ensuring compatibility and desirability, I just feel that it is really important to understand the intent behind development standards because when we look at a table I know I have looked at tables working in cities and tried to understand, well why. I can think of some specific examples in neighboring cities where the intent is achieved but the development standard that I see in the table is different. I just wanted to open up and see how you wanted to proceed, Osma, but I feel like when we talk about future housing discussions, a large part of what we should talk about is the future and sustainability for our town. That is my general comment. I really appreciate this diagram, Peter, and just thinking about dimensions, and I really appreciate the discussion from Board Member Lew regarding the different kinds of proposals. Even if you just said housing, for example, or if you just said for-profit commercial or a mix, we all can think of various situations where there are going to be exceptions or reasons or districts that make us feel slightly different. I just feel in terms of going back to what was given to us today, it is important to clarify the language so that they are able to apply and instruct moving forward. I will just stop there. Chair Thompson: I think we are going to open it up now, Vice Chair Lee, to future housing things. I think this diagram really speaks to a lot of what I have been thinking about. It is nice that it is sketched out here. There is something to be said about the daylight plane and its validity in terms of providing light and air. Often times I’ve wondered if it is the most effective way. I have seen other transitions elsewhere where it is the hard redline that goes beyond it and over. It does feel like it has a harmony with what is around and the context, and if every building were to adhere to the daylight plane, you 5.a Packet Pg. 143 City of Palo Alto Page 19 could imagine what the city might end up looking like with these steep terraces or diagonals that create these little pockets. It’s an interesting choice. For future housing opportunities, I think the daylight plane can be seen as very restrictive in terms of development and I do want to caution that note as well. At the same time, it is important that we ensure light and air and I think there are efforts that we are doing with setbacks and things that also achieve that. That’s my two cents. Are there any other comments on this and future housing opportunities? Board Member Hirsch: It seems to me that the daylight plane and the yard requirements kind of meet together. Together they form good controls. To be honest, my concern about objective/subjective -- you know I am the negative vote on that one -- has always been that I am coming from a background of rather strict zoning that is based on formulas, based on the daylight plane and yard and setback requirements. Those are absolutely objective. Then, of course, Palo Alto -- as Alex points out -- is a different environment here where we are probably more concerned with neighboring issues than New York is, for example, and sensitive to that. There has to be a balance somewhere in between. I think this diagram really shows it to me. A selection that cleans up this text and it seems to me a 50-foot works with this diagram or to use the daylight plane, one or the other, would be effective. I would go along with staff here but also I think a daylight plane would be equally successful. Board Member Baltay: Osma… Chair Thompson: I was going to give Board Member Lew a chance. Board Member Baltay: I'm sorry. Okay, go ahead. Board Member Lew: I am not sure I have anything to say on the daylight plane other than in many places we have the zero setback allowed. For example, in the CS zone, you can build right at the property line. That seems to be problematic in some cases. I am still collecting my thoughts on the more general housing issue. I will come back later. Chair Thompson: Okay. Board Member Baltay. Board Member Baltay: Alex is correct; you have zero setbacks in a CS zone except when you're next to a residential property where you have 10 feet. Board Member Lew: There’s multifamily and then there is R1. I think it only applies to the very lowest R1, RMD. Board Member Baltay: That’s not been my experience, Alex. Working on a project downtown we have 10-foot requirements point-blank in a CC zone. Board Member Lew: Yes, there's a 10-foot setback in the performance standard. Ms. Gerhardt: There is a 10-foot rear setback abutting residential zones. This is for a mixed-use or residential project in the commercial zones. Residential zones would be all of the different residential zones up to RM-40. Board Member Lew: Interesting. Okay, thanks. Board Member Baltay: My thought is more that I think a combination of yard control, setback, and the daylight plane is probably a better, less-restrictive way of achieving the same overriding objective which is to preserve a sense of light and air and achieve more privacy. Osma, to your point, I think if I were designing I would much prefer to have a daylight plane which gives me a lot more flexibility to go a little bit higher if I step forward or backward. As a designer, I appreciate having the ability to decide for myself. Just being told 35 feet until I get 50 feet away is a pretty strong requirement. I think greater design flexibility, more subjectivity comes from a daylight plane. I never thought about it that much before but I think that is how I feel anyway. I guess I would like to, not recommend or anything, but it 5.a Packet Pg. 144 City of Palo Alto Page 20 seems to me that a daylight plane is worth more consideration. Ultimately, Alex is correct; there are big issues that Council and Planning Commissions and other boards and bodies need to think about, but if you want architectural advice this diagram says what I think. Chair Thompson: Thanks. Why don’t we go back to the questions on the greater discussion? I just want to give the Board a chance to discuss some of these questions here on the appropriate distance and the height transitions in downtown. I think I heard Vice Chair Lee and Board Member Lew wanted to speak to these. We will start with Vice Chair Lee. Vice Chair Lee: Thank you, Osma and staff. I had a couple of thoughts and I also wanted to engage Alex with the questions. I think Alex had mentioned some specific districts within Palo Alto and more of a gradually or a layered way of looking at this for future housing discussions. I just wanted to pick that up to understand that better. For me, when I look at these three questions I think they are very important to ask. I think largely my impression from working and being on the Architectural Review Board is that I sometimes generally question the height transition requirements where a proposal might be still fulfilling the intent in terms of not being the standard that is in the table but still seems to balance needs and provide compatibility and desirability. I guess I was wondering if there are specific projects that we as a whole, and what we have seen in Palo Alto, where we feel like the height transition requirements have been too much or not the appropriate measure for compatibility and mitigated impacts. I just wanted to bring that out. Also talk about is there a focus in terms of… I understand there are a lot more proposals for the corridors; El Camino, downtown or specific areas and maybe there is also a way for us to talk about this in terms of our knowledge of specific areas in the city where we see these applied and how does that relate to future housing. I was just thinking how can we as a group be helpful to future discussions as well for housing development, for planning Commission, for Council? Is there a way to structure that? I just wanted to open that up. I just thought these questions bring up other questions from me. In general, I favor really understanding what the intent is and then how to do that might be through looking at light and air or it might be through providing enough privacy or providing enough of a program area for open space for a particular use. For me, it always goes back to the intent to understand how to best provide the development standard. Chair Thompson: Thank you, Vice Chair Lee. Board Member Lew, did you have some items? Board Member Lew: Yes. I just wanted to mention some things that I researched for today’s meeting. One is El Camino and Mountain View; they did a specific plan for the entire length of El Camino and they broke it down into major nodes and corridor areas and then low-density corridor areas. They tailored the height to those segments and they also had a process where there was base zoning and tier one and tier two up zoning if you go through design review and City Council review. It seems to me the advantage of doing that is that you can allow larger buildings where there is transit and in other places where there is a predominantly one-story commercial building and one-story houses so you can keep it relatively low for the near future. It seems to me to be more strategic. I think the way Palo Alto has done it is sort of chaotic to figure out how high a building can be on El Camino, you need to sit down for at least half a day or a day and get out the zoning book and the zoning map, and research all the different parcels around the property, and then figure out what you want to put on the building, and then you can figure out the height limit once you do all of that work. In Mountain View, it is fairly straightforward for people to understand what the height limit is in this particular section of town. The other city that I looked at was Berkeley because I am familiar with a lot of the new apartment buildings in Berkeley and I looked at the transition areas that they make, and they do much more abrupt transitions than we do. I am generally finding they did at least 50 feet of step-downs from big five-story apartment buildings down to two-story houses. I generally would find that to be acceptable in the more urban areas of Palo Alto but I think it is too much in the more one-story areas of Palo Alto. The third city that I thought about was San Francisco, where they have the zoning map but they also have a height map. I think they do it because of hills but it is really site specific. They go through every parcel and it will have this specific height limit. That’s another thing to consider too. Then again, San Francisco has such steep hills that I think that is where that came from. They have also wanted to add more housing there so they did up-zone a lot of the height to get more housing. I think that’s all that I have got. 5.a Packet Pg. 145 City of Palo Alto Page 21 Chair Thompson: Thank you, Board Member Lew. Does Board Member Hirsch or Board Member Baltay have any more to discuss on the future housing section? Board Member Baltay: I think I have said what I can add to the conversation, Osma. Thank you. Chair Thompson: Thanks. Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, I am thinking back to my own experience in designing my house here which was very much required… it is a very narrow lot. I had to keep to the daylight plane and the house becomes a zoning diagram because of those restrictions. It is hard to live with that but I think it is important to have those kinds of regulations. In a way, they are better than just choosing a specific dimension. I don’t know how to answer Alex’s concerns for all of the different zones just never having worked as an architect with these restrictions, but I definitely come down in favor of a daylight plane and yard requirements, setbacks, rear yards, et cetera. Those seem to me to give you the envelope and you have to work with it. If the site doesn’t work it, does not work or you find a design that does work. That’s sort of where I am at. I think that the daylight plane manages to do exactly what it is supposed to do: provide appropriate daylight for everybody. Chair Thompson: Thank you, Board Member Hirsch. I think the other thing I would add is sometimes when there is regulation on top of regulation on top of regulation on a site, there are some cases where the site is really hard to develop and it is kind of rendered useless sometimes. I know of an example that is not in Palo Alto specifically but nearby where it is a great lot and it is in a great location but because of all of the regulations of height and zoning that nobody wants to develop it and nobody knows what to do with it. That is really unfortunate and that would be the only thing that I would caution is that when there are certain specific sites that come up that struggle, it would be worthwhile to have the city take a closer site-specific eye on those lots as Board Member Lew has mentioned. In terms of height transition, we have seen some cool projects where even though the bulk was there, even though the massing was there, the articulation was able to make it seem like it was transitioning down and there is a lot to be said for those things as well. Given that, especially for housing, that we need it so badly, there might be something to be said about allowing more height closer and having another stipulation that allows for at least visually that it is less oppressive. Any other last thoughts from anybody? Vice Chair Lee: I can give a few last thoughts. Thank you, Chair Thompson, because I agree with your comments and others as well. Just to answer the question for staff, I do think that 50 feet or less is appropriate for transitions in general, however, when we are talking about housing it is exactly what you just said Chair Thompson. I have looked at sites elsewhere where we have to pass them up because they aren’t able to build per the zoning, quality housing requirements for funding, and for quality of life. I feel like, yes, the height transition should be reduced in the downtown as well as other areas when it is a predominant housing program, absolutely. I am just going through the list. The daylight plane, up- story setbacks, and then, as Chair Thompson just mentioned, actual articulation modulation or going through discretionary review to achieve the aims of your intent. I really appreciate Alex looking at the three cities of San Francisco, Berkeley, and Mountain View, but I am hoping that maybe that Planning Commission or the Housing Element as directed by staff or others, we need to learn and can we learn from other city efforts on the peninsula locally or even in California, or even outside. I don’t think Palo Alto… I don’t understand why it is tabula rasa each time if there is a way to bring forward examples and lessons learned from other cities. I guess in this list, Alex, I just see mid-peninsula. What’s happening in San Mateo? I wonder how if the housing element is a group of experts who have engaged in housing in different ways… I just think that is a great step forward and a place where some of this could be examined more closely. Chair Thompson: Thank you, Vice Chair Lee. Any other comments before we finish the study session? Board Member Hirsch: I’d like to get back in this for a minute because I definitely agree that downtown is a whole other area and I am looking forward to the possibility of their being housing in downtown for a lot of reasons. These regulations, if they were used in downtown, really wouldn’t be useful at all. There has to be really a choice between what is used in the downtown area and the restrictions and totally 5.a Packet Pg. 146 City of Palo Alto Page 22 residential areas where the conflict really arises where residential neighborhoods meet up against other uses. That seems to be the area that this is specific to but it shouldn’t be in areas of the downtown. Chair Thompson: Okay. Board Member Lew, did you have something to add? Board Member Lew: Yes, with regard to downtown, I just want to point out there is one little house on an alley off of Bryant Street and it is historic. Because it is there, the zoning map says it has the 150 feet thing all around it. It is basically down-zoning half of a city block for one historic house. I think something like that should bear some scrutiny and there must be a way for allowing a historic house to have some sun but not impact half of a city block. I think we should consider reducing it in the downtown area. That’s it. Chair Thompson: Great. Any last thoughts from anyone? Okay. Any questions from staff or closing remarks on this item? Ms. Gerhardt: No, thank you all for your comments. Action Items 4. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 4256 El Camino Real [21PLN-00034]: Request for Changes to an Approved Project to Revise the Underground Garage Parking and Clarify the Director's Parking Adjustment. Environmental Assessment: Use of a previous EIR. Zone District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. (Continued to May 6, 2021) Chair Thompson: Great, thank you. With that will move on to our next item. Jodie already mentioned that item four will be continued. Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. It will be continued to May 6th, our next meeting. Approval of Minutes 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 18, 2021 Chair Thompson: Great. Then that puts us to the approval of minutes for the Architectural Review Board minutes from March 18th. Board Member Baltay: Osma, do you need a motion and a vote to continue something once it is on the agenda? Ms. Gerhardt: This particular item we continued fairly early in the process so no motion is needed. Thank you. Chair Thompson: We do need a motion to approve the minutes from March 18. (Crosstalk) Board Member Baltay: Go ahead, Alex. MOTION Board Member Lew: I have one correction. On packet page 44 of the minutes, when I was speaking it says 56 which is a street number address, and I actually said 636 but I misspoke and meant to say 429. I will move that we approve the minutes for March 18th, 2021. Board Member Baltay: I have a couple of comments to make, first, if I could, Osma. 5.a Packet Pg. 147 City of Palo Alto Page 23 Chair Thompson: Sure. Board Member Baltay: I read through the minutes reasonable carefully and I was surprised by the whole number of what you might call typographical mistakes, some of them more substantial than that though. On page 37 for example, the statement was attributed to me which I didn’t make. Same thing on page 38, on page 41 up in the body of text, the existing is wonderfully falling apart dilapidated. It is just not correct. There are a lot of times where what is written is really not an accurate transcription. I have maybe a dozen locations in here. I don’t know that I want to try to go through them all and correct them. They don’t affect the intention of the content. But, Jodie, I guess to staff, I wonder if there is a way to request one more round of proofreading before these are released. On top of page 37, Chair Thompson says, we don’t see this bailing in front of the wall like we are seeing in the elevation. What she means to say is railing, not bailing. It just goes on and on in this particular set of minutes. I guess I think another round of editing would be a good idea in general. I can second Alex’s motion to approve. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, Board Member Baltay, if you're able to send us those corrections that you do have that would be helpful. Board Member Baltay: I can list them to you. Can I do that instead? Ms. Gerhardt: I think I… Board Member Baltay: It is a lot of work for me to type out a big email to you, Jodie. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. Board Member Baltay: Page 35, last line. Board Member Baltay says, do you anywhere identify the sides of the panels. What I said was size, not sides. Page 37 top line, Osma Thompson says, so we don’t see this railing, not bailing, which is what is written. Halfway down the page, Dave Hirsch was speaking and all of a sudden I am attributed to saying okay. Ms. Gerhardt: What page was that? Board Member Baltay: Page 37. Page 38 halfway down again, we were talking about the light fixtures on the building and again Board Member Baltay is attributed to a statement made by Board Member Hirsch. Let’s see. Page 42, in the motion, the second line in the motion there, successful motion over the height of the board. That’s not what I said. Successful motion over the entire board. The height of the board doesn’t make sense as said there. Alex’s statement at 56, the address on University Avenue. I think that covers my red marks there. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. I have written those corrections down. Board Member Baltay: Again, Jodie, those are not really important in this particular frame of mind but I was surprised to see so many things like that. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, I think we will be talking at the next meeting. The Council has actually asked that we no longer do verbatim minutes, that we do more summary-type minutes. Hopefully, that’ll help the typist, that’ll help us in our review, and hopefully, we can be more accurate in that way going forward. Board Member Baltay: Great. I am sorry to waste everybody’s time looking at this all. Thank you. Ms. Gerhardt: No, that’s good. We need a clear record. Chair Thompson: Okay. We have a motion by Lew and second by Baltay to approve the draft meeting minutes. Can we get a vote? 5.a Packet Pg. 148 City of Palo Alto Page 24 Aye: Baltay, Hirsch, Lee, Lew, Thompson (5) No: (0) MOTION TO APPROVE PASSES 5-0. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Thompson: Thank you. Our next item is Board Member questions, comments, or announcements and I have NVCAP on there. Board Member Lew: The NVCAP is going to be presented to the City Council on June 14th. That is all that I have on that one. Chair Thompson: Great. Thank you. If there are no others this meeting is adjourned. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, thank you very much, everyone. If we just have Board Member Baltay and Board Member Hirsch stay on for the ad hoc committee. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Ms. Gerhardt: Thank you so much. Chair Thompson: Thanks, everyone. Board Member Hirsch: Bye, all, except Peter. Board Member Baltay: Bye, everybody. Adjournment Ad Hoc Committee Items 6. 180 El Camino Real [20PLN-00172]: Ad Hoc Committee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Additional Details for the Location and Placement of Three (3) Signs for the Macy's Building within the Stanford Shopping Center. Environmental Assessment: Exempt per Guideline Section 15301. Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. Ms. Gerhardt: Do we have Sam? [Setting up presentation.] Sam Gutierrez, Project Planner: I might have to turn off my camera because my connection is kind of wonky. Let’s just try and see. Ms. Gerhardt: That’s fine. You can say hi and you can turn it off if you want. Mr. Gutierrez: I will keep it on but if you hear it get choppy I do apologize. I will cut off the camera to save bandwidth. Ms. Gerhardt: I am also going to run away and talk to you later. Thank you, all. Board Member Hirsch: By, Jodie. 5.a Packet Pg. 149 City of Palo Alto Page 25 Mr. Gutierrez: Thank you. [Setting up presentation.] Mr. Gutierrez: Thank you to the ad hoc committee. I am still getting used to saying that for so many years being trained the other way but times have changed. I am Sam Gutierrez, the project planner that previously presented the Macy’s signage exemption to the Board, and of course, we had some comments and conditions to bring back to the ad hoc group here. It wasn’t really about the signage size itself, it was more about location. Here looking at the plans, we can see there was an adjustment because there were comments about adjusting the lines and the breaks in what the previous proposal was. Here, we can see that the signage was adjusted to be kind of left-justified. You can see it down the walkway. The other sign that ruins along that face of the interior of the shopping center for this Macy’s building further down towards what we call the market plaza area towards Pacific Catch and Sand Hill parking lot, here we can see the signage justified in different sides but as pointed out during the previous hearing, there has been a number of trees placed there so it makes it difficult to see though these signs were brought to level, which was a requirement of the ABR. Here you can actually see the sign without being blocked by the trees on the walkway. Then there was a question about the placement of the major sign, the large sign towards… I am not sure what you call it but I guess the garden plaza area towards the Apple Store and Neiman Marcus, there were comments about considering the archway, putting it there, and then also again not having the Macy’s copy overlap with these breaks in the brick façade. Then there were questions about left or right justified, which is shown here in these perspective pictures if I could zoom in. Hopefully, that isn’t choppy for everybody to see. Here you can see kind of how the different perspectives from the different sides. This top perspective is from the parking garage towards the Neiman Marcus side towards Quarry as indicated here; Orchard Lane and parking lot but Quarry would be on this side and then Sand Hill this way. Similarly, here we could see what it looks like if you’re coming from the Sand Hill parking lot as you're going between the buildings and the Neiman Marcus and you enter this plaza area you will see the existing Macy’s signage. From this perspective, you could see it in either panel but you wouldn’t be able to see it in an arch. Then here is another perspective from the Neiman Marcus stance where you have blocked that view of the arch but you could still see the original Macy’s signage here. The question before the ad hoc group here is what positioning, I guess, is sufficient or more appropriate. I will leave it to you gentlemen. Board Member Hirsch: Who goes first? Board Member Baltay: I am trying to figure out what we are being asked exactly. Board Member Hirsch: The location on CL5 the location of the Macy’s… there are two options. Board Member Baltay: Oh, I see. What does the applicant propose? Board Member Hirsch: Well, they are leaving it up to us I think. Male: Correct. Board Member Hirsch: My preference is the one on the corner, closest to the corner. Board Member Baltay: I agree with you, David. That’s where I would choose, were I the designer. I think either one meets the standards we are required to enforce. Mr. Gutierrez: For CL5 it would be a left-justified, this one here. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. Board Member Hirsch: You're happy with that, I am happy with that. Yeah. Ms. Gutierrez: How about… 5.a Packet Pg. 150 City of Palo Alto Page 26 (Crosstalk) Board Member Hirsch: CL4, the next one? Mr. Gutierrez: There we go. This would be a right-justified on this panel and left. Again, this would be the different views from the walkway heading towards the center of the shopping center. Board Member Hirsch: I prefer the one that is on the right side of the vertical strip. That one. Board Member Baltay: Okay, that is fine with me. Both of them are fine I think. What was our original concern, Sam, with this? Mr. Gutierrez: One concern was that the CL4 and CL3 weren’t aligned. If you were walking down that walkway you would see them a little uneven. This has been brought to even stance, and then there was concern about location because before the Macy’s signage was proposed in between some of the breaks and there was concern that it shouldn’t be there. The M and, I believe, the A were in the break here, and in the CL3 it mirrored what the original signage is doing where this break in the brick façade, which is actually pretty thick and I think it is four or five inches, was breaking up the copy of the sign. It just didn’t look really correct architecturally. That is where this positioning thing came about and moved. Board Member Baltay: Okay. Now both sides are aligned vertically. Is that right? Mr. Gutierrez: Yes. Board Member Baltay: They're equal distance off the pavement. Mr. Gutierrez: Mm-hmm. Board Member Baltay: Okay. The CL3 to the left looks good and the one where David just suggested in the… (Crosstalk) Board Member Baltay: If that is what we are being asked that is fine… Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, those three. Board Member Baltay: Is that it? Board Member Hirsch: That’s it. Mr. Gutierrez: Yeah, that was really it. It was pretty simple and straightforward. Board Member Baltay: Thank you for putting it all together. Mr. Gutierrez: Okay. Thank you, gentlemen, for your time. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. (Crosstalk) Mr. Gutierrez: Sounds like we are going again… just to make it clear, this looks fine; CL3 does with the adjustment. CL4 we are going for the top option here, center panel. 5.a Packet Pg. 151 City of Palo Alto Page 27 Board Member Hirsch: Yup. Mr. Gutierrez: And CL5 we are going for this bottom option where you're on the far left panel on the corner. Board Member Baltay: Perfect. Board Member Hirsch: Yup. Mr. Gutierrez: Okay. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. Mr. Gutierrez: There we go. Board Member Baltay: Thanks, everybody. We are all done. See you. Mr. Gutierrez: All done. Bye-bye. Board Member Hirsch: Thank you. 5.a Packet Pg. 152 DocuSign Envelope ID: AA205E18-AFC9-4C53-8C02-3C98D8C1B01E TO: SUBJECT: DATE: FROM: Bill Comer, All California Signs 180 El Camino Real, Building K Macy’s Signage Exemption [20PLN-00172] April 20, 2021 Samuel Gutierrez, Planner The application, and plans dated February 12, 2021, was reviewed by the ARB Ad Hoc Committee on April 15, 2021 in accordance with condition of approval #5, as stated below. The ARB Ad Hoc Committee comprised of Board members David Hirsch and Peter Baltay. #5 ARB Ad Hoc COMMITTEE: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall return to the ARB Ad Hoc committee for approval of the following items, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development Services: A. Adjust the height of the CL3 & CL4 signage to be the same height. B. Adjust the location of the CL5 signage, recommendation are to shift the signage to the left panel or to locate the sign within the entry archway At the virtual meeting, the Ad Hoc Committee agreed with the revisions presented with the following conditions added: 1. The owner or designee shall place the CL3 sign in the location on the building as shown in the Ad Hoc plan set. 2. The owner or designee shall place the CL4 sign in the location on the building justified “RIGHT” as shown in the Ad Hoc plan set. 3. The owner or designee shall place the CL5 sign in the location on the building justified to the upper left corner of the building as shown in the Ad Hoc plan set. The applicant will ensure these changes/conditions are incorporated into the design and this Ad Hoc Committee Review letter shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit(s). Copies sent to: Project File Michael Bordoni, 415 Broadway 3rd Floor MC 8873, Redwood City, CA 94063 PLANNER’S SIGNATURE Architectural Review Board Ad Hoc Committee Review 5.a Packet Pg. 153 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 12359) Report Type: Ad Hoc Committee Items Meeting Date: 6/17/2021 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 4256 El Camino Real: Ad Hoc Review of Floor Plans Title: 4256 El Camino Real [21PLN-00034]: Ad Hoc Committee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Additional Details to ensure that the garage changes do not change the exterior design of the building. Environmental Assessment: An EIR was certified on June 3, 2020. Zone District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. From:Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1.Discuss and provide direction or approve project revisions. Background On June 4, 2021, the Director of Planning and Development Services approved the subject project. At the Board’s recommendation, a condition was imposed that required certain project elements return to the ARB Ad Hoc Committee. Below are the items that were requested to return and the applicant’s response to the ARB’s comments: Architecture Review Condition: x Project plans are required to be reviewed by the ARB Ad Hoc Committee that include interior floor plans for the lobby staircase to ensure that the proposed garage changes do not change the exterior design of the building. Applicant’s Response: 6 Packet Pg. 154 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 x Plans have been provided that include a side-by-side comparison of the project with a multi-level garage verses the recently approved single level garage design. The plans show no changes to the exterior of the building. A video recording of the Board’s last meeting on this project is available online: http://bit.ly/ARB21MAY6 The Ad Hoc Committee is encouraged to provide direction to staff and the applicant as to whether the proposed changes are sufficient or requires further refinement. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Samuel Gutierrez, Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2225 (650) 329-2575 samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: x Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) x Attachment B: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 6 Packet Pg. 155 6.a Packet Pg. 156 ATTACHMENT B Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll to find “4256 ECR – Parking Revision” 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-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/4256-El-Camino- Real-21PLN-00034 6.b Packet Pg. 157