Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-08-24 Historic Resources 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 three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Historic Resources Board Regular Meeting Agenda: August 24, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 1. 375 Hamilton [17PLN-00224]: HRB Study Session for Preliminary Architectural Review Application for a New Five-Story Parking Garage with One Basement Parking Level with 1,709 sf of Ground Floor Retail, Bike Storage and 330 Parking Spaces Located on a 29,164 s.f. Surface Parking Lot. Zone District: PF (Public Facilities). Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act and a Scoping Session was Held. For More Information Contact Amy French, Chief Planning Official, at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org 2. STUDY SESSION: 2601 E. Bayshore Road, Discussion Regarding Former International Telephone and Telegraph (ITT) Property 3. STUDY SESSION: Historic Resources Board Review of a Proposed Reclassification of the Birge Clark Designed 1927 Building at 526 Waverley in Downtown Palo Alto, from Category 3 on the City's Historic Inventory to Category 2, Prior to Application for Preliminary Architectural Review for Historic Rehabilitation and Potential Upper Floor Addition for Residential Use. Zone District: CD-C(GF)(P). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Sections 15331 Historical Resource Rehabilitation 4. CC/HRB Meeting Final Discussion Topics _______________________ 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 three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Action Items Public Comment Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 5. Approval of Minutes of August 10, 2017 Subcommittee Items Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Historic Resources Board Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The HRB Boardmembers are: Chair Martin Bernstein Vice Chair David Bower Boardmember Brandon Corey Boardmember Beth Bunnenberg Boardmember Roger Kohler Boardmember Michael Makinen Boardmember Margaret Wimmer Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26. Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Board Secretary prior to discussion of the item. Write to us. Email the HRB at: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org. Letters can be delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM the Thursday preceding the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 3:00 PM the day before the meeting will be presented to the Board at the dais. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the HRB after distribution of the agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 8329) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 8/24/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 375 Hamilton Avenue: Downtown Parking Garage (prelim) Title: 375 Hamilton [17PLN-00224]: HRB Study Session for Preliminary Architectural Review Application for a New Five- Story Parking Garage with One Basement Parking Level with 1,709 sf of Ground Floor Retail, Bike Storage and 330 Parking Spaces Located on a 29,164 s.f. Surface Parking Lot. Zone District: PF (Public Facilities). Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act and a Scoping Session was Held. For More Information Contact Amy French, Chief Planning Official, at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Historic Resource Board (HRB): 1. Review and provide comments on this Preliminary Architectural Review application. Report Summary The subject application is a request for preliminary review. No formal direction is provided to the applicant and HRB members should refrain from forming and expressing opinions either in support or against the project. This is an opportunity for the HRB and the public to discuss the project and its context and note that:  The parking garage proposed for 375 Hamilton is adjacent to 526 Waverley Street, a local Category 3 resource on the City’s Historic Inventory; across Hamilton Avenue is the US Post Office, a local Category 1 and National Register historic resource, and nearby is 510 Waverley, a local Category 2 resource; and  The Cultural Resources section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report will discuss the proximity of the parking garage to, and compatibility with, historic resources. 1 Packet Pg. 4 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The Planning and Community Environment Department has performed a cursory review of the concept plans for code compliance as part of the preparation of an Initial Study (Attachment E) and Notice of Preparation. The Notice of Preparation (Attachment F) was issued and the associated comment period concluded. A Scoping Meeting was held with the Planning and Transportation Commission, and a ‘Prescreening’ was conducted by the City Council to provide direction on the approach to amend the PF zone district development standards. The purpose of the HRB meeting, and on September 7, 2017, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) meeting, is to provide the applicant an opportunity to present conceptual project plans to the HRB and ARB and receive initial comments. Board members may identify aspects of the projects that are appropriate given the neighborhood context and consistent with city policies or areas of concern that the applicant may want to reconsider in a formal submittal. Community members are also encouraged to provide early input to the project. Background Project Information Owner: City of Palo Alto Architect: Watry Design, Inc. Representative: Holly Boyd, Public Works Senior Engineer, Project Manager Legal Counsel: Molly Stump, City Attorney Property Information Address: 375 Hamilton Avenue Neighborhood: Downtown Business District Lot Dimensions & Area: L-shaped lot; 29,200 square feet (sq.ft.) of surface parking lot area (concept plans note 29,164 sq.ft. site) Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes Historic Resource(s): Subject property (parking lot) is non-historic; (1) Across Hamilton Av. is 380 Hamilton, the US Post Office, a Category 1 Local and a National Register resource. Register Form, Inventory Form, and a photo are provided as Attachment B; (2) Adjacent site at 526 Waverley St. is a Category 3 Local resource that was modified following HRB/ARB review in February 1998 (new second story fenestration, new rear exit door, and elevator penthouse) and the Inventory Form and photos are provided as Attachment C; (3) Next to 526 Waverley, but not abutting the site, is 510 Waverley, a Category 2 Local resource, shown in photo, Attachment D. Existing Improvement(s): The site is surfaced with asphalt and trees (some protected oak trees) in planters striped for use a public parking lot Existing Land Use(s): Public Facilities - Surface parking lot Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: Subject site is zoned Public Facilities; Adjacent sites fronting Waverly and University are zoned CD-C(GF)(P): East, fronting Waverley: 526, circa 1928, 2-story, recently in retail use (Palo Alto Sport Shop and Toy World Inc.); 550-552, circa 1952, 1-story Prolific Oven retail bakery and Day One retail store; 558-560, 2-story circa 1 Packet Pg. 5 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 1938,Tai Pan ground floor restaurant, and second office space; North: 352-364 University, circa 1948, 2-story, with CVS ground floor retail and second floor office space Adjacent site to the west zoned PF: 345 Hamilton, circa 1979, 4-story plus basement AT&T building (31,610 sf) Nearby sites zoned PF and CD-C (P): South: Post Office, circa 1932, PF zone 510 Waverley, circa 1900, 2-story, GF retail, office upper floors Special Setbacks: 7 feet Along Hamilton Avenue Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Zoning Designation: Public Facilities (PF) Comp. Plan Designation: Regional Community Commercial Context-Based Design: Context Based Criteria are not contained in PF regulations Downtown Urban Design: The project is within the Hamilton Avenue District as described in the Downtown Urban Design Guide SOFA II CAP: NA Baylands Master Plan: NA ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): NA Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not within 150 feet of residential uses or district Located w/in AIA (Airport Influence Area): NA Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: December 2016: Council directed cost and impacts analysis and directed staff to proceed with design and environmental review. The Council staff report is viewable here: 1 Packet Pg. 6 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55028 April 11, 2017: Council provided direction on legislative approach. The Council staff report is viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56784 The video of the Council meeting is viewable here: http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-123/ Council meeting minutes are viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57557 PTC: May 31, 2017: Scoping Meeting The staff report is viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57978 The video of the Council meeting is viewable here: http://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-49/ Council meeting minutes are viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58628 Excerpt Minutes attached to this report (Attachment A) HRB: None ARB: None Infrastructure Plan The new public parking garage was envisioned in the 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan. The applicant proposes construction of the garage to replace and increase surface parking facilities. Project Description The City intends to construct a new above and below grade parking garage providing 331 vehicle spaces at 375 Hamilton Avenue. The plans provide context images, floor plans indicating 331 parking spaces (330 spaces plus 1 space serving 550 Waverley Street), with three options for architectural treatment. The project description is provided as Attachment A. The Notice of Preparation and the Initial Study also contain project descriptions. The City Council directed staff to proceed with full preliminary design of a new 331-space parking garage concept with five levels of above-ground parking, one level of basement parking and retail space along the Waverley frontage (see Staff Report #7942). Three distinct concepts were developed for discussion. The Public Works Department webpage for the ‘Downtown Parking Garage’ is viewable at this link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/downtowngarage. Updates to this website are anticipated. Additional application information and project plans are available through the “Building Eye” website at https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning. The HRB is provided hard-copy project plans. Anticipated Entitlements: The following discretionary applications are anticipated:  Architectural Review – Major (AR). 1 Packet Pg. 7 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5  Rezoning – Text Amendment to the Public Facilities Zone District development standards for public parking garages in the Public Facility zone districts in Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts. The recent Council discussion served the purpose of a “prescreening” preliminary review for rezoning; Council directed staff to prepare revisions to the Public Facility (PF) zoning Ordinance to specifically accommodate public parking garages (see Staff Report #7942). Discussion Preliminary review applications receive a cursory review for compliance with zoning regulations and consistency with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan or other applicable policy documents. A more comprehensive review will occur upon formal submittal, which may reveal other code or policy concerns. At this point in project development, the HRB and ARB are encouraged to provide objective feedback to the City on the preliminary drawings. Public Facilities Zone Development Standards A zoning compliance table is attached (Attachment G) to note where the project would not meet PF Zone standards, and why a text amendment will be part of the formal application request. The text amendment is to relieve City parking structures from meeting maximum standards for setbacks, floor area ratio, and height. Downtown Design Guide and AR Findings The project is identified in the Downtown Design Guide as within the Hamilton Avenue District. The Hamilton Avenue District Goals are as follows:  ‘Promote Hamilton Avenue as an active mixed use district which comfortably accommodates larger scale commercial office, civic and institutional buildings.’  ‘Maintain Hamilton Avenue as a pleasing, tree-lined pedestrian environment with complimentary outdoor amenities to offset the urban intensity which naturally results from the provision of transit service and convenient surface parking.’ The most relevant guidelines within the Hamilton Avenue District section are these:  “Provide pedestrian links from Hamilton Avenue to University Avenue in conjunction with development of the alleys and parking lots.”  Regarding the westerly intersection corner (project site on map): ‘strong building volume recommended’, and ‘opportunity for pedestrian friendly use’. The HRB may wish to discuss the relevance of Architectural Review Finding #2b, which states, “The project has a unified and coherent design that 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.” The HRB and ARB may want to consider comments that relate to:  Scale and mass  Transitions in scale to adjacent properties 1 Packet Pg. 8 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6  Relationship to the neighborhood setting and context  Pedestrian-orientation and design  Access to the site  Consideration to any applicable policy documents  Architectural design, theme, cohesiveness, and quality of materials  Preservation of existing native or mature landscaping or features, if any The submittal of an application for amendment to the Public Facilities Zone District Development Standards is anticipated, in order to allow greater lot coverage and height for public parking garages in the Downtown and California Business Districts. Environmental Review An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared. To start the EIR process, an Initial Study (Attachment E) and Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Attachment F) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was filed on May 12, 2017. An EIR scoping meeting was held at the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) meeting on May 31, 2017. Comments were received at the meeting from two members of the public, and from PTC members. The NOP comment period is now closed. The next step will be the release of a draft EIR (DEIR) after the design is further refined and a formal Architectural Review application is submitted. The Preliminary Review involves no discretionary action and is therefore not a project and not subject to review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Next Steps There is no further action required by the HRB after its discussion of the preliminary plans. The applicant will file the formal applications subsequent to the Preliminary Architectural Review. The ARB is scheduled to hold a study session to review the preliminary application on September 7, 2017. The meetings are webcast and archived through the MediaCenter website (http://midpenmedia.org/local-tv/watch-now/). Report Author & Contact Information HRB1 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2336 amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Preliminary ARB Project Description (PDF)  Attachment B: Part 1- Post Office - National Register form (PDF)  Attachment B: Part 2 post office local inventory form (PDF)  Attachment B: Part 3 Post Office at 380 Hamilton Avenue (DOCX)  Attachment C: Adjacent historic resource - 526 Waverley (PDF)  Attachment C: part 2 Historic Photos 526 Waverley Street (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org 1 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7  Attachment D: Photo of 510 Waverley Street (DOCX)  Attachment E: Draft Initial Study - Signed (PDF)  Attachment F: NOP - Signed (PDF)  Attachment G: Zoning Compliance Table (DOTX)  Attachment H: Project plans - directions to building eye (DOCX) 1 Packet Pg. 10 June 21st, 2017 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor Palo Alto, CA 94303 Re: 375 Hamilton Ave., Downtown Parking Garage, ARB Preliminary Review Project Description To Planning Staff and ARB Members: Attached is the preliminary ARB submittal package for 375 Hamilton Ave., the proposed Downtown Parking Garage. The project applicant is Watry Design Group, with Hayes Group Architects, on behalf of our client, the City of Palo Alto. This package includes eight sets of half size drawings and eight full size drawings, including the site survey, contextual photos, the proposed floor plans, elevations, sections, and perspectives. CONTEXT and EXISTING CONDITIONS The site is located at the east corner of Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street. The rear of the site adjoins the ‘Lane 21’ alley. The surrounding vicinity is a mix of downtown retail and office uses. Southwest of the property, at 345 Hamilton, is the four-story AT&T central office. Northwest along Waverley are several one and two-story retail buildings, including historic buildings at 526 Waverley, a category 3 historic building and 510 Waverley, a category 2 historic building. Across Hamilton, to the Southeast, is the historic, two-story Post Office, a category 1 historic building. Across Waverley to the Northeast is the All Saints Episcopal Church. The site is more than 150 feet from any residentially zoned properties so increased zoning restrictions do not apply. The zone district is PF: Public Facility. The district has a fifty-foot height limit. There is a special setback of seven feet along the Hamilton Ave. property line. Easements are not known at this time. The site area is 29,164 SF, accommodating a surface-level parking lot. There is a public restroom at the corner of Hamilton and Waverley. The Arborist Report identifies eight trees on the property, including one protected Coast Live Oak. The occupants of 526, 550 and 560 Waverley utilize a portion of the site to access the backs of their buildings and pick up trash and recycling. PROPOSED PROJECT Program/Goals Due to an increased parking demand and a shortage of available parking spaces in the downtown, the City of Palo Alto has begun the process for the design of a new parking structure at the corner of Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street. Maximizing the amount of structured parking while integrating the structure within the downtown context with retail storefronts are primary goals for the project. 1.a Packet Pg. 11 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : P r e l i m i n a r y A R B P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) Description/Constraints The proposed building extends to the property line at the Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street edges as well as the interior side lot line shared with the AT&T building. A ground floor, 1,500 SF, retail space is programmed for the Waverley Street frontage. At the north property line, shared with 560 Waverley, the edge of the garage sets back ten feet from the property line, allowing openings for natural ventilation into the parking garage, as well as light to reach the existing windows at 560 Waverley. This necessary setback also creates an opportunity for a pedestrian walkway, focused on and leading to the secondary stair and elevator vertical circulation elements. The primary stair and elevator circulation features are prominently positioned at the corner of Waverley Street and Hamilton Avenue since pedestrian way finding is an important aspect of garage navigation. At this street corner, the building edge erodes, creating a pedestrian court with access to the stair and elevator, as well as an entrance to the ground floor retail space that extends down Waverley Street. In order to maintain access for utilities, services and secondary means of egress for the existing buildings fronting on Waverley Street, the garage sets back sixteen feet from the shared property line at this location. To satisfy the car count goal, the garage is four stories, with parking at the roof level, plus one level of basement parking. The main vehicle entry / exit shall be on Hamilton Avenue near the south corner of the lot since Hamilton is a more travelled way. A secondary vehicular entry / exit shall be at Lane 21. The garage requires substantially open sides to provide natural ventilation for all levels save the basement level that is mechanically ventilated. Options Given the program and the site constraints discussed above, we are presenting three options for the architecture of the new garage for the ARB’s review, discussion and direction for the design team as the project is developed. Our approach in developing the three options for your review is predicated on the belief that the garage should be an integrated building in the context of the downtown rather than aggressive and self- conscious. An integrated building defines itself through program, connections with the site and context as well as streetscape character and compatibility. The program mandates a large, five-story, parking structure with primarily open sides for ventilation and a ground floor retail space fronting Waverley Street. Solving this problem, all options share the same height and footprint as well as façade transparency requirement. However, the three options vary significantly in their response to the context, materiality and streetscape character. One A metal fabric or perforated metal panel wrapped garage creates a semi-solid mass while allowing for ventilation. The semi-solid façade provides interesting visual depth during the day and glowing quality at night for the upper stories. A two-story arcade of plaster or concrete along Hamilton defines the street edge and subtly references the historic post office’s arcade immediately across the street and aligning with the overall height of the post office. Similar to the Hamilton façade, along Waverley, the two-story 1.a Packet Pg. 12 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : P r e l i m i n a r y A R B P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) base of the building aligns with the façade and rhythm of the adjacent building and streetscape to the north. At the entry court, the metal mesh and the arcades disappear revealing the stair and elevator elements. The ground floor retail and seating areas are defined by horizontal canopies between the building columns. Two A metal, semi-solid material wraps the entire garage from the second floor to the fifth floor defining the edge of the garage in a vertical rhythm of bands. Within each band, taking a detail from the AT&T building, “windows” punch through creating a random pattern of shade, shadow and views from within. Defining the ground floor and concealing the parking from view, wrought iron or steel bars in a vertical array wrap the ground floor along Hamilton celebrating the handcraft of the wrought iron of the post office across the street. Along Waverley and at the corner court, a one-story frame of solid material defines the ground floor retail and references the architectural frame of 400 Hamilton. Along Hamilton, in front of the metal array, a linear bench provides opportunities for relaxing in full view of the historic post office. Three Solid fins of material, at random angles intended to create fixed patterns and celebrating the tile roof color of the historic post office, wrap the upper floors to define the volume and partially conceal the cars from below. Along Hamilton, as in Option One, a two-story arcade defines the pedestrian realm and provides opportunities for bench seating. Decorative infill panels of spaced brick reference the brick next door and the craft of the historic post office. Along Waverley Street a two-story façade reference the adjacent building scale and rhythm while defining the retail space. In all options, areas for landscaping, including planted areas and green walls, are provided at Hamilton, Waverley and the pedestrian walkway. New street trees along Hamilton and Waverley shall be coordinated with Palo Alto Urban Forestry. PARKING & BICYCLE SPACES This project shall include 331 total parking spaces. Of these, 8 shall be accessible spaces and provision for 83 electric vehicle chargers 17 to be installed initially. This count also includes 6 spaces serving to the new retail space and 1 space serving 550 Waverley. A long-term bike storage room shall be at Hamilton Avenue near the main vehicle entry/exit. This room shall be approximately 800 square feet and have space for over 60 bicycles. Short-term bicycle storage can be provided at the sidewalk near the retail space. TRASH, COMPOST AND RECYCLING A common refuse storage room shall be at Lane 21 near the secondary vehicle entry / exit. This room shall be approximately 450 square feet. It will serve the Waverley businesses and the proposed new retail space. 1.a Packet Pg. 13 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : P r e l i m i n a r y A R B P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) We look forward to our presentation and discussion with the Architectural Review Board. Please call us at (650) 365-0600x15 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Ken Hayes, AIA Principal cc: Watry Design Group enclosed: Arborist Report, June 2017 1.a Packet Pg. 14 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : P r e l i m i n a r y A R B P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) FHR-8-300 (11-78) United States Department of the Interior Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service National Register of Historic Places Inventory—Nomination Form See instructions in How to Complete National Register Forms Type all entries—complete applicable sections 1. Name__________________27 5" historic United States Post Office (Palo Alto) * and/or common___________________________________^^ 2. Location_________________ street & number ?8° Hamilton Avemu-^________________not for publication city, town Palo Alto vicinity of congressional district 12th state California code 06 county Santa Clara code 085 3. Classification Category Ownership district x public x building(s) private structure both site Public Acquisition object in process being considered Status x occupied unoccupied work in progress Accessible yes: restricted x yes: unrestricted no Present Use agriculture commercial educational entertainment x government industrial military museum park private residence religious scientific transportation other: 4. Owner off Property name U.S. Postal Service, Western Regional Office street & number 850 Cherry Street city, town San Bruno vicinity of state CA 9U099 5. Location of Legal Description courthouse, registry of deeds, etc. County Courthouse street & number 70 W. Hedding Street city, town S3-*- Jose state California 6. Representation in Existing Surveys title Hist °ric and Architectural Resources e|egib|e? __yes date February, 1979 federal __ state __ county x local depository for survey records planning Department T City of Palo Alto city, town pal° A1"to (flee Continuation Sheet)state CA 1.b Packet Pg. 15 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : P a r t 1 - P o s t O f f i c e - N a t i o n a l R e g i s t e r f o r m ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) 7. Description Condition jf, excellent good fair Check or deteriorated _ A_ unalti riiln* ftltore unexposed le Check one jred x original site d moved rf«te Describe the present and original (Iff known) physical appearance The Hamilton Branch Post Office in Palo AHo is located on the southwest corner of Hamilton and Waverly Streets; the site occupies the entire block between Waverly and Gilman Streets. This is the general Civic Center area with the City Hall two blocks to the southwest and the Main Library directly behind City Hall on Forrest Avenue. The Post Office building is sited with the main facade along Hamilton Street. The reinforced concrete structure is set back from the lot line on three sides providing a landscaped area with a variety of trees, a redwood, an oak, a copper beech, and a dawn redwood with a plaque dated 1949. The landscaped area contributes importantly to the building's setting. The structure is a one-story rectangular block with a tiled, hip roof; the tiles are graded in color from a dark reddish brown at the ridge to a lighter, more salmon colored tile at the eaves. The main facade is preceljded by an open arcaded section of eight bays with round arches. It is also roofed with tile. Entrances at either end have the form of tall, round arched openings with bronze frames and ornamental bronze transoms above double doors that were originally bronze with grills, but have been replaced with lighter weight metal doors. Metal, openwork lanterns hang in the arcade. The section of the building at the corner of Hamilton and Gilman Streets contains the Postmaster's Office in a slightly projecting corner block which has a shallow bay window with an ornamental wrought iron grill on the Hamilton Street side and another wrought iron grilled window enclosing a flower box on the Gilman Street side. Other office spaces are also on this side of the building. On the interior, a public lobby extends the full length of the Hamilton Street frontage. The bays correspond to the exterior arcade arches and have round-headed windows with metal frames and amber colored glass. These are repeated on the northwest side of the building. The boxed-beam, wooden ceiling is stained dark; cross beams mark the divisions of the bays. The marble tiled floor has a woven pattern composed with beige and reddish squares. The wainscotting is a variegated, deep red marble. Service windows are framed in wood with the transom section filled with ornamental, wrought iron grills. This window type is repeated in the lock box area. Ornamental metal lantern fixtures hang in front of each entrance. The architectural style of the building is Spanish Mediterranean Revival with a rich vocabulary of decorative detail such as the blue and white tiles set in the second story wall, the wrought iron grills, and the softly modeled belt courses at the roof cornice. The walls are stuccoed in an uneven surface that mimics adobe. The rear portion of the building is occupied by the work room. The service platform and employee entrance is served by a private alley running from Waverly Street to Gilman Street. 1.b Packet Pg. 16 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : P a r t 1 - P o s t O f f i c e - N a t i o n a l R e g i s t e r f o r m ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) 8. Significance Period prehistoric 1400-1499 1500-1599 1600-1699 1700-1799 1800-1899 X1900- Areae of Significance — Check and justify below archeology-prehistoric community planning archeology-historic conservation agriculture economics x architecture education art engineering commerce exploration/settlement communications Industry Invention 1 X landscape architecture law literature military music philosophy x politics/government religion science sculpture social/ humanitarian theater transportation other (specify) Specific dates 1931-33 Builder/Architect Birge M. Clark Statement of Significance (in one paragraph) The Hamilton Station Post Office is historically significant because it was the main post office building for Palo Alto. The architect, Birge M Clark, is the son of Arthur B. Clark and worked with his father on the design of Hoover House, bu^lt as the residence of _. LOU and Herbert Hoover «A 1919. Arthur B. Clark, also an architect, was a member of the Stanford Art Department faculty. Birge M. Clark has been in practice for over 50 years in Palo Alto. The Post Office building was designed and built during tte Great Depression in 1931-33 Because of the economic conditions, the decision had been made in Washington that local architects be employed to design post office and other government buildings as a means of getting more men back to work in a hurry than would have been possible if all the plans had been made in Washington. Upon taking the first sketches back to the Treasury Department, at that time charged with the design of most government buildings, Clark was informed that, "this is not formal or stiff enough for a federal building." Clark replied, "I realize that it is not formal or stiff, but Mrs. Hoover told me that she hoped that I was keeping to the Monterey or Early California Style and also relating to the arcades and tile roofs of Stanford University. I realize, however, that this is not the way I should get instructions, and will follow your guidance." Well, the man answered him, "maybe that method is as good as any. Come back after lunch and we will let you know." After lunch they stated, "Proceed with your drawings as presented." The building is architecturally significant because of its exemplary design in keeping with the Mediterranean influenced architecture that was built in Palo Alto and on the Stanford University campus, it was a rare attempt to design a local post office building in keeping with a popular regional style. The first sketches were made in 1931, with formal drawings completed in 1932. Construction began in 1932; the building was completed in 1933. 1.b Packet Pg. 17 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : P a r t 1 - P o s t O f f i c e - N a t i o n a l R e g i s t e r f o r m ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) 9. Major Bibliographical References Archives of Palo Alto Historical Association 10. Geographical Data Acreage of nominated Quadranqle name ^ property "5/4+ >alo Alto Otiarfrannte *calft 1:2^000 UMT References A I } 9 PI 7 i Zf|If |7 i 0 | l^i 1 l^ i^lS 9 !0 ! i Zone Easting Northing C|_jJ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I El . I I I i I . . I I i I . I I . I G B Zone Easting Pi I I I I I J_Northing 1,1,1, 1_I J I I I I I Hi , I I I l j_i I . i J_I Verbal boundary description and justificationCorner of Gilman and Hamilton, 225' NE to Waverly, then 110' SE along Waverly, then 225 1 SW to Gilman, then 150 f N¥ to point of origin* List all states and counties for properties overlapping state or county boundaries state code county code state code county code 11. Form Prepared By Birge M* Clark, Architect organization Palo Alto Historical Association date July 15, 1980 3200 Hanover Street telephone city or town Palo Alto Californiastate 12. State Historic Preservation Officer Certification The evaluated significance of this property within the state is: __ national __ state >^ local As the designated State Historic Preservation Officer for the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89- 665), I hereby nominate this property for inclusion in the National Register and certify that it has been evaluated according to the criteria and procedures set forth by the Heritage Conservation and Recreation, Service. State Historic Preservation Officer signature / ^-^. title date For HCRS use only , •• *• ;;^^^--- • .,'-, '.-..•. -\. •• • • • I hereby certify that this property is Included.^ the National .Register•i •, ••• • :*' "'•:•"' ',!'„-• '' " &!oj©r0ci in tiiQ 6PO 930 635 1.b Packet Pg. 18 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : P a r t 1 - P o s t O f f i c e - N a t i o n a l R e g i s t e r f o r m ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) FHR-8-300A (11/78) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM CONTINUATION SHEET ITEM NUMBER PAGE SUPPLEMENTAL PAGE ONE To be added under 6. REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS: Santa Clara County Heritage Resources Inventory 1979Depository for survey records: County Planning Department, San Jose Point of Historical Interest, SC1-043 Depository for records: State Preservation OfficeSacramento, California 1.b Packet Pg. 19 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : P a r t 1 - P o s t O f f i c e - N a t i o n a l R e g i s t e r f o r m ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) L J L_*J L? L_•! 1.b Packet Pg. 20 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : P a r t 1 - P o s t O f f i c e - N a t i o n a l R e g i s t e r f o r m ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) 1. b Pa c k e t P g . 2 1 Attachment: Attachment B: Part 1- Post Office - National Register form (8329 : 375 Hamilton Avenue: Downtown Parking Garage (prelim)) ; ~r :: ~ L . j r l —-" * — '- ^ % . '" 1. b Pa c k e t P g . 2 2 Attachment: Attachment B: Part 1- Post Office - National Register form (8329 : 375 Hamilton Avenue: Downtown Parking Garage (prelim)) ^-'.'--Iprj^n^Y^ tt.1! !,.!>'A"* ^ ^ | ^ ' I [ i*/ii:."i,.a' j 'I __^ j-»^ N „„ Jl I 111 "J "'_''" '^-' £,',i?"" ~~- -If^L 'I . i^a ec:"r^cIii *-«'' JD t+yr'- /7?. £€+r4. &t7r 3/t*fs*~ Ctfjxfrr** £mt* a. a f,4*nif*n »***>*« ***oftSST^K c-H-PCwaso 1.b Packet Pg. 23 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : P a r t 1 - P o s t O f f i c e - N a t i o n a l R e g i s t e r f o r m ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : 1.b Packet Pg. 24 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : P a r t 1 - P o s t O f f i c e - N a t i o n a l R e g i s t e r f o r m ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) Pa c k e t P g . 2 5 Attachment: Attachment B: Part 2 post office local inventory form (8329 : 375 Hamilton Avenue: Pa c k e t P g . 2 6 Attachment: Attachment B: Part 2 post office local inventory form (8329 : 375 Hamilton Avenue: Post Office at 380 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto Packet Pg. 27 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : P a r t 3 P o s t O f f i c e a t 3 8 0 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) 1. c Pa c k e t P g . 2 8 Attachment: Attachment C: Adjacent historic resource - 526 Waverley (8329 : 375 Hamilton Avenue: 1. c Pa c k e t P g . 2 9 Attachment: Attachment C: Adjacent historic resource - 526 Waverley (8329 : 375 Hamilton Avenue: 526 Waverley Street – Historic Photos Packet Pg. 30 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : p a r t 2 H i s t o r i c P h o t o s 5 2 6 W a v e r l e y S t r e e t ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) 510 Waverley Street Category 2 Resource on Local Historic Inventory 1.d Packet Pg. 31 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : P h o t o o f 5 1 0 W a v e r l e y S t r e e t ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 1 May 12, 2017  City of Palo Alto  Department of Planning & Community Environment  California Environmental Quality Act  CITY OF PALO ALTO  INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM  1.Project Title:City of Palo Alto Parking Structure at 375 Hamilton  Avenue (aka Downtown Parking Garage)  2.Lead Agency Name and Address:City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue   Palo Alto, California 94301  3.Contact Person and Phone Number:Holly Boyd, Senior Engineer  Department of Public Works  Telephone: (650) 329‐2612  Fax: (650) 329‐2154  Email: Holly.Boyd@cityofpaloalto.org  4.Project Location:375 Hamilton Avenue in the Downtown Business  District, Northwest corner of Hamilton Avenue and  Waverley Street, within the city of Palo Alto, Santa  Clara County, California. See Figure 1.  5.Project Sponsor's Name and Address:City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue   Palo Alto, California 94301  6.General Plan Designation:  Community Commercial (CC)  7.Zoning:Public Facilities (PF)  8.Existing Plan Area Land Uses:The project lot is abutted by four developed sites.  These include: 345 Hamilton, 1958 building occupied  by AT&T and Excel Aviation (Lot 102), 526 Waverley, a  1928 building, Category 3 historic resource most  recently occupied by retail use (Palo Alto Sport Shop  and Toy World Inc.) (Lot 83), 550‐552 Waverley, a 1952  building occupied by the Prolific Oven retail bakery and  Day One retail store (Lot 84), and 558‐560 Waverley, a  1938 building housing  the Tai Pan Restaurant on the  ground floor and second office space (Lot 85). (Shown  on Figure 1) The existing parking lot serves restaurant  and retail uses along Waverley Street and provides  rear‐entry parking to the CVS market.  1.e Packet Pg. 32 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 2 May 12, 2017  Figure 1. Downtown Parking Garage Site at 375 Hamilton Avenue  9.Description of Project: The City of Palo Alto (City/project applicant) proposes to construct a parking garage on an existing City‐ owned surface Parking Lot D to provide a net increase of 205 to 329 public parking stalls to address  additional parking demand within the City’s Downtown Area.  The subject site is 29,200 SF in area, and  has 86 existing parking spaces. Parking is currently limited to two‐hour parking with no permit parking  provided. There are four existing access points from adjacent streets. The EIR prepared for the project  would evaluate build alternatives for replacing the existing surface lot parking.    The Project includes the following primary elements:   •A new five level public parking garage over one basement parking level, providing approximately 291‐415 spaces, and associated site improvements. •An approximately 3,800 SF or less single‐tenant commercial shell space building fronting Waverley Street, to be used as commercial retail space for new or existing businesses. 1.e Packet Pg. 33 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 3 May 12, 2017  •Other proposed options being considered include incorporating a bike station, mechanical parking system, and a photovoltaic system. 10.Required Approvals: The proposed project is within the City’s jurisdiction and will require approval from the City Council.  As  currently planned, the proposed parking garage will require changes to the zoning district ordinance to  allow for the planned lot coverage, floor area, height and setbacks.   ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:   The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at  least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following  pages.   Aesthetics  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Public Services   Agricultural and Forestry  Hazards & Hazardous Materials  Recreation   Resources  Hydrology/Water Quality  Transportation/Traffic   Air Quality  Land Use/Planning  Utilities/Service Systems   Biological Resources  Mineral Resources  Energy   Cultural Resources  Noise  Mandatory Findings of Significance   Geology/Soils  Population/Housing DETERMINATION:  On the basis of this initial evaluation:   I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a  NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.   I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment,  there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by  or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.   I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.   I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially  significant unless mitigated impact" on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been  adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has  been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached  sheets, if the effect is a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated  impact.” An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects  that remain to be addressed.   I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment,  because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or  NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated  1.e Packet Pg. 34 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) 1. e Pa c k e t P g . 3 5 Attachment: Attachment E: Draft Initial Study - Signed (8329 : 375 Hamilton Avenue: Downtown Parking Less Than   Significant  Potentially with Less Than  Significant Mitigation Significant No  Impact Incorporated Impact Impact    City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 5 May 12, 2017  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:    I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:        a) Substantially degrade the existing visual  character or quality of the area and its  surroundings?    The project site and immediate vicinity  include commercial buildings, including listed  historic resources, and parking lots similar to  the proposed project. There are no impacts  anticipated on visual characteristics or scenic  quality of surrounding area.  There are  different perspectives on compatibility of  new buildings with existing architectural  context.            b) Significantly alter public viewsheds or view  corridors or scenic resources (such as trees,  rocks, outcroppings or historic buildings)  along a scenic highway?    There are no scenic routes or resources  located in the project area. The project is  located in the City downtown area in an area  with similar land use. The project will not  demolish or replace existing buildings, but  will remove existing protected trees. There  are no direct impacts anticipated on public  viewsheds, scenic resources or historic  buildings.             c) Create a new source of substantial light or  glare which would adversely affect day or  nighttime views in the area?      It is not anticipated that the project would  result in the addition of lights and glare as a  result of the vehicles head lights and interior  building lights.  It is anticipated that light and  glare from the project would be less than  significant.             d) Substantially shadow public open space  (other than public streets and adjacent  sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.  from September 21 to March 21?          1.e Packet Pg. 36 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) Less Than   Significant  Potentially with Less Than  Significant Mitigation Significant No  Impact Incorporated Impact Impact    City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 6 May 12, 2017  The project would replace a surface parking  lot with a five story parking garage building.  There are not any open spaces within the  project area. The project would not result in  shadow impact on the public open space.    II. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. (In  determining whether impacts to agricultural  resources are significant environmental effects,  lead agencies may refer to the California  Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment  Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of  Conservation as an optional model to use in  assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In  determining whether impacts to forest resources,  including timberland, are significant  environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to  information compiled by the California  Department of Forestry and Fire Protection  regarding the state’s inventory of forest land,  including the Forest and Range Assessment  Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project;  and forest carbon measurement methodology  provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the  California Air Resources Board.) Would the  project:         a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or  Farmland of Statewide Importance  (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared  pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and  Monitoring Program of the California  Resources Agency, to non‐agricultural use?     As documented on the California Resources  Agency Farmland Mapping and Monitoring  Program maps, the project is located in an  area designated as Urban and Built‐Up Land.  The project would not convert any Farmland  to non‐agricultural use.            b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural  use, or a Williamson Act contract?    The project site is zoned and used as  Downtown Commercial District (Pedestrian  Shopping). The project does not conflict with  any zoning for agricultural use or Williamson  Act contract.         1.e Packet Pg. 37 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) Less Than   Significant  Potentially with Less Than  Significant Mitigation Significant No  Impact Incorporated Impact Impact    City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 7 May 12, 2017  c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause  rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public  Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland  (as defined by Public Resources Code section  4526), or timberland zoned Timberland  Production (as defined by Government Code  section 51104(g))?    The project site is zoned and used as  Downtown Commercial District (Pedestrian  Shopping). The project does not conflict with  any zoning of forest land, or timberland and  timberland production.            d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion  of forest land to non‐forest use?    There is no forest land in the project area.  The project coverts existing parking lot to a  parking garage, and would not result in the  conversion of forest land to non‐forest use.               e) Involve other changes in the existing  environment which, due to their location or  nature, could result in conversion of Farmland  to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest  land to non‐forest use?    There is no farmland or forest land within or  near the project site. The proposed project  does not involve any changes which would  directly or indirectly result in conversion of  farmland to non‐agricultural use or  conversion of forest land to non‐forest use.          III. AIR QUALITY. (Where available, the significance  criteria established by the applicable air quality  management or air pollution control district may  be relied upon to make the following  determinations.) Would the project:         a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of  the applicable air quality plan? (such as the  Bay Area Clean Air Plan)    There is a potential for air quality impacts as  a result of the project. The consistency of the  proposed project implementation with  adopted, applicable air quality plans will be        1.e Packet Pg. 38 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 8 May 12, 2017  evaluated in the EIR.  b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute  substantially to an existing or projected air  quality violation?    There is a potential for increased emissions  from the project activities and uses such as  increased vehicle traffic, and building  equipment operation. These activities could  result in exceeding Bay Area Air Quality  Management District (BAAQMD) significant  thresholds for pollutants of concern such as  particulate matter 10 microns or smaller in  diameter (PM10) and 2.5 microns or smaller  in diameter (PM2.5). The project may also  result in emission of reactive organic gases  (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX), which are  precursors to ozone.  There are also potential  air quality impacts as a result of project  construction activities. The potential of the  project to violate air quality standards or  contribute to existing or projected air quality  violation due to construction activities and  operation will be addressed in the EIR.            c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net  increase of any criteria pollutant for which  the project region is non‐attainment under  an applicable federal or state ambient air  quality standard (including releasing  emissions which exceed quantitative  thresholds for ozone precursors)?    The EIR will address individual and  cumulative impacts on criteria pollutants for  which the project region is non‐attainment  as described under question III.b above.          d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial  pollutant concentrations?    The project has the potential to expose  sensitive receptors, if the air quality analysis  determined that the project would  contribute to substantial increase in  pollutants in the project area.  Impacts on  sensitive receptors will be addressed in the  EIR.                                     1.e Packet Pg. 39 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 9 May 12, 2017  e) Create objectionable odors affecting a  substantial number of people?    It is not anticipated that the added number of  vehicles using the site for parking would  create minimal increase in objectionable  odors affecting people. Construction  equipment may create objectionable odors  for short periods that would affect people in  the immediate vicinity of the project area.   The project is not anticipated to create  objectionable odors affecting substantial  number of people.                                    IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:    a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either  directly or through habitat modifications, on  any species identified as a candidate,  sensitive, or special‐status species in local or  regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by  the California Department of Fish and Wildlife  or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?    The project will be constructed on a site that  consists of a paved parking lot. However, a  few mature trees may be removed to allow  for the construction of the garage building.  Trees could provide nesting habitat for  raptors and other migratory birds. The EIR  would evaluate the project area to identify  the presence of any bird species that are  considered as candidates, sensitive, or special  status species by the CDFG, and USFWS. The  EIR would also evaluate the project  compliance with the state and federal  Endangered Species Act, as well as,  and also  species protection under the federal  Migratory Bird Treaty Act and further  protection of raptor nests under Section  3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code.     b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any  riparian habitat or other sensitive natural  community identified in local or regional  plans, policies, or regulations, or by the  California Department of Fish and Wildlife or  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?                                                                   1.e Packet Pg. 40 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 10 May 12, 2017  There are no riparian habitats or species  protection under the federal Migratory Bird  Treaty Act and further protection of raptor  nests under Section 3503.5 of the California  Fish and Game Code.  c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally  protected wetlands as defined by Section 404  of the Clean Water Act (including, but not  limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)  through direct removal, filling, hydrological  interruption, or other means?    Wetlands are areas that periodically or  permanently covered with ground water and  support vegetation adapted to life in  saturated soil.  Wetlands could support fish  and wildlife, function as stormwater storage  and flood areas, and potentially ground water  recharge.   According to the National Wetland  Inventory for surface waters and wetlands,  there are no waters or wetlands within the  project area. There are no wetlands within  the project area, and it is anticipated that the  project would not have impacts on wetlands  in any means.              d) Interfere substantially with the movement of  any native resident or migratory fish or  wildlife species or with established native  resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or  impede the use of native wildlife nursery  sites?    The only wildlife anticipated to be present  within the project area is wildlife associated  with built urban environment for commercial  uses. Wildlife may include rodents, and other  small animals not restricted by the type of  developments in the project area. Trees in  the project area provide nesting habitats for  native and migratory birds. It is anticipated  that the project would have less than  significant impacts as a result of interference  with wildlife movement.              e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances  protecting biological resources, such as a tree  preservation policy or ordinance?          1.e Packet Pg. 41 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 11 May 12, 2017  The project includes removal of protected  trees and would be subject to the City tree  removal ordinances. A survey of the affected  trees would be completed for the EIR. The  EIR would include applicable tree  preservation/ replacement measures as  required by regulations. One‐one  replacement on the site may not be feasible.    f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted  Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural  Community Conservation Plan, or other  approved, local, regional, or State habitat  conservation plan?    There is no Habitat Conservation Plan,  Natural Community Conservation Plan, or  other adopted habitat conservation plan  applicable to the project site.          V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:        a) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or  eligible for listing on the National and/or  California Register, or listed on the City’s  Historic Inventory?    The City of Palo Alto inventory of downtown  area shows several historic buildings within  close proximity of the project area. The most  prominent building is the U.S Post Office  located across the street from the project  site, which is listed on the National Register  for Historic Places. However, it is not  anticipated that the project would affect the  post office building.  The adjacent building  located at 526 Waverley Street is listed on  the City’s Historic Inventory as a Category 3  historic resource.  Other adjacent buildings  are more than 50 years old and are therefore  potentially eligible for listing. The EIR would  address the proximity of the historic  properties and any required measures to  avoid impacts to these resources.              b) Eliminate important examples of major  periods of California history or prehistory?    Excavation would be required for the        1.e Packet Pg. 42 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 12 May 12, 2017  construction of the project. Alternative C  would require excavation of significant  depth. Previous construction at the project  site and nearby sites would likely have  disturbed archeological sites. However,  considering the depth of excavation required  for the project, there is a potential to disrupt,  alter, or eliminate undiscovered archeological  resources. The EIR would address any  measures required to avoid impacts on  potential archeological resources.      c) Cause a substantial adverse change in the  significance of an archaeological resource  pursuant to 15064.5?    See response to question V.b above.         d) Disturb any human remains, including those  interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?    The project could potentially disrupt, alter, or  eliminate undiscovered archaeological  resources, potentially including Native  American remains. The EIR would evaluate  this issue to address necessary measures for  the potential of the project disturbing any  human remains.            e) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique  paleontological resource or site or unique  geologic feature?     Previous land development of the site would  likely have disturbed or removed    paleontological resources that may have  existed. However, due to the excavation  work required for the construction of the  project, the project could have the potential  to   disrupt, alter, or eliminate as‐yet  undiscovered paleontological resources. The  EIR would evaluate this issue to address  necessary measures for the potential of the  project disturbing or destroying any  paleontological resources.          f)  Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural  resource that is recognized by City Council  resolution?            1.e Packet Pg. 43 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 13 May 12, 2017  See response to question V.a and b above.    g)  Cause a substantial adverse change in the  significance of a tribal cultural resource,  defined in Public Resources Code Section  21074 as either a site, feature, place, or  cultural landscape that is geographically  defined in terms of the size and scope of the  landscape, sacred place, or object with  cultural value to a California Native American  Tribe, and that is:                1) a site, feature, place, cultural landscape  that is geographically defined in terms of the  size and scope of the landscape, sacred place,  or object with cultural value to a California  Native American Tribe, that is listed or  eligible for listing on the California Register of  Historical Resources, or on a local register of  historical resources as defined in Public  Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or    2) a resource determined by a lead agency, in  its discretion and supported by substantial  evidence, to be significant according to the  historical register criteria in Public Resources  Code section 5024.1 (c), and considering the  significance of the resource to a California  Native American tribe.         VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:        a) Expose people or structures to potential  substantial adverse effects, including the risk  of loss, injury, or death involving:         i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as  delineated on the most recent Alquist‐ Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map  issued by the State Geologist for the area  or based on other substantial evidence of  a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines  and Geology Special Publication 42.)    According to Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake  Fault Zoning Map for the Palo Alto 7.5  Minute Quadrangle Map, there are no  mapped faults within or adjacent to the  project site, nor is the project site within        1.e Packet Pg. 44 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 14 May 12, 2017  fault zone. The closest fault is the San  Andreas Fault, located approximately over  5 miles southwest of the project site.      ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?    Due to the presence of nearby active  faults, the project area is likely to  experience moderate to strong  earthquakes during the design life of the  project. Settlements caused by ground  shaking are non‐uniformly distributed and  can result in damage to buildings and  structures. Degrees of settlements  resulting from seismic ground shaking are  related to magnitude and distance of  earth quakes. Buildings are required to be  designed and constructed to avoid risks of  seismic ground shaking to people and  properties.  The EIR would evaluate the  potential risks at the project location and  measures to avoid and minimize the  potential impacts.                iii) Seismic‐related ground failure, including  liquefaction?    Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which  the strength and stiffness of a soil are  reduced (behaves like a liquid) by  earthquake shaking of significant duration  or other rapidly applied loading.  Liquefaction and related types of ground  failure are of greatest concern under  conditions with loose to medium dense  cohesionless soils, shallow groundwater  (typically within 50 feet of ground surface)  and sustained ground shaking.    The EIR would evaluate potential impacts    that could be caused by liquefaction and  seismic‐related ground failure factors. The  EIR will identify potential impacts and  mitigation measures to avoid and  minimize impacts.            1.e Packet Pg. 45 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 15 May 12, 2017  iv) Landslides?    The topography within the project area is    flat. Landslide considerations are limited  to stability of excavations for construction  of the project. This issue will be evaluated  for the various project alternatives and  addressed in the EIR and during the  design phase of the project.          v) Expansive soils?    A study of the characterization and  consideration of site‐specific geologic and  soils conditions would be prepared for the  project and addressed in the EIR.  Project  specific soil test would be performed to  provide information regarding subsurface  geology, ground‐water levels, and the  engineering characteristics of soils in the  project area.     State and local planning, building, and  engineering regulations will also be  considered in addressing structures,  excavation, foundations, retaining walls,  and grading activities. The EIR will  describe recommendations to mitigate  effects of soils types and related factors in  the design of the project.            b)  Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of  topsoil?    Project construction would involve grading,  excavation, or other activities that could  temporarily expose disturbed soils to erosion.  The EIR will address the potential for erosion  that could occur during construction  activities, and applicable best management  practices according to the City and state  regulations.     Best management will also be implemented  as part of measures to avoid and minimize  effects of soil erosion on water quality. See  Hydrology and Water Quality section.          1.e Packet Pg. 46 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 16 May 12, 2017  c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is  unstable, or that would become unstable as a  result of the project, and potentially result in  on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading,  subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?    See response to question VI.a. and VI.a.v.  above.            d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in  Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform Building Code  (1994), creating substantial risks to life or  property?            See response to question VI.a.v above.                            e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting  the use of septic tanks or alternative  wastewater disposal systems where sewers  are not available for the disposal of  wastewater?    No use of septic tanks or alternative  wastewater disposal systems is proposed for  the project site. The proposed project would  have no impact related to the capacity of  local soils to effectively accommodate septic  systems.          f) Expose people or property to major geologic  hazards that cannot be mitigated through the  use of standard engineering design and  seismic safety techniques?     It is not anticipated that the project would  expose people and property to major  geological hazards that cannot be mitigated  with consideration of all applicable  engineering design and seismic safety  techniques            VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the  project:         a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either  directly or indirectly, that may have a  significant impact on the environment?     Greenhouse gas emissions would increase at          1.e Packet Pg. 47 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 17 May 12, 2017  as a result of new traffic attracted to the area  by the parking the facility. The greenhouse  gases emission as a result of the project  would be evaluated to determine if the  project would result in exceedance of  BAAQMA significant thresholds.      b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or  regulation adopted for the purpose of  reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?     The project exceedance of greenhouse gas  emissions will be evaluated to determine  impacts on applicable plans and policies  adopted for the reduction of greenhouse  gases. The EIR would evaluate measures that  can be adopted as part of the project in order  to minimize impacts.            VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would  the project:         a) Create a significant hazard to the public or  the environment through the routine  transport, use, or disposal of hazardous  materials?    The project would not result in routine  transport, use, or disposal of hazardous  substances.              b) Create a significant hazard to the public or  the environment through reasonably  foreseeable upset and accident conditions  involving the release of hazardous materials  into the environment?    See response to question VIII.a above.            c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle  hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,  substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile  of an existing or proposed school?    There are no schools within one quarter mile  of the project area. In addition, the project  would not result in the emission or the need  to handle hazardous material.            1.e Packet Pg. 48 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 18 May 12, 2017  d) Create a significant hazard to the public or  the environment from existing hazardous  materials contamination by exposing future  occupants or users of the site to  contamination either in excess of ground soil  and groundwater cleanup goals developed for  the site or from the location on listed  hazardous materials sites complied pursuant  to Government Code section 65962.5?    The project is located in an area that has  been developed with various commercial  land uses. The EIR will investigate the    presence of existing hazardous material and  potential contamination of soil and ground  water in the project area. If contamination is  identified, the EIR will address all necessary  measures to avoid exposure of the public or  the environment to hazardous material.             e) For a project located within an airport land  use plan or, where such a plan has not been  adopted, within two miles of a public airport  or public use airport, would the project result  in a safety hazard for people residing or  working in the project area?    The project is not located within, or two  miles from land designated or used as airport  land.          f) For a project within the vicinity of a private  airstrip, would the project result in a safety  hazard for people residing or working in the  project area?    See response to question VIII.d above.            g) Impair implementation of or physically  interfere with an adopted emergency  response plan or emergency evacuation plan?    The project would not result in changes to  the roadway and transportation system and  would not create physical changes that would  interfere with emergency response or  evacuation plans.    The EIR would evaluate impacts on traffic and        1.e Packet Pg. 49 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 19 May 12, 2017  potential road closures during construction,  as well as measures to avoid impacts to  emergency services.        h) Expose people or structures to a significant  risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland  fires, including where wildlands are adjacent  to urbanized areas or where residences are  intermixed with wildlands?    According to the Santa Clara County Fire  Hazards Map, the City of Palo Alto is not in a  moderate, high, or very high fuel hazard  zone. The project site and vicinity are built  environments largely devoid of wildfire‐ prone vegetation.          IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the  project:         a) Violate any water quality standards or waste  discharge requirements?    The existing site for the proposed project is a  paved parking lot. It is not anticipated that  the project would have a significant increase  to impervious surface subject to storm water  impacts. A stormwater control plan will be  prepared to address existing untreated storm  water and any potential future effects on  storm water facilities. The plan would identify  required measures to meet standards and  requirements of the NPDES permit.  The plan  would address the operation and  maintenance of the stormwater facilities.       The proposed project would be constructed  on a lot size less than one acre. If the  construction activities would disturb more  than one acre, the project would require  submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the  RWQB before start of construction. This  would also require the implementation of  Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan  (SWPPP) containing Best Management  Practices (BMPs) during construction. The EIR  will evaluate potential impacts on water  quality as a result of the operation and  construction of the project.        1.e Packet Pg. 50 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 20 May 12, 2017  b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or  interfere substantially with groundwater  recharge such that there would be a net  deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the  local groundwater table level (e.g., the  production rate of pre‐existing nearby wells  would drop to a level which would not  support existing land uses or planned uses for  which permits have been granted)?     The project does not result in the use of  groundwater and would not affect  groundwater recharge.  Dewatering during  construction may be addressed with standard  approval conditions.            c) Substantially alter the existing drainage  pattern (increase the rate, volume, or flow  duration of storm water runoff) of the site or  area, including through the alteration of the  course of a stream or river, in a manner which  would result in new or increased flooding on  or off‐site?    It is not anticipated that the project would  increase the rate, volume or flow duration of  stormwater runoffs. The project does not   propose to alter courses of streams or rivers.          d) Result in stream bank instability?    The project site is not located near a stream.            e) Significantly alter the existing drainage  pattern (increase the rate, volume, or flow  duration) of the site or area, including  through the alteration of the course of a  stream or river, or substantially increase the  rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner  which would result in flooding on‐ or off‐site?    The project would not result in significant  increase in rate, volume, or flow duration of  stormwater runoff. The stormwater system in  the project area would be evaluated to  address needed drainage improvements and  potential for on‐ or off‐site flooding.               1.e Packet Pg. 51 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 21 May 12, 2017  f) Create or contribute runoff water which  would exceed the capacity of existing or  planned stormwater drainage systems or  provide substantial additional sources of  polluted runoff?    See response to questions IX.a and IX.e  above.            g) Provide substantial additional sources of  pollutants associated with urban runoff or  otherwise substantially degrade water  quality?    See response to questions IX.a and IX.e  above.          h)  Place housing within a 100‐year flood hazard  area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard  Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or  other flood hazard delineation map?    Although Palo Alto contains no areas within a  100‐year flood hazard area as mapped on a  federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood  Insurance Rate Map, the EIR would evaluate  adequacy of the storm drains to handle  potential localized flooding during storm  events. In addition, due to the proximity of  the project area to the San Francisco Bay  region, the EIR will address potential impacts  on the project from global climate change on  the rise of sea levels.        i) Place within a 100‐year flood hazard area  structures which would impede or redirect  flood flows?    The project is not located in 100‐year flood  hazard area, and does not propose the  construction of a structure that would  impede or direct flows.          j) Expose people or structures to a significant  risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,  including flooding as a result of the failure of  a levee or dam?    The project does not propose the        1.e Packet Pg. 52 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 22 May 12, 2017  construction of housing or other  developments within a 100‐years flood  hazard area.     According to the EIR prepared for the Palo  Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, the project  area is within Dam Inundation area for Lake  Lagunita, and possibly Searsville Lake.   The  EIR will address potential impacts from dams  failure on inundation area.            k) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or  mudflow?     A seiche is a tidal change in an enclosed or  semi‐enclosed water body caused by  sustained high winds or an earthquake. A  tsunami is a series of waves created when a  body of water such as an ocean is rapidly  displaced on a massive scale, most commonly  as the result of an earthquake. Palo Alto is  not in a tsunami/seiche area or area  susceptible to a mudflow. There is no impact  anticipated on the project area from seiche,  tsunami or mudflow.            X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:     a) Physically divide an established community?    The project is located within the commercially  developed downtown area of the City and  does not include residential use. It is not  anticipated that the project would physically  divide an established community          b) Conflict with any applicable City land use plan,  policy, or regulation (including not limited to  the Comprehensive Plan, CAP, or the City’s  Zoning Ordinances adopted for the purpose of  avoiding or mitigating an environmental  effect.    i) Substantially adversely change the type of  intensity of existing o planned land use  patterns in area?    The project would increase the number of  parking spaces available in the downtown  area to meet the existing need for parking.        1.e Packet Pg. 53 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 23 May 12, 2017  The project is compatible with existing  land use designation (community  commercial) but seeks zoning code  changes to allow for greater intensity of  use beyond existing development  standards of the Public Facilities zoning  designation.  A text amendment to the  Public Facilities zone district will be  proposed as part of this project. It is not  anticipated to change the type and  intensity of existing or planned land use  pattern in the area. The EIR would  evaluate the project plans in relationship  to the City adopted comprehensive plan to  demonstrate compatibility with the City  plan for the project and surrounding area.   ii) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or  with the general character of the  surrounding area, including density and  building height.    The building height and character of the  building would be evaluated for  compatibility with the general character of  the surrounding area. Some may view as  incompatible with general character,  density and building height given the five  story parking garage would be next to a  Category 3 resource and across the street  from a low‐profile National Register  historic resource. See response to question Xb  above.    iii) Conflict with established residential,  recreational, religious, or scientific uses of  an area?    The project provides additional parking  facilities to accommodate commercial and  other facilities and services available in the  project area.      c) Conflict with an applicable habitat  conversation or natural community  conversation plan?    There is no habitat conservation plan or  natural community conservation plan in this  project area.        1.e Packet Pg. 54 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 24 May 12, 2017  XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:  a) Result in the loss of availability of a known  mineral resource that would be of value to  the region and the residents of the state?    The project is located in an area developed  and designated for commercial land use. The  project would not result in the loss of land  with known mineral resources.              b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally  important mineral resource recovery site  delineated on a local general plan, specific  plan, or other land use plan?    See response to question XI.a above.          XII. NOISE. Would the project result in:        a) Exposure of persons to or generation of  excessive ground borne vibrations or ground  borne noise levels?    Construction activities would result in  excessive ground born vibration and noise  levels. Impacts would be temporary and for  short periods during equipment operation for  construction activities such as and demolition  and excavation.    b) Exposure of persons to or generation of  noise levels in excess of standards established  in the local general plan or the municipal  code, State standards, or applicable  standards of other agencies, including but not  limited to:    i) Result in indoor noise levels for residential  development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB?    There is no residential development  within the immediate project area;  housing units are found along Waverley  Street one block south of the project. The  project is not anticipated to have long‐ term noise impacts on residents.    ii) Result in instantaneous noise levels of  50dB or more in a bedroom or 55 dB or                                 1.e Packet Pg. 55 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 25 May 12, 2017  more measures from other rooms inside a  house?    The sites in the immediate vicinity are  developed as commercial properties, and  the project is not anticipated to have long‐ term noise impacts on houses.    c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase  in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity  above levels existing without the project,  including:    i) Cause the average 24‐hour noise level  (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or  more in an existing residential area, even  if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB?    ii) Cause the Ldn to increase by three dB or  more in an existing residential area,  thereby causing the Ldn in the area to  exceed 60 dB?    iii) Cause an increase of three dB or more in  an existing residential area where the Ldn  currently exceeds 60 dB?    See response to questions XII.b above.   Construction noise may result in  temporary noise impacts during  construction hours. Standard conditions  require compliance with the City’s noise  ordinance and construction hours.          d) A substantial permanent increase in ambient  noise levels in the project vicinity above levels  existing without the project.    See response to questions XII.b above.                 e) For a project located within an airport land  use plan or, where such a plan has not been  adopted, within two miles of a public airport  or public use airport, would the project  expose people residing or working in the  project area to excessive noise levels?    The project is not located within, or two miles  from land designated or used as airport land.        1.e Packet Pg. 56 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 26 May 12, 2017  f) For a project within the vicinity of a private  airstrip, would the project expose people  residing or working in the project area to  excessive noise levels?    See response to question XII.d above.            XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:      a) Induce substantial population growth in an  area, either directly (for example, by  proposing new homes and businesses) or  indirectly (for example, through extension of  roads or other infrastructure)?     The proposed project accommodates the  need for additional parking in a built out area  that includes businesses and other public  facilities. The project does not propose  improvements that would result in  population growth either directly or  indirectly.              b) Displace substantial numbers of existing  housing, necessitating the construction of  replacement housing elsewhere?    The project is replacing an existing parking lot.  The project would not result in displacing any  number of houses or requires the construction  of replacement housing.          c) Displace substantial numbers of people,  necessitating the construction of replacement  housing elsewhere?    See response to question XIII.a and XII.b  above.          d) Create a substantial imbalance between  employed residents and jobs?           The project improvements would not result in  any changes to the existing employment and  housing conditions, and would not create  imbalance between employed residents and  jobs.              1.e Packet Pg. 57 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 27 May 12, 2017  XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES.    Would the project result in substantial adverse  physical impacts associated with the provision of  new or physically altered governmental facilities,  or the need for new or physically altered  governmental facilities, the construction of which  could cause significant environmental impacts, in  order to maintain acceptable service ratios,  response times, or other performance objectives  for any of the public services:           a) Result in an adverse physical impact from the  construction of additional school facilities in    order to maintain acceptable performance  standards?    Construction and operation of a new parking  garage would not require the construction of  new school facilities, parks, recreational  facilities, or library facilities.          b) Result in an adverse physical impact from the  construction of additional fire protection  facilities in order to maintain acceptable  performance standards?  The project will increase the retail space and  parking facilities. However, this increase is  not anticipated to result in the need to    construct additional fire protection facilities  in order to maintain acceptable performance  standards. The project would not have  impact on the environment from the  construction additional fires protection  facilities.             c) Result in an adverse physical impact from the  construction of additional police protection  facilities in order to maintain acceptable  performance standards?    Construction and operation of a new parking  garage would not require the construction of  additional police protection facilities.          d) Result in an adverse physical impact from the  construction of additional parks and recreation  facilities in order to maintain acceptable  performance standards?              1.e Packet Pg. 58 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 28 May 12, 2017  See response to question XIV.a above.  XV. RECREATION.    a)  Would the project increase the use of existing      neighborhood and regional parks or other  recreational facilities such that substantial  physical deterioration of the facility would occur  or be accelerated?    The construction the parking garage would not  result in increase of demand on recreational  facilities such as regional parks or other public  recreational facilities.                b) Does the project include recreational  facilities, or require the construction or  expansion of recreational facilities which  might have an adverse physical effect on the  environment?    The project does not include the construction  of recreational facilities or require the  expansion of existing recreational facilities.          XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:    a) Cause an intersection to drop below its level  of service standard, or if it is already  operating at a substandard level of service,  deteriorate by more than a specified amount?    Construction and operation of the project  could increase traffic congestion and cause  intersections to operate below the desired  Level of Service (LOS) at local roads providing  access to the facility. The EIR will evaluate  potential traffic impacts at the local roads  and intersections in the vicinity of the project  area for peak hours, under existing  conditions, existing plus project, and future  conditions with and without the project.  Analysis of future conditions would also  consider cumulative impacts with and  without the project.              b) Cause a roadway segment to drop below its  level of service standard, or deteriorate  operations that already operate at a  substandard level of service?        1.e Packet Pg. 59 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 29 May 12, 2017    See response to question XVI.a above.       c) Cause a freeway segment or ramp to operate  at LOS F or contribute traffic in excess of 1  percent of segment capacity to a freeway  segment or ramp already operating at LOS F?    The project is not located near a freeway, and  would not generate additional trips that  might contribute to any segments of freeway  traffic.        d) Impede the development or function of  planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities?    It is not anticipated that the project would  impede the development of function of  planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities. The  project. The project would impact the  existing facilities during construction. This  impact would be evaluated in the EIR.          e) Increase demand for pedestrian and bicycle  facilities that cannot be met by current or  planned services.    It is not anticipated that the project would  increase demand for pedestrian and bicycle  facilities that cannot be met by current  services.        f) Impede the operation of a transit system as a  result of congestion or otherwise decrease  the performance of safety of such facilities?     The project is located approximately half a  mile from the Palo Alto Transit Center/  Station. The EIR would evaluate impacts on  the operation of the transit system.            g) Create demand for transit services that  cannot be met by current or planned services?    The project would not generate new demand  for transit services.        1.e Packet Pg. 60 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 30 May 12, 2017  h) Create the potential demand for through  traffic to use local residential streets?    As part of the evaluation of traffic impacts,  the EIR will evaluate potential impacts on  roadways and intersections located in  residential areas close to the project area.     i) Cause any change in traffic that would  increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential  Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more?    See response to question XVI.h above.                                    j) Create an operational safety hazard?    The EIR will evaluate the project impact of  traffic and circulation in relation to potential  effects on operational safety hazards.            k) Result in inadequate emergency access?    See response to question XVI.j above.          l) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,  including either an increase in traffic levels or  a change in location that results in substantial  safety risks?    It is anticipated that the project would not  have impacts on air traffic.         m) Cause queuing impacts based on a  comparative analysis between the design  queue length and the available queue storage  capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are  not limited to, spillback queues at project  access locations; queues at turn lanes at  intersections that block through traffic;  queues at lane drops; queues at one  intersection that extend back to impact other  intersections, and spillback queues on ramps.     The EIR will evaluate potential queuing  impacts resulting from the project.                 1.e Packet Pg. 61 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 31 May 12, 2017  XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the  project:            a) Need new or expanded entitlements to water  supply?    The project would connect to the existing City  facilities and would not result in new or  expanded entitlements to water supply.          b) Result in adverse physical impacts from new  or expanded utility facilities due to increased  use as a result of the project?    The project would connect to the existing City  facilities and would not result in new or  expanded utility facilities.           c) Result in a substantial physical deterioration  of a utility facility due to increased use as a  result of the project?    It is not anticipated that the project would  result in deterioration of utility facilities due  increased use.          d) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements  of the applicable Regional Water Quality  Control Board?    It is not anticipated that the project would  result in exceeding wastewater treatment  requirements. The construction and  operation of the project would be subject to  all applicable regional and local water quality  standards and regulations.           e) Result in a determination by the wastewater  treatment provider that it has inadequate  capacity to serve the project’s projected  demand in addition to the provider’s existing  commitments?    See response to question XVII.d above.          f) Would the project require or result in the  construction of new water or wastewater  treatment facilities or expansion of existing  facilities, the construction of which could        1.e Packet Pg. 62 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 32 May 12, 2017  cause significant environmental effects?    The project may result in the design and  construction of new storm water drainage  facilities. It is not however, anticipated that  the redesign and construction of the facilities  would cause significant effect on the  environment.     g) Require or result in the construction of new  storm water drainage facilities or expansion  of existing facilities, the construction of which  could cause significant environmental  effects?    The project may result in the design and  construction of new storm water drainage  facilities. It is not however, anticipated that  the redesign and construction of the facilities  would cause significant effect on the  environment.            h) Be served by a landfill with sufficient  permitted capacity to accommodate the  project’s solid waste disposal needs?    The operation of the parking garage would  not result in significant impacts that would  affect capacity of landfills in order to  accommodate the project. Construction of  the project may result in one time need to  dispose of material resulting from excavation  and pavement removal of the existing  parking lot. The construction impact on  landfills will be addressed in the EIR.            i) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes  and regulations related to solid waste?    The proposed project would comply with all  federal, State, and local statues and  regulations related to solid waste.    j) Result in a substantial increase in natural gas  and electrical service demands that would  require the new construction of energy supply  facilities and distribution infrastructure or  capacity enhancing alterations to existing  facilities?                           1.e Packet Pg. 63 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 33 May 12, 2017  The project proposes to include  accommodations for the use of vehicles run  by natural gas or electricity. The additional  demand of electrical and natural gas demand  and impact on energy consumption created  by the project would be evaluated in the EIR.         XVIII. ENERGY    a) Have an energy impact? Energy impacts may  include:    i) Impacts resulting from amount and fuel  type used for each stage of the project    ii) Impacts on local and regional energy  supplies and on requirements for  additional capacity    iii) Impacts on peak and base period demands  for electricity and other forms of energy    iv) Impacts to energy resources    v) Impacts resulting from the project’s  projected transportation energy use  requirements    See response to question XVII.j above.                      XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.    a) Does the project have the potential to  degrade the quality of the environment,  substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or  wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife  population to drop below self‐sustaining  levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal  community, reduce the number or restrict the  range of a rare or endangered plant or  animal, or eliminate important examples of  the major periods of California history or  prehistory?        b) Does the project have impacts that are  individually limited, but cumulatively  considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"  means that the incremental effects of a        1.e Packet Pg. 64 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 34 May 12, 2017  project are considerable when viewed in  connection with the effects of past projects,  the effects of other current projects, and the  effects of probable future projects)?      c) Does the project have environmental effects  which will cause substantial adverse effects  on human beings, either directly or indirectly?              1.e Packet Pg. 65 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D r a f t I n i t i a l S t u d y - S i g n e d ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) 1. f Pa c k e t P g . 6 6 Attachment: Attachment F: NOP - Signed (8329 : 375 Hamilton Avenue: Downtown Parking Garage 1. f Pa c k e t P g . 6 7 Attachment: Attachment F: NOP - Signed (8329 : 375 Hamilton Avenue: Downtown Parking Garage 1. f Pa c k e t P g . 6 8 Attachment: Attachment F: NOP - Signed (8329 : 375 Hamilton Avenue: Downtown Parking Garage Attachment Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to HRB Members. These plans are available to the public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “375 Hamilton Avenue” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “Initial Project Plans”. 1.h Packet Pg. 69 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : P r o j e c t p l a n s - d i r e c t i o n s t o b u i l d i n g e y e ( 8 3 2 9 : 3 7 5 H a m i l t o n A v e n u e : D o w n t o w n P a r k i n g G a r a g e ( p r e l i m ) ) Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 8328) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 8/24/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: STUDY SESSION: 2601 E. Bayshore, Former ITT Property in Baylands Title: STUDY SESSION: 2601 E. Bayshore Road, Discussion Regarding Former International Telephone and Telegraph (ITT) Property From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) receive this report and take the following action(s): 1. Discuss the former International Telephone & Telegraph (ITT) property, and decide whether to add this topic to the list of potential topics for the August 28, 2017 joint meeting of the HRB and City Council. Report Summary This report provides background information for an Historic Resources Board discussion regarding the ITT property. The buildings on the property are not proposed to be demolished; in fact, the Council is scheduled to discuss a budget amendment on August 28th to ensure funds will soon be available to implement repairs to the building(s); to ensure safety; to protect from vandalism and theft; and to create a trail/ facilities maintenance access route. Background On July 13, 2017, members of the HRB requested that staff place on a future agenda an HRB discussion of the future of the former ITT building, following publication of an article on June 29, 2017 entitled 'Signaling the End?' Staff reached out to the Community Services Department Open Space and Golf Division Manager, who was involved in the park dedication of the Former ITT property, and will be involved in the discussion regarding the future use of the site. Staff also received a report from Public Works staff who are involved in cleaning up the site and determining the future use. In summary, the City is just starting work on the Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Part of the plan will be to help plan for how to best use the Former ITT property. The Baylands 2 Packet Pg. 70 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Master Plan provides basic guidance on what to do with the recently dedicated 35 acres Former ITT Antenna Farm (Page 96-99 discuss the Former ITT area): “Antenna Field 5. Remove the antenna field, replace with marshland and incorporate this area into Byxbee Park. (In 1993 the City and KFS entered into an agreement wherein the City will buy the easement from KFS once a new site has been constructed and approved by the FCC. However, a proposal to demolish the radio station buildings may not be desirable as they have been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.)” Baylands Master Plan is @: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/14882 A staff report to Council from Public Works (ID #8347 viewable at this link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council/default.asp) provides background about the site and puts forward a recommendation for a budget amendment to allow earlier access to funds for the Byxbee Park Capital Improvement Project. The report notes that Council dedicated the 36 acre International Telephone & Telegraph (ITT) property on June 5, as parkland and staff determined that urgent work was needed to clean-up, repair, maintain and protect the ITT structures from upcoming winter rains. The requested funds for FY17-18 are for initial work to ensure safety and prevent further deterioration, theft and vandalism, without assumptions on the ultimate facility use. Discussion Council Agenda August 28, 2017 The Council report for August 28, 2017 includes a description of proposed activity, summarized here:  Resolving safety issues and preventing further theft and vandalism;  Repairing the road to the facility for use as a trail as well as for maintenance vehicles, matching the rest of the Byxbee Park trails in function and appearance;  Cleaning up unwanted materials left by Globe Wireless;  Grading of heavily disturbed dirt areas and adding new soil to improve appearances adjacent to the buildings. The grade will be sloped slightly away from the buildings to prevent further damage from rainfall;  Repairing numerous leaks in the roof of the main building;  Removing the transformers west of the main building;  Retaining the electrical service cabinets so that electric power can readily be re- established;  Removing the smaller poles and associated wiring (as they continue to be targets for theft and vandalism);  Retaining the antennae (taller poles) in place until decisions are made about them;  Covering of windows (50% broken) with plywood and painting plywood white, along with the rest of the two buildings, to match the current color; 2 Packet Pg. 71 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3  Placing security fences around each of the two buildings to protect them from further break-ins and vandalism, and allow for eventual removal of the perimeter fencing, which has not been effective. Report ID #8347 notes that: (1) the work to be conducted is categorically exempt from CEQA requirements as it is maintenance of existing facilities and does not impact adjacent wetlands; and (2) further environmental review will be conducted in connection with any future use of the ITT facility. Historic Status of ITT Property Briefly, the Federal Telegraph Company was a successor of Paulsen Wireless Telephone and Telegraph Company, founded in Palo Alto by Cyril F. Elwell in 1909. The company reorganized in 1911 as the Federal Telegraph Company and was a pioneer in the development and manufacturing of equipment for continuous wave radio broadcasting. Research and partnership with other inventors, including Lee de Forest, produced the package of technology that placed FTC in the advance guard of the radio industry. The main building at 2601 E Bayshore Road, along with a 626-foot tower, was built in 1921 as part of a planned network for telegraph service along the west coast. In 1924 additional equipment at the site made communications with ships at sea possible. In 1927, the station was sold to the Mackay Radio and Telegraph Company to use for point-to-point and ship-to-shore communications. The following year, Mackay was taken over by the International Telephone and Telegraph Company. Interestingly, in 1941, an operator picked up a signal just minutes before the Pearl Harbor attack, one of the first inklings of the assault. The tower was demolished in 1960 and the station remained in operation into the 21st Century. By 2014, the facilities and equipment at the site had been vandalized and the power turned off. In 2001, Dames & Moore evaluated the ITT property and found it eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A (events/broad patterns of our history) at the national level. The period of significance was suggested to be 1921-1951 (50 years prior to the report) but it is likely the period of significance is 1921-1960, when the tower was demolished. Removal of the tower in 1960 constituted a serious loss of integrity for the facility. However, it retains integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. The property is the best surviving remnant of the once extensive presence of the Federal Telegraph Company in Palo Alto, its early headquarters. [FTC first operated out of a home at 913 Emerson, which has since been demolished. However, the site of their laboratory on Emerson is a CA Landmark known as the “Pioneer Electronics Research Laboratory” and was where the creation of the first vacuum tube amplifier and oscillator occurred. Report Author & Contact Information HRB1 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2336 Amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 72 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Attachments:  Attachment A: 2601 East Bayshore Road DPR (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 73 2. a Pa c k e t P g . 7 4 Attachment: Attachment A: 2601 East Bayshore Road DPR (8328 : STUDY SESSION: 2601 E. 2. a Pa c k e t P g . 7 5 Attachment: Attachment A: 2601 East Bayshore Road DPR (8328 : STUDY SESSION: 2601 E. 2. a Pa c k e t P g . 7 6 Attachment: Attachment A: 2601 East Bayshore Road DPR (8328 : STUDY SESSION: 2601 E. 2. a Pa c k e t P g . 7 7 Attachment: Attachment A: 2601 East Bayshore Road DPR (8328 : STUDY SESSION: 2601 E. 2. a Pa c k e t P g . 7 8 Attachment: Attachment A: 2601 East Bayshore Road DPR (8328 : STUDY SESSION: 2601 E. 2. a Pa c k e t P g . 7 9 Attachment: Attachment A: 2601 East Bayshore Road DPR (8328 : STUDY SESSION: 2601 E. 2. a Pa c k e t P g . 8 0 Attachment: Attachment A: 2601 East Bayshore Road DPR (8328 : STUDY SESSION: 2601 E. Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 8374) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 8/24/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: STUDY SESSION: Historic Designation for 526 Waverley Title: STUDY SESSION: Historic Resources Board Review of a Proposed Reclassification of the Birge Clark Designed 1927 Building at 526 Waverley in Downtown Palo Alto, from Category 3 on the City's Historic Inventory to Category 2, Prior to Application for Preliminary Architectural Review for Historic Rehabilitation and Potential Upper Floor Addition for Residential Use. Zone District: CD-C(GF)(P). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Sections 15331 Historical Resource Rehabilitation From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s): 1. Discuss the existing historic designation for 526 Waverley, known as the Palo Alto Sport Shop, and discuss the potential reclassification, and 2. Recommend the applicant pursue the reclassification and submit a Preliminary Architectural Review application to allow the HRB, ARB and City Council to appreciate the scope of work to rehabilitate and add to the building. Report Summary This report is to support the HRB’s discussion of a potential reclassification of the Palo Alto Sport Shop from Category 3 to Category 2 on the Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory associated with a potential building rehabilitation and addition of residential housing units. A reclassification to Category 2 would be based on a building’s retention of the seven aspects of historic integrity as defined by the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, and consistency with the definition of a Category 2 building in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.49.020(b). Background 3 Packet Pg. 81 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The property’s listing on the City’s Inventory dates back to the 1970’s (Attachment A). Historic photos of the building are provided in Attachment B, and an Architectural Review Board staff report from 1998 related to exterior and interior building modifications is provided as Attachment C. The property owner and his architect met with staff on August 4, 2017, to explore the possibility of reclassifying the building from Category 3 to Category 2 related to a proposal for rehabilitation and preliminary concepts for adding upper-floor residential units to the building. The owner provided staff with an Historic Resource Evaluation (Attachment D), existing building drawings (Attachment E), and information regarding assessments for 34 spaces parking not provided for the existing floor area. The parking information is from the 2001 Parking Assessment District document, which noted existing floor area of 8,752 sf and one parking space that appeared to be provided at rear. The then-owner paid for the remaining 34 stalls as part of the 2001 assessment district. Discussion If the HRB is in support of reclassification, the applicant can submit a formal application for reclassification, either separately or in conjunction with an application for Preliminary Architectural Review, at which time the HRB can recommend that the City Council reclassify the building based on retention of the seven aspects of historic integrity as defined by the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, and consistency with the definition of a Category 2 building in PAMC Section 16.49.020(b), “A 'Major Building’ of regional importance. These buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of an architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the state or region.” Once the applicant submits a formal proposal for rehabilitation, the HRB can recommend that the Architectural Review Board and the Director of Planning and Community Environment find that the proposed scope of rehabilitation meets the definition of "historic rehabilitation" set forth in Municipal Code 18.18.030(b) (Attachment F) and that the historic rehabilitation plan complies with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. The HRB can recommend conditions of approval related to the rehabilitation as part of the approval conditions for a formal Architectural Review application. Analysis The building at 526-534 Waverley Street was built in 1927 and was the home of the Hoffacker family, who operated Palo Alto Sport Shop for almost 90 years. The building was designed by Birge Clark, generally considered Palo Alto’s most important historic architect and the city’s master of the Spanish Colonial Revival style. The builder was Wells Goodenough, who was the contractor on most of Clark’s early projects and was known for the highly skilled carpenters on his team. Many Spanish Revival elements remain, including the red tile roof trim, arched cornice detailing and the natural, earthy tones. The building is eligible for listing on Palo Alto’s local inventory under criteria 1, 5 and possibly 6: 3 Packet Pg. 82 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 1. The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important events in the city, state or nation; 5. The architect or building was important; and 6. The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship. Currently, 526-534 Waverley would not meet the requirements for the Category 2 designation as a significant amount of architectural integrity has been lost over the years. However, the proposed rehabilitation project and restoration of the primary façade to its period of significance could change that. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Restoration states “restoration is defined as the act of process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a restoration project.” The restoration of the storefront to its original configuration and the return of previously removed architectural details (corner brackets, wrought iron window coverings, arched entries, etc.) based on historic plans and photographs would possibly allow for the elevation of the building to a Category 2 designation. Environmental Review A reclassification and rehabilitation project is subject to assessment 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. A reclassification and rehabilitation project is Exempt from CEQA Section 15331, Historical Resource Rehabilitation. A minor alteration, if proposed, may be exempt under Section 15301, Existing Facilities. Next Steps The property owner may submit a formal request for reclassification of the building to Category 2. Because the owner is interested in rehabilitation and a major addition to the existing building, the owner is encouraged to submit a Preliminary Review application to indicate what is proposed. Staff would review the application against National Register Criteria and Municipal Code Category 2 definition and return to the HRB. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the HRB may: 1. Postpone further discussion until the applicant submits a Preliminary Architectural Review application for discussion by the HRB. 3 Packet Pg. 83 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Report Author & Contact Information HRB1 Liaison & Contact Information Emily Vance, Historic Preservation Planner Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official (650) 617-3125 (650) 329-2336 emily.vance@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Inventory form (PDF)  Attachment B: Historic Photos 526 Waverley Street (DOCX)  Attachment C: HRB 1998 Staff_Report_BODS (PDF)  Attachment D: 526 Waverley_Prelim Assmt_5 July 2017 (1) (PDF)  Attachment E: Waverley_Existing (PDF)  Attachment F: PAMC Chapter 18-18 Excerpt 18.18.030 (PDF) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 84 3. a Pa c k e t P g . 8 5 Attachment: Attachment A: Inventory form (8374 : STUDY SESSION: Historic Designation for 526 3. a Pa c k e t P g . 8 6 Attachment: Attachment A: Inventory form (8374 : STUDY SESSION: Historic Designation for 526 526 Waverley Street – Historic Photos 3.b Packet Pg. 87 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : H i s t o r i c P h o t o s 5 2 6 W a v e r l e y S t r e e t ( 8 3 7 4 : S T U D Y S E S S I O N : H i s t o r i c D e s i g n a t i o n f o r 5 2 6 W a v e r l e y ) 3.c Packet Pg. 88 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : H R B 1 9 9 8 S t a f f _ R e p o r t _ B O D S ( 8 3 7 4 : S T U D Y S E S S I O N : H i s t o r i c D e s i g n a t i o n f o r 5 2 6 W a v e r l e y ) 3.c Packet Pg. 89 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : H R B 1 9 9 8 S t a f f _ R e p o r t _ B O D S ( 8 3 7 4 : S T U D Y S E S S I O N : H i s t o r i c D e s i g n a t i o n f o r 5 2 6 W a v e r l e y ) 3.c Packet Pg. 90 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : H R B 1 9 9 8 S t a f f _ R e p o r t _ B O D S ( 8 3 7 4 : S T U D Y S E S S I O N : H i s t o r i c D e s i g n a t i o n f o r 5 2 6 W a v e r l e y ) 3.c Packet Pg. 91 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : H R B 1 9 9 8 S t a f f _ R e p o r t _ B O D S ( 8 3 7 4 : S T U D Y S E S S I O N : H i s t o r i c D e s i g n a t i o n f o r 5 2 6 W a v e r l e y ) 3.c Packet Pg. 92 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : H R B 1 9 9 8 S t a f f _ R e p o r t _ B O D S ( 8 3 7 4 : S T U D Y S E S S I O N : H i s t o r i c D e s i g n a t i o n f o r 5 2 6 W a v e r l e y ) 3.c Packet Pg. 93 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : H R B 1 9 9 8 S t a f f _ R e p o r t _ B O D S ( 8 3 7 4 : S T U D Y S E S S I O N : H i s t o r i c D e s i g n a t i o n f o r 5 2 6 W a v e r l e y ) 1 Memorandum To: John R. Shenk Thoits Bros., Inc. 629 Emerson Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Project: 526-534 Waverley Street – Preliminary Assessment Project No.: 17124 Date: 5 July 2017 Via: Email From: Sarah Hahn, Senior Architectural Historian INTRODUCTION ARG has prepared this Preliminary Assessment memorandum at the request of Thoits Bros., Inc. (Client) for the property at 526-534 Waverley Street in Palo Alto, California. Designed by Birge Clark and completed in 1927, the building was the home of the locally owned and family operated Palo Alto Sport Shop for almost 90 years. The property is currently listed as a Category 3 building on the City of Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory. The Client has requested this preliminary evaluation to determine whether the property could qualify as a Category 2 resource, which would allow for certain development benefits. This memo provides a preliminary evaluation of potential historical significance for the subject property under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Designation and Category definitions. This memo does not present a full Historic Resource Evaluation for the building and is not intended for submittal to City agencies as such. METHODOLOGY To complete this memorandum, ARG performed limited historical background research on the subject property and completed a site visit to examine existing conditions in June 2017. ARG visited the Palo Alto Development Services Department to collect available building permit records, and the Palo Alto Historical Association to obtain historical background materials. A summary of the research and site visit findings is provided in this memo to support the preliminary analysis of historical significance. 526-534 WAVERLEY STREET HISTORICAL OVERVIEW Palo Alto Although the land was once occupied by the Ohlone and later part of vast Spanish land grants, modern- day Palo Alto was formed in the late 1800s by Leland and Jane Stanford, the founders of Stanford University. The Stanfords “decided that the new university should have an accompanying college town to 3.d Packet Pg. 94 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : 5 2 6 W a v e r l e y _ P r e l i m A s s m t _ 5 J u l y 2 0 1 7 ( 1 ) ( 8 3 7 4 : S T U D Y S E S S I O N : H i s t o r i c D e s i g n a t i o n f o r 5 2 6 W a v e r l e y ) 2 provide a clean-living place for student housing and other services.”1 After both the neighboring towns of Menlo Park and Mayfield refused to stop serving alcohol, Stanford decided to create his own dry town and called it University Park. In contemporary advertisements, the area was described as “a tract of beautiful oak-park land, immediately opposite and adjoining the grounds of the Leland Stanford Junior University.”2 The land was “subdivided into villa blocks, comprising about five acres each… in the most artistic manner, with broad avenues intersecting each other at picturesque angles.”3 University Park officially became Palo Alto in 1892. By the turn of the twentieth century, Palo Alto was a developing town that “had solved many of the basic problems of survival by installing an efficient water system, paving the roads, establishing schools, developing sewage management, and other municipal functions.”4 Sanborn Maps dating to 1901 indicate the area directly surrounding the future site of the subject property consisted of lots developed primarily with one- to two-story dwellings and a few churches. A one-story dwelling occupied the subject lot. By 1924, University Avenue – just northeast of the subject property – had become the city’s primary commercial corridor, and the one-story residence still occupied the subject lot. This residence was demolished or otherwise removed from the site to allow for construction of the subject property in 1927. The 1949 Sanborn shows the Palo Alto Sport Shop at 526-534 Waverley Street as a two-story commercial building with a one-story bicycle repair area at the rear of the building. The remainder of the block contained commercial and retail properties along University Avenue, Bryant, and Waverley Streets. Two churches, a social hall, a commercial building and several dwellings lined Hamilton Avenue. 526-534 Waverley Street The subject property at 526-534 Waverley Street was constructed in 1927. Bernard J. Hoffacker commissioned the design from architect Birge Clark, and W.P Goodenough was in charge of construction. (Bernard Hoffacker was the father of Edward Hoffacker Sr., who established business enterprises in the building.) The property originally contained three separate commercial spaces, occupied in the first two decades by the Palo Alto Sport Shop and the Palo Alto Realty Company – both owned by Edward Hoffacker, at 526 and 534 Waverley, respectively. The 530 Waverley space housed a bakery (Home Food Shoppe) through the late 1930s, and was later occupied by Stanford Electric Works. In 1948-49, the building was remodeled, and the Palo Alto Sport Shop expanded into all areas of the building. Prior to moving to Palo Alto, Edward Hoffacker Sr. had worked in the insurance business in San Francisco. After arriving in the area, Hoffacker established the Palo Alto Realty Company, which he ran through the late 1940s. With a desire to establish a business his sons could grow, Hoffacker also established the Palo Alto Sport Shop in the late 1920s.5 In 1946, Edward Hoffacker Sr. retired and passed management of the business to his sons, Bernhard (Bern) and Edward (Ed) Hoffacker Jr.6 1 Pamela Gullard and Nancy Lund, History of Palo Alto: The Early Years, (San Francisco: Scottwall Associates, 1989), 83. 2 Ibid., 85. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid., 137. 5 “Enlarged P.A. Sport Shop to hold Open House Tonight,” Palo Alto Times, 17 May 1949. 6 “Hoffacker Sons Succeed Father in Sports Shop,” Palo Alto Times, 18 January 1946. 3.d Packet Pg. 95 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : 5 2 6 W a v e r l e y _ P r e l i m A s s m t _ 5 J u l y 2 0 1 7 ( 1 ) ( 8 3 7 4 : S T U D Y S E S S I O N : H i s t o r i c D e s i g n a t i o n f o r 5 2 6 W a v e r l e y ) 3 In 1948, the Hoffacker family announced an expansion plan for the business. Since opening, the Palo Alto Sport Shop had occupied the retail space at 526 Waverley Street and 534 Waverley had housed the Palo Alto Realty Company; the Hoffackers owned both businesses. The family planned to take over the neighboring retail space at 530 Waverley Street - previously occupied by the Stanford Electric Works – and double the size of the store. According to the Palo Alto Times: When stocked with wheel goods and toys, the concern will be the largest of its kind in Palo Alto. The present repair shop – for servicing bicycles, motor scooters and other wheel goods – also will be enlarged.7 To celebrate completion of the $30,000 expansion, the family hosted an open house on the evening of May 17, 1949. At the time, the store was the largest of its kind on the Peninsula. Merchandise included firearms, fishing and tackle, toys, motor scooters, bicycles, sports clothing, athletic goods, and archery supplies. The store also operated a repair shop for bicycles, motor scooters, and lawn mowers.8 In 1956, Ed and Bern Hoffacker opened a new store called Midtown Toy World in Palo Alto, which carried both toys and sporting goods.9 Figure 1. Newspaper advertisements for the post-expansion grand opening event (Palo Alto Times, May 1949). 7 “Sport Shop Expansion Announced,” Palo Alto Times, 5 October 1948. 8 “Enlarged P.A. Sport Shop to hold Open House Tonight,” Palo Alto Times, 17 May 1949. 9 “New Stores are Opening in P.A., MP,” Palo Alto Times, 15 August 1956. 3.d Packet Pg. 96 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : 5 2 6 W a v e r l e y _ P r e l i m A s s m t _ 5 J u l y 2 0 1 7 ( 1 ) ( 8 3 7 4 : S T U D Y S E S S I O N : H i s t o r i c D e s i g n a t i o n f o r 5 2 6 W a v e r l e y ) 4 The Palo Alto Sport Shop was one of a small number of family-run businesses to survive into the 21st century. The business, and the Hoffacker family themselves, played a notable role in the local community by supporting, and sometimes funding, local youth sports programs and competitions. They assisted several local non-profits and provided a first-time work experience to hundreds of local teenagers.10 The Palo Alto Sport Shop was in continuous operation at 526 Waverley Street from 1930 to 2017, when it went out of business after 87 years. Alterations The subject property was constructed in 1927 and is currently vacant. Below is a brief overview of major alterations over time: • 1927 – Original construction • 1948 – Expansion of Sport Shop to include 530 and 534 Waverley retail spaces • 1949 – Drive-in service area added to rear of store (painted red and green)11 • 1971 – Reroof • 1998 – Remodel existing mezzanine, restrooms, dressing rooms, and rear exit for accessibility; install elevator Figure 2. Original Birge Clark drawing, 526 Waverley, c.1925 (Stanford Atlas, online). 10 Bill Shilstone, “Just a Family Business, Serving the Community, Making a Difference,” The Peninsula Times Tribune, 6 June 1990. 11 Palo Alto Times, 28 October 1949. 3.d Packet Pg. 97 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : 5 2 6 W a v e r l e y _ P r e l i m A s s m t _ 5 J u l y 2 0 1 7 ( 1 ) ( 8 3 7 4 : S T U D Y S E S S I O N : H i s t o r i c D e s i g n a t i o n f o r 5 2 6 W a v e r l e y ) 5 In addition to the alterations noted above, visual observation indicates that each of the three entrances have been fully reconfigured, including the conversion of the central entrance to a storefront window. The pediment above the northeastern entrance has been removed, as have the decorative corner brackets at the entry opening. The decorative corner brackets and header beam originally at the central entrance have been covered or removed, and the rounded archway at the northeastern entrance has been squared off. The original tilework and storefront assemblies have also been removed and replaces. The wrought iron balconies at the second levels of both the central and northeastern bay are no longer intact, and the full-height French doors at each location modified into windows. Figure 3. Undated photo (Palo Alto Weekly, September 2005). Figure 4. Existing conditions photo (ARG, June 2017). Birge Clark The son of Arthur B. Clark – a noted architect in his own right – and Grace Clark, Birge was born on April 16, 1893 in San Francisco. His parents had moved to Palo Alto the year before when Arthur began a professorship at Stanford University teaching architecture and art. Birge himself studied architecture at Stanford University and later at Columbia University. He earned a Silver Star for gallantry in World War I, after which he returned home to Palo Alto, where he enjoyed a successful career as an architect. Clark resided in Palo Alto until his death on April 30, 1989. Over the course of his prolific career, Birge Clark was considered by many to be the “man who built Palo Alto.” When he opened his practice in 1922, Birge was only one of two licensed architects between San José and San Francisco.12 His early works include the Lou Henry and Herbert Hoover House (1920) at 12 Dave Weinstein, Signature Architects of the San Francisco Bay Area (Layton, UT: Gibbs Smith, 2006), 70. 3.d Packet Pg. 98 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : 5 2 6 W a v e r l e y _ P r e l i m A s s m t _ 5 J u l y 2 0 1 7 ( 1 ) ( 8 3 7 4 : S T U D Y S E S S I O N : H i s t o r i c D e s i g n a t i o n f o r 5 2 6 W a v e r l e y ) 6 Stanford University, for which his father Arthur was the head architect, and several cottages on the school’s campus. Clark also received the commission for the U.S. Post Office in Palo Alto, which was completed in 1933. Many of Clark’s designs are in the “Early California” style – his version of the Spanish Colonial Revival style. Birge Clark’s architectural contributions to Palo Alto cannot be understated, having designed over four hundred residential and commercial buildings in Palo Alto and the surrounding area.13 Examples of Birge Clark buildings in Palo Alto include: • 323 University Avenue, Commercial Building, 1925 (Category 2) • 544 Emerson Street, Commercial Building, 1926 (Category 4) • 415-419 University Avenue, Commercial Building, 1926 (Category 3) • 528-530 Ramona Street, Commercial building, 1926 (Category 2) • 532-536 Ramona Street, Commercial Building, 1926 (Category 2) • 668 Ramona Street, Commercial Building, 1926 (Category 2) • 628-630 Ramona Street, Commercial Building, 1927 (Category 2) • 436-440 University Avenue, Commercial Building, 1927 (Category 2) • 460 - 476 University Avenue, Commercial/Office Building, 1927 (Category 3) • 261 Hamilton Avenue, Commercial/Office building, 1927 (Category 3) • Police and Fire Station, 450 Bryant Street, 1927 (Category 2) • The Misses Sterns House, 1950/1990 Cowper, 1930 (Category 1) • Palo Alto Post Office, 380 Hamilton, 1932 (Category 1, Listed on National Register) • Palo Alto Medical Clinic, 300 Homer Avenue, 1932 (Category 2) • Lucie Stern Community Center, 1305 Middlefield Road, 1935 (Category 1) CITY OF PALO ALTO HISTORIC INVENTORY Criteria for Designation The City of Palo Alto has identified the following criteria, along with the definitions of historic categories and districts in Section 16.49.020 (see below), to be used as criteria for designating additional historic structures/sites or districts to the historic inventory: 1. The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important events in the city, state or nation; 2. The structure or site is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life important to the city, state or nation; 3. The structure or site is an example of a type of building which was once common, but is now rare; 4. The structure or site is connected with a business or use which was once common, but is now rare; 5. The architect or building was important; 13 ARG, “Historic Resource Evaluation: 450 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA” (23 June 2016). 3.d Packet Pg. 99 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : 5 2 6 W a v e r l e y _ P r e l i m A s s m t _ 5 J u l y 2 0 1 7 ( 1 ) ( 8 3 7 4 : S T U D Y S E S S I O N : H i s t o r i c D e s i g n a t i o n f o r 5 2 6 W a v e r l e y ) 7 6. The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship.14 Categories The City of Palo Alto's Historic Inventory lists noteworthy examples of the work of important individual designers and architectural eras and traditions as well as structures whose background is associated with important events in the history of the city, state, or nation. The Inventory is organized under the following four Categories:  Category 1: An “Exceptional Building” of pre-eminent national or state importance. These buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of a specific architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the United States. These buildings have had either no exterior modifications or such minor ones that the overall appearance of the building is in its original character.  Category 2: A “Major Building” of regional importance. These buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of an architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the state or region. A major building may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is retained.  Category 3 or 4: A “Contributing Building” which is a good local example of an architectural style and relates to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion or other factors. A contributing building may have had extensive or permanent changes made to the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of architectural details, or wooden facades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION The subject property may be eligible as a local historic resource under Criterion 1 and 4 of the Criteria for Designation shown above. The building at 526-534 Waverley Street was owned and operated by the Hoffacker family for almost 90 years. The Hoffackers played a publically active role in the community by supporting local sports organizations and non-profits. The family-owned small business, now a rarity in Palo Alto and elsewhere, was a much-loved destination for local residents. One newspaper article noted an octogenarian who had been a customer since she was one year old. Regarding the Categories listed above, the building would not qualify as a Category 2 building for architectural merits. Further, modifications over time have resulted in an appearance that does not fully represent the original design. However, with properties that are significant for association with events and people, physical and design integrity are less important that if the property were significant as an outstanding example of an architectural style. For this reason, it may be possible to achieve reclassification status as a Category 2 building, but it would depend on the current interpretation of how the Classification Categories are to be used. ARG recommends that the Client share this memo with the current historic preservation planner at the City of Palo Alto to attain guidance on next steps. 14 Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 16.49 “Historic Preservation”. 3.d Packet Pg. 100 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : 5 2 6 W a v e r l e y _ P r e l i m A s s m t _ 5 J u l y 2 0 1 7 ( 1 ) ( 8 3 7 4 : S T U D Y S E S S I O N : H i s t o r i c D e s i g n a t i o n f o r 5 2 6 W a v e r l e y ) 526-534 Waverely – Preliminary Assessment Appendix A: Existing Conditions Photographs 1 | Appendix A Appendix A: Existing Conditions Photographs Front Elevation Front Elevation 3.d Packet Pg. 101 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : 5 2 6 W a v e r l e y _ P r e l i m A s s m t _ 5 J u l y 2 0 1 7 ( 1 ) ( 8 3 7 4 : S T U D Y S E S S I O N : H i s t o r i c D e s i g n a t i o n f o r 5 2 6 W a v e r l e y ) 526-534 Waverely – Preliminary Assessment Appendix A: Existing Conditions Photographs 2 | Appendix A Store entry/storefront window 3.d Packet Pg. 102 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : 5 2 6 W a v e r l e y _ P r e l i m A s s m t _ 5 J u l y 2 0 1 7 ( 1 ) ( 8 3 7 4 : S T U D Y S E S S I O N : H i s t o r i c D e s i g n a t i o n f o r 5 2 6 W a v e r l e y ) 526-534 Waverely – Preliminary Assessment Appendix A: Existing Conditions Photographs 3 | Appendix A Front view along Waverley Street 3.d Packet Pg. 103 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : 5 2 6 W a v e r l e y _ P r e l i m A s s m t _ 5 J u l y 2 0 1 7 ( 1 ) ( 8 3 7 4 : S T U D Y S E S S I O N : H i s t o r i c D e s i g n a t i o n f o r 5 2 6 W a v e r l e y ) 526-534 Waverely – Preliminary Assessment Appendix A: Existing Conditions Photographs 4 | Appendix A View of interior through front window View of interior through front window 3.d Packet Pg. 104 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : 5 2 6 W a v e r l e y _ P r e l i m A s s m t _ 5 J u l y 2 0 1 7 ( 1 ) ( 8 3 7 4 : S T U D Y S E S S I O N : H i s t o r i c D e s i g n a t i o n f o r 5 2 6 W a v e r l e y ) MEZZANINE Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"2 STREET LEVEL Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"1 16 ' - 1 0 " SECTION THROUGH BUILDING Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"3 Waverley 526 WAVERLEY Randolph B. Popp 2 1 0 H i g h S t r e e t Palo Alto, CA 94301 6 5 0 . 4 2 7 . 0 0 2 6 info@rp -arch.com w w w.r p -arch.com A R C H I T E C T No t e : Ca l c u l a t e d a r e a s t a k e n f r o m s c a n n e d a r c h i v e d r a w i n g s . P r e c i s e m e a s u r e m e n t s m u s t b e v e r i f i e d . Existing Space Mezzanine to exterior face of exterior wall 3,143 sf Ground Level to exterior face of exterior wall 5,815 sf 3. e Pa c k e t P g . 1 0 5 Attachment: Attachment E: Waverley_Existing (8374 : STUDY SESSION: Historic Designation for 526 Waverley) 3. f Pa c k e t P g . 1 0 6 Attachment: Attachment F: PAMC Chapter 18-18 Excerpt 18.18.030 (8374 : STUDY SESSION: Historic Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 8330) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 8/24/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Joint CC/HRB MeetingTopics (Final Discussion) Title: CC/HRB Meeting Final Discussion Topics From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s): 1. Finalize the presentation for the joint Council and HRB meeting of August 28, 2017. Background/Discussion Staff’s report to Council for the joint meeting is attached (Attachment A). In it, the focus is accomplishments and activities of the HRB and staff, and two potential upcoming projects: Mills Act Program and Modern Age Context Statement. Staff has prepared a slide show for the HRB to use in the discussion with Council. The slides provide a short summary of accomplishments, and the two potential upcoming projects outlined in the Council staff report. The minutes of August 10, 2017 are provided with this packet. On August 10th, the HRB highlighted areas for potential discussion, beyond the two projects identified in the attached report. Due to the limitations of the joint meeting format, these five topics will be difficult to incorporate into the presentation; the number of topics is necessarily limited. Staff recommends that HRB recommend staff bring forward one more topic the HRB identified on August 10th: Zoning code changes (to PAMC Chapters 18.12 and 18.04) to improve incentives for Category 3 and 4 properties; this work effort can be incorporated into the 2017-18 annual code update. The other topics the HRB noted on August 10th would need additional staff resources and further discussion: (1) HRB-ARB relationship and joint meetings, (2) Governance, prioritizing preservation and HRB reviews, (3) National and California Register properties listings and (4) Re-categorization and/or historic ordinance (PAMC 16.49) changes. Report Author & Contact Information HRB1 Liaison & Contact Information 1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Packet Pg. 107 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Emily Vance, Historic Planner Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official (650) 617-3125 (650) 329-2336 emily.vance@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: 8.28.17 Joint Meeting with CC-HRB (DOC) 4 Packet Pg. 108 City of Palo Alto (ID # 8226) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 8/28/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Historic Resources Board and Council Joint Study Session Title: Joint Meeting of the City Council and the Historic Resources Board From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council conduct a joint meeting with the Historic Resources Board (HRB). Below are the potential topics of discussion for the joint meeting with the Historic Resources Board. I. Overview/Update a. Introduction to the HRB by staff b. HRB presentation on recent accomplishments and proposed work program additions II. Council Questions and Comments/Discussion Background The last time Council met with the HRB was May 6, 2015. Council and HRB members provided comments and recommendations on matters related to Palo Alto’s historic preservation work program and activities. No actions were taken. A recording of that meeting can be found at http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-special-meeting-3/. HRB Responsibilities The HRB is tasked with responsibilities set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49 to carry out the Historic Preservation program for Palo Alto, which is a Certified Local Government (CLG). Staff submits an annual report to the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) each year, to summarize the activities, meeting attendance, and annual required training of HRB members, in accordance with CLG guidelines. 2016-2017 This year, staff provided training on how moving of homes on a property comports with 4.a Packet Pg. 109 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : 8 . 2 8 . 1 7 J o i n t M e e t i n g w i t h C C - H R B ( 8 3 3 0 : J o i n t C C / H R B M e e t i n g T o p i c s ( F i n a l D i s c u s s i o n ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 2 the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Staff also provided the HRB members with an update on state law regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), and the City’s response. Also during the past year, the historic preservation team reviewed several notable development projects, including the Avenidas building expansion and Junior Museum and Zoo. In addition, the HRB reviewed Guidelines projects, such as the Professorville Guidelines (adopted by Council in October 2016). In the fall of 2016, the HRB reviewed a bulletin intended to aid staff and applicants by providing a summary of the City review process for modifications to historic resources and potential historic resources. Improvements to the Historic Preservation Program website are underway. The HRB has also formed subcommittees this year to explore specific topics. One subcommittee was regarding Governance, and explored the HRB’s role in relationship to the Architectural Review Board and PCE Director. Another subcommittee formed to consider potential features of a new Mills Act program for Palo Alto. Eichler Guidelines Project Historic preservation staff began work with the consultant, Page and Turnbull, in early 2017. After two successful workshops to gather input from Eichler owners in the spring 2017, staff has been working on a walking tour brochure for the two National Register District Eichler neighborhoods. Staff also orchestrated the recent Eichler Memory Event. The Draft Eichler Design Guidelines are tentatively scheduled for formal presentation to the HRB in September 2017. Staff anticipates bringing these Guidelines and potential code changes to Council for consideration in early 2018, following review by the HRB and Planning and Transportation Commission. Discussion There are two additional projects that members of the HRB are interested in adding to the Department’s work program: 1. Modern Age Context The HRB is interested in developing a Modern Age Context Statement for Palo Alto. A context statement can provide the foundation for preservation planning, to describe the broad patterns of historical development of a community represented by the physical development and character of the building environment. A context statement, typically developed during the early stages of survey planning, can be developed as a separate activity from a survey and can identify important property types and establish eligibility criteria and integrity thresholds. A context based survey can allow the city to evaluate resources for land use planning purposes without needing to research each individual property. The OHP offers guidance in developing these statements. Staff had prepared a draft Certified Local Government (CLG) grant proposal for development of a Modern Age Context Statement in 2016, but has not had resources to focus on this effort. If the Council is amenable, staff could submit the grant proposal to the Office of Historic Preservation in 2018 following completion of the Eichler Guidelines project. 4.a Packet Pg. 110 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : 8 . 2 8 . 1 7 J o i n t M e e t i n g w i t h C C - H R B ( 8 3 3 0 : J o i n t C C / H R B M e e t i n g T o p i c s ( F i n a l D i s c u s s i o n ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 3 2. Mills Act Program The Mills Act allows local jurisdictions to enter into contracts with property owners of historic properties much like the Williamson Act allows jurisdictions to enter into contracts with owners of agricultural properties. In both cases, the contract requires preservation of the resource in exchange for a property tax adjustment. The City of Palo Alto has one Mills Act contract, but has never crafted a Mills Act program to incentivize historic preservation. In the next month or so, the Council will see an amendment to an existing Mills Act contract for the Squire House on their consent agenda. From time to time, other property owners have expressed interest in entering into a Mills Act contract and the HRB held three sessions to discuss establishment of a program, beginning with April 27, 2017. The April 27th report recalled the May 6, 2015 HRB-Council meeting suggestion that the HRB discuss possible parameters for an updated Mills Act application, and how to strike a balance for the right amount of incentive for preservation without taking too much revenue away from the schools. Links to the three HRB reports on the Mills Act are here:  April 27th report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57244  May 25th report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57907  June 8th report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58117. Minutes of the June 8th meeting are found at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58351. Councilmember input on these potential additions to staff’s work program would be appreciated. Given limited staffing for the historic preservation program, both projects would have to be completed as time permits. 4.a Packet Pg. 111 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : 8 . 2 8 . 1 7 J o i n t M e e t i n g w i t h C C - H R B ( 8 3 3 0 : J o i n t C C / H R B M e e t i n g T o p i c s ( F i n a l D i s c u s s i o n ) ) Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 8410) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 8/24/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes of August 10, 2017 Title: Approval of Minutes of August 10, 2017 From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Attached are minutes for the following meeting(s):  August 10, 2017 5 Packet Pg. 112 Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 8329) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 8/24/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 375 Hamilton Avenue: Downtown Parking Garage (prelim) Title: 375 Hamilton [17PLN-00224]: HRB Study Session for Preliminary Architectural Review Application for a New Five- Story Parking Garage with One Basement Parking Level with 1,709 sf of Ground Floor Retail, Bike Storage and 330 Parking Spaces Located on a 29,164 s.f. Surface Parking Lot. Zone District: PF (Public Facilities). Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act and a Scoping Session was Held. For More Information Contact Amy French, Chief Planning Official, at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Historic Resource Board (HRB): 1. Review and provide comments on this Preliminary Architectural Review application. Report Summary The subject application is a request for preliminary review. No formal direction is provided to the applicant and HRB members should refrain from forming and expressing opinions either in support or against the project. This is an opportunity for the HRB and the public to discuss the project and its context and note that:  The parking garage proposed for 375 Hamilton is adjacent to 526 Waverley Street, a local Category 3 resource on the City’s Historic Inventory; across Hamilton Avenue is the US Post Office, a local Category 1 and National Register historic resource, and nearby is 510 Waverley, a local Category 2 resource; and  The Cultural Resources section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report will discuss the proximity of the parking garage to, and compatibility with, historic resources. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The Planning and Community Environment Department has performed a cursory review of the concept plans for code compliance as part of the preparation of an Initial Study (Attachment E) and Notice of Preparation. The Notice of Preparation (Attachment F) was issued and the associated comment period concluded. A Scoping Meeting was held with the Planning and Transportation Commission, and a ‘Prescreening’ was conducted by the City Council to provide direction on the approach to amend the PF zone district development standards. The purpose of the HRB meeting, and on September 7, 2017, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) meeting, is to provide the applicant an opportunity to present conceptual project plans to the HRB and ARB and receive initial comments. Board members may identify aspects of the projects that are appropriate given the neighborhood context and consistent with city policies or areas of concern that the applicant may want to reconsider in a formal submittal. Community members are also encouraged to provide early input to the project. Background Project Information Owner: City of Palo Alto Architect: Watry Design, Inc. Representative: Holly Boyd, Public Works Senior Engineer, Project Manager Legal Counsel: Molly Stump, City Attorney Property Information Address: 375 Hamilton Avenue Neighborhood: Downtown Business District Lot Dimensions & Area: L-shaped lot; 29,200 square feet (sq.ft.) of surface parking lot area (concept plans note 29,164 sq.ft. site) Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes Historic Resource(s): Subject property (parking lot) is non-historic; (1) Across Hamilton Av. is 380 Hamilton, the US Post Office, a Category 1 Local and a National Register resource. Register Form, Inventory Form, and a photo are provided as Attachment B; (2) Adjacent site at 526 Waverley St. is a Category 3 Local resource that was modified following HRB/ARB review in February 1998 (new second story fenestration, new rear exit door, and elevator penthouse) and the Inventory Form and photos are provided as Attachment C; (3) Next to 526 Waverley, but not abutting the site, is 510 Waverley, a Category 2 Local resource, shown in photo, Attachment D. Existing Improvement(s): The site is surfaced with asphalt and trees (some protected oak trees) in planters striped for use a public parking lot Existing Land Use(s): Public Facilities - Surface parking lot Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: Subject site is zoned Public Facilities; Adjacent sites fronting Waverly and University are zoned CD-C(GF)(P): East, fronting Waverley: 526, circa 1928, 2-story, recently in retail use (Palo Alto Sport Shop and Toy World Inc.); 550-552, circa 1952, 1-story Prolific Oven retail bakery and Day One retail store; 558-560, 2-story circa City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 1938,Tai Pan ground floor restaurant, and second office space; North: 352-364 University, circa 1948, 2-story, with CVS ground floor retail and second floor office space Adjacent site to the west zoned PF: 345 Hamilton, circa 1979, 4-story plus basement AT&T building (31,610 sf) Nearby sites zoned PF and CD-C (P): South: Post Office, circa 1932, PF zone 510 Waverley, circa 1900, 2-story, GF retail, office upper floors Special Setbacks: 7 feet Along Hamilton Avenue Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Zoning Designation: Public Facilities (PF) Comp. Plan Designation: Regional Community Commercial Context-Based Design: Context Based Criteria are not contained in PF regulations Downtown Urban Design: The project is within the Hamilton Avenue District as described in the Downtown Urban Design Guide SOFA II CAP: NA Baylands Master Plan: NA ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): NA Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not within 150 feet of residential uses or district Located w/in AIA (Airport Influence Area): NA Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: December 2016: Council directed cost and impacts analysis and directed staff to proceed with design and environmental review. The Council staff report is viewable here: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55028 April 11, 2017: Council provided direction on legislative approach. The Council staff report is viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56784 The video of the Council meeting is viewable here: http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-123/ Council meeting minutes are viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57557 PTC: May 31, 2017: Scoping Meeting The staff report is viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57978 The video of the Council meeting is viewable here: http://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-49/ Council meeting minutes are viewable here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58628 Excerpt Minutes attached to this report (Attachment A) HRB: None ARB: None Infrastructure Plan The new public parking garage was envisioned in the 2014 Council Infrastructure Plan. The applicant proposes construction of the garage to replace and increase surface parking facilities. Project Description The City intends to construct a new above and below grade parking garage providing 331 vehicle spaces at 375 Hamilton Avenue. The plans provide context images, floor plans indicating 331 parking spaces (330 spaces plus 1 space serving 550 Waverley Street), with three options for architectural treatment. The project description is provided as Attachment A. The Notice of Preparation and the Initial Study also contain project descriptions. The City Council directed staff to proceed with full preliminary design of a new 331-space parking garage concept with five levels of above-ground parking, one level of basement parking and retail space along the Waverley frontage (see Staff Report #7942). Three distinct concepts were developed for discussion. The Public Works Department webpage for the ‘Downtown Parking Garage’ is viewable at this link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/downtowngarage. Updates to this website are anticipated. Additional application information and project plans are available through the “Building Eye” website at https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning. The HRB is provided hard-copy project plans. Anticipated Entitlements: The following discretionary applications are anticipated:  Architectural Review – Major (AR). City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5  Rezoning – Text Amendment to the Public Facilities Zone District development standards for public parking garages in the Public Facility zone districts in Downtown and California Avenue Business Districts. The recent Council discussion served the purpose of a “prescreening” preliminary review for rezoning; Council directed staff to prepare revisions to the Public Facility (PF) zoning Ordinance to specifically accommodate public parking garages (see Staff Report #7942). Discussion Preliminary review applications receive a cursory review for compliance with zoning regulations and consistency with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan or other applicable policy documents. A more comprehensive review will occur upon formal submittal, which may reveal other code or policy concerns. At this point in project development, the HRB and ARB are encouraged to provide objective feedback to the City on the preliminary drawings. Public Facilities Zone Development Standards A zoning compliance table is attached (Attachment G) to note where the project would not meet PF Zone standards, and why a text amendment will be part of the formal application request. The text amendment is to relieve City parking structures from meeting maximum standards for setbacks, floor area ratio, and height. Downtown Design Guide and AR Findings The project is identified in the Downtown Design Guide as within the Hamilton Avenue District. The Hamilton Avenue District Goals are as follows:  ‘Promote Hamilton Avenue as an active mixed use district which comfortably accommodates larger scale commercial office, civic and institutional buildings.’  ‘Maintain Hamilton Avenue as a pleasing, tree-lined pedestrian environment with complimentary outdoor amenities to offset the urban intensity which naturally results from the provision of transit service and convenient surface parking.’ The most relevant guidelines within the Hamilton Avenue District section are these:  “Provide pedestrian links from Hamilton Avenue to University Avenue in conjunction with development of the alleys and parking lots.”  Regarding the westerly intersection corner (project site on map): ‘strong building volume recommended’, and ‘opportunity for pedestrian friendly use’. The HRB may wish to discuss the relevance of Architectural Review Finding #2b, which states, “The project has a unified and coherent design that 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.” The HRB and ARB may want to consider comments that relate to:  Scale and mass  Transitions in scale to adjacent properties City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6  Relationship to the neighborhood setting and context  Pedestrian-orientation and design  Access to the site  Consideration to any applicable policy documents  Architectural design, theme, cohesiveness, and quality of materials  Preservation of existing native or mature landscaping or features, if any The submittal of an application for amendment to the Public Facilities Zone District Development Standards is anticipated, in order to allow greater lot coverage and height for public parking garages in the Downtown and California Business Districts. Environmental Review An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be prepared. To start the EIR process, an Initial Study (Attachment E) and Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Attachment F) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was filed on May 12, 2017. An EIR scoping meeting was held at the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) meeting on May 31, 2017. Comments were received at the meeting from two members of the public, and from PTC members. The NOP comment period is now closed. The next step will be the release of a draft EIR (DEIR) after the design is further refined and a formal Architectural Review application is submitted. The Preliminary Review involves no discretionary action and is therefore not a project and not subject to review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Next Steps There is no further action required by the HRB after its discussion of the preliminary plans. The applicant will file the formal applications subsequent to the Preliminary Architectural Review. The ARB is scheduled to hold a study session to review the preliminary application on September 7, 2017. The meetings are webcast and archived through the MediaCenter website (http://midpenmedia.org/local-tv/watch-now/). Report Author & Contact Information HRB1 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2336 amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Preliminary ARB Project Description (PDF)  Attachment B: Part 1- Post Office - National Register form (PDF)  Attachment B: Part 2 post office local inventory form (PDF)  Attachment B: Part 3 Post Office at 380 Hamilton Avenue (DOCX)  Attachment C: Adjacent historic resource - 526 Waverley (PDF)  Attachment C: part 2 Historic Photos 526 Waverley Street (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7  Attachment D: Photo of 510 Waverley Street (DOCX)  Attachment E: Draft Initial Study - Signed (PDF)  Attachment F: NOP - Signed (PDF)  Attachment G: Zoning Compliance Table (DOTX)  Attachment H: Project plans - directions to building eye (DOCX) June 21st, 2017 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor Palo Alto, CA 94303 Re: 375 Hamilton Ave., Downtown Parking Garage, ARB Preliminary Review Project Description To Planning Staff and ARB Members: Attached is the preliminary ARB submittal package for 375 Hamilton Ave., the proposed Downtown Parking Garage. The project applicant is Watry Design Group, with Hayes Group Architects, on behalf of our client, the City of Palo Alto. This package includes eight sets of half size drawings and eight full size drawings, including the site survey, contextual photos, the proposed floor plans, elevations, sections, and perspectives. CONTEXT and EXISTING CONDITIONS The site is located at the east corner of Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street. The rear of the site adjoins the ‘Lane 21’ alley. The surrounding vicinity is a mix of downtown retail and office uses. Southwest of the property, at 345 Hamilton, is the four-story AT&T central office. Northwest along Waverley are several one and two-story retail buildings, including historic buildings at 526 Waverley, a category 3 historic building and 510 Waverley, a category 2 historic building. Across Hamilton, to the Southeast, is the historic, two-story Post Office, a category 1 historic building. Across Waverley to the Northeast is the All Saints Episcopal Church. The site is more than 150 feet from any residentially zoned properties so increased zoning restrictions do not apply. The zone district is PF: Public Facility. The district has a fifty-foot height limit. There is a special setback of seven feet along the Hamilton Ave. property line. Easements are not known at this time. The site area is 29,164 SF, accommodating a surface-level parking lot. There is a public restroom at the corner of Hamilton and Waverley. The Arborist Report identifies eight trees on the property, including one protected Coast Live Oak. The occupants of 526, 550 and 560 Waverley utilize a portion of the site to access the backs of their buildings and pick up trash and recycling. PROPOSED PROJECT Program/Goals Due to an increased parking demand and a shortage of available parking spaces in the downtown, the City of Palo Alto has begun the process for the design of a new parking structure at the corner of Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street. Maximizing the amount of structured parking while integrating the structure within the downtown context with retail storefronts are primary goals for the project. Description/Constraints The proposed building extends to the property line at the Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street edges as well as the interior side lot line shared with the AT&T building. A ground floor, 1,500 SF, retail space is programmed for the Waverley Street frontage. At the north property line, shared with 560 Waverley, the edge of the garage sets back ten feet from the property line, allowing openings for natural ventilation into the parking garage, as well as light to reach the existing windows at 560 Waverley. This necessary setback also creates an opportunity for a pedestrian walkway, focused on and leading to the secondary stair and elevator vertical circulation elements. The primary stair and elevator circulation features are prominently positioned at the corner of Waverley Street and Hamilton Avenue since pedestrian way finding is an important aspect of garage navigation. At this street corner, the building edge erodes, creating a pedestrian court with access to the stair and elevator, as well as an entrance to the ground floor retail space that extends down Waverley Street. In order to maintain access for utilities, services and secondary means of egress for the existing buildings fronting on Waverley Street, the garage sets back sixteen feet from the shared property line at this location. To satisfy the car count goal, the garage is four stories, with parking at the roof level, plus one level of basement parking. The main vehicle entry / exit shall be on Hamilton Avenue near the south corner of the lot since Hamilton is a more travelled way. A secondary vehicular entry / exit shall be at Lane 21. The garage requires substantially open sides to provide natural ventilation for all levels save the basement level that is mechanically ventilated. Options Given the program and the site constraints discussed above, we are presenting three options for the architecture of the new garage for the ARB’s review, discussion and direction for the design team as the project is developed. Our approach in developing the three options for your review is predicated on the belief that the garage should be an integrated building in the context of the downtown rather than aggressive and self- conscious. An integrated building defines itself through program, connections with the site and context as well as streetscape character and compatibility. The program mandates a large, five-story, parking structure with primarily open sides for ventilation and a ground floor retail space fronting Waverley Street. Solving this problem, all options share the same height and footprint as well as façade transparency requirement. However, the three options vary significantly in their response to the context, materiality and streetscape character. One A metal fabric or perforated metal panel wrapped garage creates a semi-solid mass while allowing for ventilation. The semi-solid façade provides interesting visual depth during the day and glowing quality at night for the upper stories. A two-story arcade of plaster or concrete along Hamilton defines the street edge and subtly references the historic post office’s arcade immediately across the street and aligning with the overall height of the post office. Similar to the Hamilton façade, along Waverley, the two-story base of the building aligns with the façade and rhythm of the adjacent building and streetscape to the north. At the entry court, the metal mesh and the arcades disappear revealing the stair and elevator elements. The ground floor retail and seating areas are defined by horizontal canopies between the building columns. Two A metal, semi-solid material wraps the entire garage from the second floor to the fifth floor defining the edge of the garage in a vertical rhythm of bands. Within each band, taking a detail from the AT&T building, “windows” punch through creating a random pattern of shade, shadow and views from within. Defining the ground floor and concealing the parking from view, wrought iron or steel bars in a vertical array wrap the ground floor along Hamilton celebrating the handcraft of the wrought iron of the post office across the street. Along Waverley and at the corner court, a one-story frame of solid material defines the ground floor retail and references the architectural frame of 400 Hamilton. Along Hamilton, in front of the metal array, a linear bench provides opportunities for relaxing in full view of the historic post office. Three Solid fins of material, at random angles intended to create fixed patterns and celebrating the tile roof color of the historic post office, wrap the upper floors to define the volume and partially conceal the cars from below. Along Hamilton, as in Option One, a two-story arcade defines the pedestrian realm and provides opportunities for bench seating. Decorative infill panels of spaced brick reference the brick next door and the craft of the historic post office. Along Waverley Street a two-story façade reference the adjacent building scale and rhythm while defining the retail space. In all options, areas for landscaping, including planted areas and green walls, are provided at Hamilton, Waverley and the pedestrian walkway. New street trees along Hamilton and Waverley shall be coordinated with Palo Alto Urban Forestry. PARKING & BICYCLE SPACES This project shall include 331 total parking spaces. Of these, 8 shall be accessible spaces and provision for 83 electric vehicle chargers 17 to be installed initially. This count also includes 6 spaces serving to the new retail space and 1 space serving 550 Waverley. A long-term bike storage room shall be at Hamilton Avenue near the main vehicle entry/exit. This room shall be approximately 800 square feet and have space for over 60 bicycles. Short-term bicycle storage can be provided at the sidewalk near the retail space. TRASH, COMPOST AND RECYCLING A common refuse storage room shall be at Lane 21 near the secondary vehicle entry / exit. This room shall be approximately 450 square feet. It will serve the Waverley businesses and the proposed new retail space. We look forward to our presentation and discussion with the Architectural Review Board. Please call us at (650) 365-0600x15 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Ken Hayes, AIA Principal cc: Watry Design Group enclosed: Arborist Report, June 2017 FHR-8-300 (11-78) United States Department of the Interior Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service National Register of Historic Places Inventory—Nomination Form See instructions in How to Complete National Register Forms Type all entries—complete applicable sections 1. Name__________________27 5" historic United States Post Office (Palo Alto) * and/or common___________________________________^^ 2. Location_________________ street & number ?8° Hamilton Avemu-^________________not for publication city, town Palo Alto vicinity of congressional district 12th state California code 06 county Santa Clara code 085 3. Classification Category Ownership district x public x building(s) private structure both site Public Acquisition object in process being considered Status x occupied unoccupied work in progress Accessible yes: restricted x yes: unrestricted no Present Use agriculture commercial educational entertainment x government industrial military museum park private residence religious scientific transportation other: 4. Owner off Property name U.S. Postal Service, Western Regional Office street & number 850 Cherry Street city, town San Bruno vicinity of state CA 9U099 5. Location of Legal Description courthouse, registry of deeds, etc. County Courthouse street & number 70 W. Hedding Street city, town S3-*- Jose state California 6. Representation in Existing Surveys title Hist °ric and Architectural Resources e|egib|e? __yes date February, 1979 federal __ state __ county x local depository for survey records planning Department T City of Palo Alto city, town pal° A1"to (flee Continuation Sheet)state CA 7. Description Condition jf, excellent good fair Check or deteriorated _ A_ unalti riiln* ftltore unexposed le Check one jred x original site d moved rf«te Describe the present and original (Iff known) physical appearance The Hamilton Branch Post Office in Palo AHo is located on the southwest corner of Hamilton and Waverly Streets; the site occupies the entire block between Waverly and Gilman Streets. This is the general Civic Center area with the City Hall two blocks to the southwest and the Main Library directly behind City Hall on Forrest Avenue. The Post Office building is sited with the main facade along Hamilton Street. The reinforced concrete structure is set back from the lot line on three sides providing a landscaped area with a variety of trees, a redwood, an oak, a copper beech, and a dawn redwood with a plaque dated 1949. The landscaped area contributes importantly to the building's setting. The structure is a one-story rectangular block with a tiled, hip roof; the tiles are graded in color from a dark reddish brown at the ridge to a lighter, more salmon colored tile at the eaves. The main facade is preceljded by an open arcaded section of eight bays with round arches. It is also roofed with tile. Entrances at either end have the form of tall, round arched openings with bronze frames and ornamental bronze transoms above double doors that were originally bronze with grills, but have been replaced with lighter weight metal doors. Metal, openwork lanterns hang in the arcade. The section of the building at the corner of Hamilton and Gilman Streets contains the Postmaster's Office in a slightly projecting corner block which has a shallow bay window with an ornamental wrought iron grill on the Hamilton Street side and another wrought iron grilled window enclosing a flower box on the Gilman Street side. Other office spaces are also on this side of the building. On the interior, a public lobby extends the full length of the Hamilton Street frontage. The bays correspond to the exterior arcade arches and have round-headed windows with metal frames and amber colored glass. These are repeated on the northwest side of the building. The boxed-beam, wooden ceiling is stained dark; cross beams mark the divisions of the bays. The marble tiled floor has a woven pattern composed with beige and reddish squares. The wainscotting is a variegated, deep red marble. Service windows are framed in wood with the transom section filled with ornamental, wrought iron grills. This window type is repeated in the lock box area. Ornamental metal lantern fixtures hang in front of each entrance. The architectural style of the building is Spanish Mediterranean Revival with a rich vocabulary of decorative detail such as the blue and white tiles set in the second story wall, the wrought iron grills, and the softly modeled belt courses at the roof cornice. The walls are stuccoed in an uneven surface that mimics adobe. The rear portion of the building is occupied by the work room. The service platform and employee entrance is served by a private alley running from Waverly Street to Gilman Street. 8. Significance Period prehistoric 1400-1499 1500-1599 1600-1699 1700-1799 1800-1899 X1900- Areae of Significance — Check and justify below archeology-prehistoric community planning archeology-historic conservation agriculture economics x architecture education art engineering commerce exploration/settlement communications Industry Invention 1 X landscape architecture law literature military music philosophy x politics/government religion science sculpture social/ humanitarian theater transportation other (specify) Specific dates 1931-33 Builder/Architect Birge M. Clark Statement of Significance (in one paragraph) The Hamilton Station Post Office is historically significant because it was the main post office building for Palo Alto. The architect, Birge M Clark, is the son of Arthur B. Clark and worked with his father on the design of Hoover House, bu^lt as the residence of _. LOU and Herbert Hoover «A 1919. Arthur B. Clark, also an architect, was a member of the Stanford Art Department faculty. Birge M. Clark has been in practice for over 50 years in Palo Alto. The Post Office building was designed and built during tte Great Depression in 1931-33 Because of the economic conditions, the decision had been made in Washington that local architects be employed to design post office and other government buildings as a means of getting more men back to work in a hurry than would have been possible if all the plans had been made in Washington. Upon taking the first sketches back to the Treasury Department, at that time charged with the design of most government buildings, Clark was informed that, "this is not formal or stiff enough for a federal building." Clark replied, "I realize that it is not formal or stiff, but Mrs. Hoover told me that she hoped that I was keeping to the Monterey or Early California Style and also relating to the arcades and tile roofs of Stanford University. I realize, however, that this is not the way I should get instructions, and will follow your guidance." Well, the man answered him, "maybe that method is as good as any. Come back after lunch and we will let you know." After lunch they stated, "Proceed with your drawings as presented." The building is architecturally significant because of its exemplary design in keeping with the Mediterranean influenced architecture that was built in Palo Alto and on the Stanford University campus, it was a rare attempt to design a local post office building in keeping with a popular regional style. The first sketches were made in 1931, with formal drawings completed in 1932. Construction began in 1932; the building was completed in 1933. 9. Major Bibliographical References Archives of Palo Alto Historical Association 10. Geographical Data Acreage of nominated Quadranqle name ^ property "5/4+ >alo Alto Otiarfrannte *calft 1:2^000 UMT References A I } 9 PI 7 i Zf|If |7 i 0 | l^i 1 l^ i^lS 9 !0 ! i Zone Easting Northing C|_jJ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I El . I I I i I . . I I i I . I I . I G B Zone Easting Pi I I I I I J_Northing 1,1,1, 1_I J I I I I I Hi , I I I l j_i I . i J_I Verbal boundary description and justificationCorner of Gilman and Hamilton, 225' NE to Waverly, then 110' SE along Waverly, then 225 1 SW to Gilman, then 150 f N¥ to point of origin* List all states and counties for properties overlapping state or county boundaries state code county code state code county code 11. Form Prepared By Birge M* Clark, Architect organization Palo Alto Historical Association date July 15, 1980 3200 Hanover Street telephone city or town Palo Alto Californiastate 12. State Historic Preservation Officer Certification The evaluated significance of this property within the state is: __ national __ state >^ local As the designated State Historic Preservation Officer for the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89- 665), I hereby nominate this property for inclusion in the National Register and certify that it has been evaluated according to the criteria and procedures set forth by the Heritage Conservation and Recreation, Service. State Historic Preservation Officer signature / ^-^. title date For HCRS use only , •• *• ;;^^^--- • .,'-, '.-..•. -\. •• • • • I hereby certify that this property is Included.^ the National .Register•i •, ••• • :*' "'•:•"' ',!'„-• '' " &!oj©r0ci in tiiQ 6PO 930 635 FHR-8-300A (11/78) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND RECREATION SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM CONTINUATION SHEET ITEM NUMBER PAGE SUPPLEMENTAL PAGE ONE To be added under 6. REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS: Santa Clara County Heritage Resources Inventory 1979Depository for survey records: County Planning Department, San Jose Point of Historical Interest, SC1-043 Depository for records: State Preservation OfficeSacramento, California L J L_*J L? L_•! ; ~r :: ~ L . j r l —-" * — '- ^ % . '" ^-'.'--Iprj^n^Y^ tt.1! !,.!>'A"* ^ ^ | ^ ' I [ i*/ii:."i,.a' j 'I __^ j-»^ N „„ Jl I 111 "J "'_''" '^-' £,',i?"" ~~- -If^L 'I . i^a ec:"r^cIii *-«'' JD t+yr'- /7?. £€+r4. &t7r 3/t*fs*~ Ctfjxfrr** £mt* a. a f,4*nif*n »***>*« ***oftSST^K c-H-PCwaso Post Office at 380 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto 526 Waverley Street – Historic Photos 510 Waverley Street Category 2 Resource on Local Historic Inventory City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 1 May 12, 2017  City of Palo Alto  Department of Planning & Community Environment  California Environmental Quality Act  CITY OF PALO ALTO  INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM     1. Project Title:  City of Palo Alto Parking Structure at 375 Hamilton  Avenue (aka Downtown Parking Garage)    2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue   Palo Alto, California 94301    3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Holly Boyd, Senior Engineer      Department of Public Works      Telephone: (650) 329‐2612    Fax: (650) 329‐2154  Email: Holly.Boyd@cityofpaloalto.org    4. Project Location:  375 Hamilton Avenue in the Downtown Business  District, Northwest corner of Hamilton Avenue and  Waverley Street, within the city of Palo Alto, Santa  Clara County, California. See Figure 1.    5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue   Palo Alto, California 94301    6. General Plan Designation:  Community Commercial (CC)    7. Zoning:    Public Facilities (PF)    8.  Existing Plan Area Land Uses:  The project lot is abutted by four developed sites.  These include: 345 Hamilton, 1958 building occupied  by AT&T and Excel Aviation (Lot 102), 526 Waverley, a  1928 building, Category 3 historic resource most  recently occupied by retail use (Palo Alto Sport Shop  and Toy World Inc.) (Lot 83), 550‐552 Waverley, a 1952  building occupied by the Prolific Oven retail bakery and  Day One retail store (Lot 84), and 558‐560 Waverley, a  1938 building housing  the Tai Pan Restaurant on the  ground floor and second office space (Lot 85). (Shown  on Figure 1) The existing parking lot serves restaurant  and retail uses along Waverley Street and provides  rear‐entry parking to the CVS market.    City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 2 May 12, 2017  Figure 1. Downtown Parking Garage Site at 375 Hamilton Avenue    9. Description of Project:    The City of Palo Alto (City/project applicant) proposes to construct a parking garage on an existing City‐ owned surface Parking Lot D to provide a net increase of 205 to 329 public parking stalls to address  additional parking demand within the City’s Downtown Area.  The subject site is 29,200 SF in area, and  has 86 existing parking spaces. Parking is currently limited to two‐hour parking with no permit parking  provided. There are four existing access points from adjacent streets. The EIR prepared for the project  would evaluate build alternatives for replacing the existing surface lot parking.    The Project includes the following primary elements:     • A new five level public parking garage over one basement parking level, providing approximately  291‐415 spaces, and associated site improvements.     • An approximately 3,800 SF or less single‐tenant commercial shell space building fronting  Waverley Street, to be used as commercial retail space for new or existing businesses.     City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 3 May 12, 2017  • Other proposed options being considered include incorporating a bike station, mechanical  parking system, and a photovoltaic system.     10. Required Approvals:     The proposed project is within the City’s jurisdiction and will require approval from the City Council.  As  currently planned, the proposed parking garage will require changes to the zoning district ordinance to  allow for the planned lot coverage, floor area, height and setbacks.     ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:     The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at  least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following  pages.     Aesthetics  Greenhouse Gas Emissions  Public Services   Agricultural and Forestry  Hazards & Hazardous Materials  Recreation   Resources  Hydrology/Water Quality  Transportation/Traffic   Air Quality  Land Use/Planning  Utilities/Service Systems   Biological Resources  Mineral Resources  Energy   Cultural Resources  Noise  Mandatory Findings of Significance   Geology/Soils  Population/Housing      DETERMINATION:    On the basis of this initial evaluation:     I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a  NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.     I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment,  there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by  or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.     I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.     I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially  significant unless mitigated impact" on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been  adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has  been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached  sheets, if the effect is a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated  impact.” An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects  that remain to be addressed.   I find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment,  because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or  NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated  Less Than   Significant  Potentially with Less Than  Significant Mitigation Significant No  Impact Incorporated Impact Impact    City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 5 May 12, 2017  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:    I. AESTHETICS. Would the project:        a) Substantially degrade the existing visual  character or quality of the area and its  surroundings?    The project site and immediate vicinity  include commercial buildings, including listed  historic resources, and parking lots similar to  the proposed project. There are no impacts  anticipated on visual characteristics or scenic  quality of surrounding area.  There are  different perspectives on compatibility of  new buildings with existing architectural  context.            b) Significantly alter public viewsheds or view  corridors or scenic resources (such as trees,  rocks, outcroppings or historic buildings)  along a scenic highway?    There are no scenic routes or resources  located in the project area. The project is  located in the City downtown area in an area  with similar land use. The project will not  demolish or replace existing buildings, but  will remove existing protected trees. There  are no direct impacts anticipated on public  viewsheds, scenic resources or historic  buildings.             c) Create a new source of substantial light or  glare which would adversely affect day or  nighttime views in the area?      It is not anticipated that the project would  result in the addition of lights and glare as a  result of the vehicles head lights and interior  building lights.  It is anticipated that light and  glare from the project would be less than  significant.             d) Substantially shadow public open space  (other than public streets and adjacent  sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.  from September 21 to March 21?          Less Than   Significant  Potentially with Less Than  Significant Mitigation Significant No  Impact Incorporated Impact Impact    City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 6 May 12, 2017  The project would replace a surface parking  lot with a five story parking garage building.  There are not any open spaces within the  project area. The project would not result in  shadow impact on the public open space.    II. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES. (In  determining whether impacts to agricultural  resources are significant environmental effects,  lead agencies may refer to the California  Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment  Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of  Conservation as an optional model to use in  assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In  determining whether impacts to forest resources,  including timberland, are significant  environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to  information compiled by the California  Department of Forestry and Fire Protection  regarding the state’s inventory of forest land,  including the Forest and Range Assessment  Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project;  and forest carbon measurement methodology  provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the  California Air Resources Board.) Would the  project:         a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or  Farmland of Statewide Importance  (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared  pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and  Monitoring Program of the California  Resources Agency, to non‐agricultural use?     As documented on the California Resources  Agency Farmland Mapping and Monitoring  Program maps, the project is located in an  area designated as Urban and Built‐Up Land.  The project would not convert any Farmland  to non‐agricultural use.            b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural  use, or a Williamson Act contract?    The project site is zoned and used as  Downtown Commercial District (Pedestrian  Shopping). The project does not conflict with  any zoning for agricultural use or Williamson  Act contract.         Less Than   Significant  Potentially with Less Than  Significant Mitigation Significant No  Impact Incorporated Impact Impact    City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 7 May 12, 2017  c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause  rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public  Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland  (as defined by Public Resources Code section  4526), or timberland zoned Timberland  Production (as defined by Government Code  section 51104(g))?    The project site is zoned and used as  Downtown Commercial District (Pedestrian  Shopping). The project does not conflict with  any zoning of forest land, or timberland and  timberland production.            d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion  of forest land to non‐forest use?    There is no forest land in the project area.  The project coverts existing parking lot to a  parking garage, and would not result in the  conversion of forest land to non‐forest use.               e) Involve other changes in the existing  environment which, due to their location or  nature, could result in conversion of Farmland  to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest  land to non‐forest use?    There is no farmland or forest land within or  near the project site. The proposed project  does not involve any changes which would  directly or indirectly result in conversion of  farmland to non‐agricultural use or  conversion of forest land to non‐forest use.          III. AIR QUALITY. (Where available, the significance  criteria established by the applicable air quality  management or air pollution control district may  be relied upon to make the following  determinations.) Would the project:         a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of  the applicable air quality plan? (such as the  Bay Area Clean Air Plan)    There is a potential for air quality impacts as  a result of the project. The consistency of the  proposed project implementation with  adopted, applicable air quality plans will be        Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 8 May 12, 2017  evaluated in the EIR.  b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute  substantially to an existing or projected air  quality violation?    There is a potential for increased emissions  from the project activities and uses such as  increased vehicle traffic, and building  equipment operation. These activities could  result in exceeding Bay Area Air Quality  Management District (BAAQMD) significant  thresholds for pollutants of concern such as  particulate matter 10 microns or smaller in  diameter (PM10) and 2.5 microns or smaller  in diameter (PM2.5). The project may also  result in emission of reactive organic gases  (ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOX), which are  precursors to ozone.  There are also potential  air quality impacts as a result of project  construction activities. The potential of the  project to violate air quality standards or  contribute to existing or projected air quality  violation due to construction activities and  operation will be addressed in the EIR.            c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net  increase of any criteria pollutant for which  the project region is non‐attainment under  an applicable federal or state ambient air  quality standard (including releasing  emissions which exceed quantitative  thresholds for ozone precursors)?    The EIR will address individual and  cumulative impacts on criteria pollutants for  which the project region is non‐attainment  as described under question III.b above.          d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial  pollutant concentrations?    The project has the potential to expose  sensitive receptors, if the air quality analysis  determined that the project would  contribute to substantial increase in  pollutants in the project area.  Impacts on  sensitive receptors will be addressed in the  EIR.                                     Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 9 May 12, 2017  e) Create objectionable odors affecting a  substantial number of people?    It is not anticipated that the added number of  vehicles using the site for parking would  create minimal increase in objectionable  odors affecting people. Construction  equipment may create objectionable odors  for short periods that would affect people in  the immediate vicinity of the project area.   The project is not anticipated to create  objectionable odors affecting substantial  number of people.                                    IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:    a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either  directly or through habitat modifications, on  any species identified as a candidate,  sensitive, or special‐status species in local or  regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by  the California Department of Fish and Wildlife  or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?    The project will be constructed on a site that  consists of a paved parking lot. However, a  few mature trees may be removed to allow  for the construction of the garage building.  Trees could provide nesting habitat for  raptors and other migratory birds. The EIR  would evaluate the project area to identify  the presence of any bird species that are  considered as candidates, sensitive, or special  status species by the CDFG, and USFWS. The  EIR would also evaluate the project  compliance with the state and federal  Endangered Species Act, as well as,  and also  species protection under the federal  Migratory Bird Treaty Act and further  protection of raptor nests under Section  3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code.     b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any  riparian habitat or other sensitive natural  community identified in local or regional  plans, policies, or regulations, or by the  California Department of Fish and Wildlife or  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?                                                                   Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 10 May 12, 2017  There are no riparian habitats or species  protection under the federal Migratory Bird  Treaty Act and further protection of raptor  nests under Section 3503.5 of the California  Fish and Game Code.  c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally  protected wetlands as defined by Section 404  of the Clean Water Act (including, but not  limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)  through direct removal, filling, hydrological  interruption, or other means?    Wetlands are areas that periodically or  permanently covered with ground water and  support vegetation adapted to life in  saturated soil.  Wetlands could support fish  and wildlife, function as stormwater storage  and flood areas, and potentially ground water  recharge.   According to the National Wetland  Inventory for surface waters and wetlands,  there are no waters or wetlands within the  project area. There are no wetlands within  the project area, and it is anticipated that the  project would not have impacts on wetlands  in any means.              d) Interfere substantially with the movement of  any native resident or migratory fish or  wildlife species or with established native  resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or  impede the use of native wildlife nursery  sites?    The only wildlife anticipated to be present  within the project area is wildlife associated  with built urban environment for commercial  uses. Wildlife may include rodents, and other  small animals not restricted by the type of  developments in the project area. Trees in  the project area provide nesting habitats for  native and migratory birds. It is anticipated  that the project would have less than  significant impacts as a result of interference  with wildlife movement.              e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances  protecting biological resources, such as a tree  preservation policy or ordinance?          Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 11 May 12, 2017  The project includes removal of protected  trees and would be subject to the City tree  removal ordinances. A survey of the affected  trees would be completed for the EIR. The  EIR would include applicable tree  preservation/ replacement measures as  required by regulations. One‐one  replacement on the site may not be feasible.    f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted  Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural  Community Conservation Plan, or other  approved, local, regional, or State habitat  conservation plan?    There is no Habitat Conservation Plan,  Natural Community Conservation Plan, or  other adopted habitat conservation plan  applicable to the project site.          V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:        a) Adversely affect a historic resource listed or  eligible for listing on the National and/or  California Register, or listed on the City’s  Historic Inventory?    The City of Palo Alto inventory of downtown  area shows several historic buildings within  close proximity of the project area. The most  prominent building is the U.S Post Office  located across the street from the project  site, which is listed on the National Register  for Historic Places. However, it is not  anticipated that the project would affect the  post office building.  The adjacent building  located at 526 Waverley Street is listed on  the City’s Historic Inventory as a Category 3  historic resource.  Other adjacent buildings  are more than 50 years old and are therefore  potentially eligible for listing. The EIR would  address the proximity of the historic  properties and any required measures to  avoid impacts to these resources.              b) Eliminate important examples of major  periods of California history or prehistory?    Excavation would be required for the        Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 12 May 12, 2017  construction of the project. Alternative C  would require excavation of significant  depth. Previous construction at the project  site and nearby sites would likely have  disturbed archeological sites. However,  considering the depth of excavation required  for the project, there is a potential to disrupt,  alter, or eliminate undiscovered archeological  resources. The EIR would address any  measures required to avoid impacts on  potential archeological resources.      c) Cause a substantial adverse change in the  significance of an archaeological resource  pursuant to 15064.5?    See response to question V.b above.         d) Disturb any human remains, including those  interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?    The project could potentially disrupt, alter, or  eliminate undiscovered archaeological  resources, potentially including Native  American remains. The EIR would evaluate  this issue to address necessary measures for  the potential of the project disturbing any  human remains.            e) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique  paleontological resource or site or unique  geologic feature?     Previous land development of the site would  likely have disturbed or removed    paleontological resources that may have  existed. However, due to the excavation  work required for the construction of the  project, the project could have the potential  to   disrupt, alter, or eliminate as‐yet  undiscovered paleontological resources. The  EIR would evaluate this issue to address  necessary measures for the potential of the  project disturbing or destroying any  paleontological resources.          f)  Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural  resource that is recognized by City Council  resolution?            Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 13 May 12, 2017  See response to question V.a and b above.    g)  Cause a substantial adverse change in the  significance of a tribal cultural resource,  defined in Public Resources Code Section  21074 as either a site, feature, place, or  cultural landscape that is geographically  defined in terms of the size and scope of the  landscape, sacred place, or object with  cultural value to a California Native American  Tribe, and that is:                1) a site, feature, place, cultural landscape  that is geographically defined in terms of the  size and scope of the landscape, sacred place,  or object with cultural value to a California  Native American Tribe, that is listed or  eligible for listing on the California Register of  Historical Resources, or on a local register of  historical resources as defined in Public  Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or    2) a resource determined by a lead agency, in  its discretion and supported by substantial  evidence, to be significant according to the  historical register criteria in Public Resources  Code section 5024.1 (c), and considering the  significance of the resource to a California  Native American tribe.         VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:        a) Expose people or structures to potential  substantial adverse effects, including the risk  of loss, injury, or death involving:         i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as  delineated on the most recent Alquist‐ Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map  issued by the State Geologist for the area  or based on other substantial evidence of  a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines  and Geology Special Publication 42.)    According to Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake  Fault Zoning Map for the Palo Alto 7.5  Minute Quadrangle Map, there are no  mapped faults within or adjacent to the  project site, nor is the project site within        Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 14 May 12, 2017  fault zone. The closest fault is the San  Andreas Fault, located approximately over  5 miles southwest of the project site.      ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?    Due to the presence of nearby active  faults, the project area is likely to  experience moderate to strong  earthquakes during the design life of the  project. Settlements caused by ground  shaking are non‐uniformly distributed and  can result in damage to buildings and  structures. Degrees of settlements  resulting from seismic ground shaking are  related to magnitude and distance of  earth quakes. Buildings are required to be  designed and constructed to avoid risks of  seismic ground shaking to people and  properties.  The EIR would evaluate the  potential risks at the project location and  measures to avoid and minimize the  potential impacts.                iii) Seismic‐related ground failure, including  liquefaction?    Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which  the strength and stiffness of a soil are  reduced (behaves like a liquid) by  earthquake shaking of significant duration  or other rapidly applied loading.  Liquefaction and related types of ground  failure are of greatest concern under  conditions with loose to medium dense  cohesionless soils, shallow groundwater  (typically within 50 feet of ground surface)  and sustained ground shaking.    The EIR would evaluate potential impacts    that could be caused by liquefaction and  seismic‐related ground failure factors. The  EIR will identify potential impacts and  mitigation measures to avoid and  minimize impacts.            Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 15 May 12, 2017  iv) Landslides?    The topography within the project area is    flat. Landslide considerations are limited  to stability of excavations for construction  of the project. This issue will be evaluated  for the various project alternatives and  addressed in the EIR and during the  design phase of the project.          v) Expansive soils?    A study of the characterization and  consideration of site‐specific geologic and  soils conditions would be prepared for the  project and addressed in the EIR.  Project  specific soil test would be performed to  provide information regarding subsurface  geology, ground‐water levels, and the  engineering characteristics of soils in the  project area.     State and local planning, building, and  engineering regulations will also be  considered in addressing structures,  excavation, foundations, retaining walls,  and grading activities. The EIR will  describe recommendations to mitigate  effects of soils types and related factors in  the design of the project.            b)  Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of  topsoil?    Project construction would involve grading,  excavation, or other activities that could  temporarily expose disturbed soils to erosion.  The EIR will address the potential for erosion  that could occur during construction  activities, and applicable best management  practices according to the City and state  regulations.     Best management will also be implemented  as part of measures to avoid and minimize  effects of soil erosion on water quality. See  Hydrology and Water Quality section.          Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 16 May 12, 2017  c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is  unstable, or that would become unstable as a  result of the project, and potentially result in  on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading,  subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?    See response to question VI.a. and VI.a.v.  above.            d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in  Table 18‐1‐B of the Uniform Building Code  (1994), creating substantial risks to life or  property?            See response to question VI.a.v above.                            e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting  the use of septic tanks or alternative  wastewater disposal systems where sewers  are not available for the disposal of  wastewater?    No use of septic tanks or alternative  wastewater disposal systems is proposed for  the project site. The proposed project would  have no impact related to the capacity of  local soils to effectively accommodate septic  systems.          f) Expose people or property to major geologic  hazards that cannot be mitigated through the  use of standard engineering design and  seismic safety techniques?     It is not anticipated that the project would  expose people and property to major  geological hazards that cannot be mitigated  with consideration of all applicable  engineering design and seismic safety  techniques            VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the  project:         a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either  directly or indirectly, that may have a  significant impact on the environment?     Greenhouse gas emissions would increase at          Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 17 May 12, 2017  as a result of new traffic attracted to the area  by the parking the facility. The greenhouse  gases emission as a result of the project  would be evaluated to determine if the  project would result in exceedance of  BAAQMA significant thresholds.      b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or  regulation adopted for the purpose of  reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?     The project exceedance of greenhouse gas  emissions will be evaluated to determine  impacts on applicable plans and policies  adopted for the reduction of greenhouse  gases. The EIR would evaluate measures that  can be adopted as part of the project in order  to minimize impacts.            VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would  the project:         a) Create a significant hazard to the public or  the environment through the routine  transport, use, or disposal of hazardous  materials?    The project would not result in routine  transport, use, or disposal of hazardous  substances.              b) Create a significant hazard to the public or  the environment through reasonably  foreseeable upset and accident conditions  involving the release of hazardous materials  into the environment?    See response to question VIII.a above.            c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle  hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,  substances, or waste within one‐quarter mile  of an existing or proposed school?    There are no schools within one quarter mile  of the project area. In addition, the project  would not result in the emission or the need  to handle hazardous material.            Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 18 May 12, 2017  d) Create a significant hazard to the public or  the environment from existing hazardous  materials contamination by exposing future  occupants or users of the site to  contamination either in excess of ground soil  and groundwater cleanup goals developed for  the site or from the location on listed  hazardous materials sites complied pursuant  to Government Code section 65962.5?    The project is located in an area that has  been developed with various commercial  land uses. The EIR will investigate the    presence of existing hazardous material and  potential contamination of soil and ground  water in the project area. If contamination is  identified, the EIR will address all necessary  measures to avoid exposure of the public or  the environment to hazardous material.             e) For a project located within an airport land  use plan or, where such a plan has not been  adopted, within two miles of a public airport  or public use airport, would the project result  in a safety hazard for people residing or  working in the project area?    The project is not located within, or two  miles from land designated or used as airport  land.          f) For a project within the vicinity of a private  airstrip, would the project result in a safety  hazard for people residing or working in the  project area?    See response to question VIII.d above.            g) Impair implementation of or physically  interfere with an adopted emergency  response plan or emergency evacuation plan?    The project would not result in changes to  the roadway and transportation system and  would not create physical changes that would  interfere with emergency response or  evacuation plans.    The EIR would evaluate impacts on traffic and        Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 19 May 12, 2017  potential road closures during construction,  as well as measures to avoid impacts to  emergency services.        h) Expose people or structures to a significant  risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland  fires, including where wildlands are adjacent  to urbanized areas or where residences are  intermixed with wildlands?    According to the Santa Clara County Fire  Hazards Map, the City of Palo Alto is not in a  moderate, high, or very high fuel hazard  zone. The project site and vicinity are built  environments largely devoid of wildfire‐ prone vegetation.          IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the  project:         a) Violate any water quality standards or waste  discharge requirements?    The existing site for the proposed project is a  paved parking lot. It is not anticipated that  the project would have a significant increase  to impervious surface subject to storm water  impacts. A stormwater control plan will be  prepared to address existing untreated storm  water and any potential future effects on  storm water facilities. The plan would identify  required measures to meet standards and  requirements of the NPDES permit.  The plan  would address the operation and  maintenance of the stormwater facilities.       The proposed project would be constructed  on a lot size less than one acre. If the  construction activities would disturb more  than one acre, the project would require  submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) to the  RWQB before start of construction. This  would also require the implementation of  Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan  (SWPPP) containing Best Management  Practices (BMPs) during construction. The EIR  will evaluate potential impacts on water  quality as a result of the operation and  construction of the project.        Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 20 May 12, 2017  b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or  interfere substantially with groundwater  recharge such that there would be a net  deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the  local groundwater table level (e.g., the  production rate of pre‐existing nearby wells  would drop to a level which would not  support existing land uses or planned uses for  which permits have been granted)?     The project does not result in the use of  groundwater and would not affect  groundwater recharge.  Dewatering during  construction may be addressed with standard  approval conditions.            c) Substantially alter the existing drainage  pattern (increase the rate, volume, or flow  duration of storm water runoff) of the site or  area, including through the alteration of the  course of a stream or river, in a manner which  would result in new or increased flooding on  or off‐site?    It is not anticipated that the project would  increase the rate, volume or flow duration of  stormwater runoffs. The project does not   propose to alter courses of streams or rivers.          d) Result in stream bank instability?    The project site is not located near a stream.            e) Significantly alter the existing drainage  pattern (increase the rate, volume, or flow  duration) of the site or area, including  through the alteration of the course of a  stream or river, or substantially increase the  rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner  which would result in flooding on‐ or off‐site?    The project would not result in significant  increase in rate, volume, or flow duration of  stormwater runoff. The stormwater system in  the project area would be evaluated to  address needed drainage improvements and  potential for on‐ or off‐site flooding.               Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 21 May 12, 2017  f) Create or contribute runoff water which  would exceed the capacity of existing or  planned stormwater drainage systems or  provide substantial additional sources of  polluted runoff?    See response to questions IX.a and IX.e  above.            g) Provide substantial additional sources of  pollutants associated with urban runoff or  otherwise substantially degrade water  quality?    See response to questions IX.a and IX.e  above.          h)  Place housing within a 100‐year flood hazard  area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard  Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or  other flood hazard delineation map?    Although Palo Alto contains no areas within a  100‐year flood hazard area as mapped on a  federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood  Insurance Rate Map, the EIR would evaluate  adequacy of the storm drains to handle  potential localized flooding during storm  events. In addition, due to the proximity of  the project area to the San Francisco Bay  region, the EIR will address potential impacts  on the project from global climate change on  the rise of sea levels.        i) Place within a 100‐year flood hazard area  structures which would impede or redirect  flood flows?    The project is not located in 100‐year flood  hazard area, and does not propose the  construction of a structure that would  impede or direct flows.          j) Expose people or structures to a significant  risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,  including flooding as a result of the failure of  a levee or dam?    The project does not propose the        Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 22 May 12, 2017  construction of housing or other  developments within a 100‐years flood  hazard area.     According to the EIR prepared for the Palo  Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, the project  area is within Dam Inundation area for Lake  Lagunita, and possibly Searsville Lake.   The  EIR will address potential impacts from dams  failure on inundation area.            k) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or  mudflow?     A seiche is a tidal change in an enclosed or  semi‐enclosed water body caused by  sustained high winds or an earthquake. A  tsunami is a series of waves created when a  body of water such as an ocean is rapidly  displaced on a massive scale, most commonly  as the result of an earthquake. Palo Alto is  not in a tsunami/seiche area or area  susceptible to a mudflow. There is no impact  anticipated on the project area from seiche,  tsunami or mudflow.            X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:     a) Physically divide an established community?    The project is located within the commercially  developed downtown area of the City and  does not include residential use. It is not  anticipated that the project would physically  divide an established community          b) Conflict with any applicable City land use plan,  policy, or regulation (including not limited to  the Comprehensive Plan, CAP, or the City’s  Zoning Ordinances adopted for the purpose of  avoiding or mitigating an environmental  effect.    i) Substantially adversely change the type of  intensity of existing o planned land use  patterns in area?    The project would increase the number of  parking spaces available in the downtown  area to meet the existing need for parking.        Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 23 May 12, 2017  The project is compatible with existing  land use designation (community  commercial) but seeks zoning code  changes to allow for greater intensity of  use beyond existing development  standards of the Public Facilities zoning  designation.  A text amendment to the  Public Facilities zone district will be  proposed as part of this project. It is not  anticipated to change the type and  intensity of existing or planned land use  pattern in the area. The EIR would  evaluate the project plans in relationship  to the City adopted comprehensive plan to  demonstrate compatibility with the City  plan for the project and surrounding area.   ii) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or  with the general character of the  surrounding area, including density and  building height.    The building height and character of the  building would be evaluated for  compatibility with the general character of  the surrounding area. Some may view as  incompatible with general character,  density and building height given the five  story parking garage would be next to a  Category 3 resource and across the street  from a low‐profile National Register  historic resource. See response to question Xb  above.    iii) Conflict with established residential,  recreational, religious, or scientific uses of  an area?    The project provides additional parking  facilities to accommodate commercial and  other facilities and services available in the  project area.      c) Conflict with an applicable habitat  conversation or natural community  conversation plan?    There is no habitat conservation plan or  natural community conservation plan in this  project area.        Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 24 May 12, 2017  XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:  a) Result in the loss of availability of a known  mineral resource that would be of value to  the region and the residents of the state?    The project is located in an area developed  and designated for commercial land use. The  project would not result in the loss of land  with known mineral resources.              b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally  important mineral resource recovery site  delineated on a local general plan, specific  plan, or other land use plan?    See response to question XI.a above.          XII. NOISE. Would the project result in:        a) Exposure of persons to or generation of  excessive ground borne vibrations or ground  borne noise levels?    Construction activities would result in  excessive ground born vibration and noise  levels. Impacts would be temporary and for  short periods during equipment operation for  construction activities such as and demolition  and excavation.    b) Exposure of persons to or generation of  noise levels in excess of standards established  in the local general plan or the municipal  code, State standards, or applicable  standards of other agencies, including but not  limited to:    i) Result in indoor noise levels for residential  development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB?    There is no residential development  within the immediate project area;  housing units are found along Waverley  Street one block south of the project. The  project is not anticipated to have long‐ term noise impacts on residents.    ii) Result in instantaneous noise levels of  50dB or more in a bedroom or 55 dB or                                 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 25 May 12, 2017  more measures from other rooms inside a  house?    The sites in the immediate vicinity are  developed as commercial properties, and  the project is not anticipated to have long‐ term noise impacts on houses.    c) A substantial temporary or periodic increase  in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity  above levels existing without the project,  including:    i) Cause the average 24‐hour noise level  (Ldn) to increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or  more in an existing residential area, even  if the Ldn would remain below 60 dB?    ii) Cause the Ldn to increase by three dB or  more in an existing residential area,  thereby causing the Ldn in the area to  exceed 60 dB?    iii) Cause an increase of three dB or more in  an existing residential area where the Ldn  currently exceeds 60 dB?    See response to questions XII.b above.   Construction noise may result in  temporary noise impacts during  construction hours. Standard conditions  require compliance with the City’s noise  ordinance and construction hours.          d) A substantial permanent increase in ambient  noise levels in the project vicinity above levels  existing without the project.    See response to questions XII.b above.                 e) For a project located within an airport land  use plan or, where such a plan has not been  adopted, within two miles of a public airport  or public use airport, would the project  expose people residing or working in the  project area to excessive noise levels?    The project is not located within, or two miles  from land designated or used as airport land.        Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 26 May 12, 2017  f) For a project within the vicinity of a private  airstrip, would the project expose people  residing or working in the project area to  excessive noise levels?    See response to question XII.d above.            XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:      a) Induce substantial population growth in an  area, either directly (for example, by  proposing new homes and businesses) or  indirectly (for example, through extension of  roads or other infrastructure)?     The proposed project accommodates the  need for additional parking in a built out area  that includes businesses and other public  facilities. The project does not propose  improvements that would result in  population growth either directly or  indirectly.              b) Displace substantial numbers of existing  housing, necessitating the construction of  replacement housing elsewhere?    The project is replacing an existing parking lot.  The project would not result in displacing any  number of houses or requires the construction  of replacement housing.          c) Displace substantial numbers of people,  necessitating the construction of replacement  housing elsewhere?    See response to question XIII.a and XII.b  above.          d) Create a substantial imbalance between  employed residents and jobs?           The project improvements would not result in  any changes to the existing employment and  housing conditions, and would not create  imbalance between employed residents and  jobs.              Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 27 May 12, 2017  XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES.    Would the project result in substantial adverse  physical impacts associated with the provision of  new or physically altered governmental facilities,  or the need for new or physically altered  governmental facilities, the construction of which  could cause significant environmental impacts, in  order to maintain acceptable service ratios,  response times, or other performance objectives  for any of the public services:           a) Result in an adverse physical impact from the  construction of additional school facilities in    order to maintain acceptable performance  standards?    Construction and operation of a new parking  garage would not require the construction of  new school facilities, parks, recreational  facilities, or library facilities.          b) Result in an adverse physical impact from the  construction of additional fire protection  facilities in order to maintain acceptable  performance standards?  The project will increase the retail space and  parking facilities. However, this increase is  not anticipated to result in the need to    construct additional fire protection facilities  in order to maintain acceptable performance  standards. The project would not have  impact on the environment from the  construction additional fires protection  facilities.             c) Result in an adverse physical impact from the  construction of additional police protection  facilities in order to maintain acceptable  performance standards?    Construction and operation of a new parking  garage would not require the construction of  additional police protection facilities.          d) Result in an adverse physical impact from the  construction of additional parks and recreation  facilities in order to maintain acceptable  performance standards?              Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 28 May 12, 2017  See response to question XIV.a above.  XV. RECREATION.    a)  Would the project increase the use of existing      neighborhood and regional parks or other  recreational facilities such that substantial  physical deterioration of the facility would occur  or be accelerated?    The construction the parking garage would not  result in increase of demand on recreational  facilities such as regional parks or other public  recreational facilities.                b) Does the project include recreational  facilities, or require the construction or  expansion of recreational facilities which  might have an adverse physical effect on the  environment?    The project does not include the construction  of recreational facilities or require the  expansion of existing recreational facilities.          XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:    a) Cause an intersection to drop below its level  of service standard, or if it is already  operating at a substandard level of service,  deteriorate by more than a specified amount?    Construction and operation of the project  could increase traffic congestion and cause  intersections to operate below the desired  Level of Service (LOS) at local roads providing  access to the facility. The EIR will evaluate  potential traffic impacts at the local roads  and intersections in the vicinity of the project  area for peak hours, under existing  conditions, existing plus project, and future  conditions with and without the project.  Analysis of future conditions would also  consider cumulative impacts with and  without the project.              b) Cause a roadway segment to drop below its  level of service standard, or deteriorate  operations that already operate at a  substandard level of service?        Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 29 May 12, 2017    See response to question XVI.a above.       c) Cause a freeway segment or ramp to operate  at LOS F or contribute traffic in excess of 1  percent of segment capacity to a freeway  segment or ramp already operating at LOS F?    The project is not located near a freeway, and  would not generate additional trips that  might contribute to any segments of freeway  traffic.        d) Impede the development or function of  planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities?    It is not anticipated that the project would  impede the development of function of  planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities. The  project. The project would impact the  existing facilities during construction. This  impact would be evaluated in the EIR.          e) Increase demand for pedestrian and bicycle  facilities that cannot be met by current or  planned services.    It is not anticipated that the project would  increase demand for pedestrian and bicycle  facilities that cannot be met by current  services.        f) Impede the operation of a transit system as a  result of congestion or otherwise decrease  the performance of safety of such facilities?     The project is located approximately half a  mile from the Palo Alto Transit Center/  Station. The EIR would evaluate impacts on  the operation of the transit system.            g) Create demand for transit services that  cannot be met by current or planned services?    The project would not generate new demand  for transit services.        Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 30 May 12, 2017  h) Create the potential demand for through  traffic to use local residential streets?    As part of the evaluation of traffic impacts,  the EIR will evaluate potential impacts on  roadways and intersections located in  residential areas close to the project area.     i) Cause any change in traffic that would  increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential  Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more?    See response to question XVI.h above.                                    j) Create an operational safety hazard?    The EIR will evaluate the project impact of  traffic and circulation in relation to potential  effects on operational safety hazards.            k) Result in inadequate emergency access?    See response to question XVI.j above.          l) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,  including either an increase in traffic levels or  a change in location that results in substantial  safety risks?    It is anticipated that the project would not  have impacts on air traffic.         m) Cause queuing impacts based on a  comparative analysis between the design  queue length and the available queue storage  capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are  not limited to, spillback queues at project  access locations; queues at turn lanes at  intersections that block through traffic;  queues at lane drops; queues at one  intersection that extend back to impact other  intersections, and spillback queues on ramps.     The EIR will evaluate potential queuing  impacts resulting from the project.                 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 31 May 12, 2017  XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the  project:            a) Need new or expanded entitlements to water  supply?    The project would connect to the existing City  facilities and would not result in new or  expanded entitlements to water supply.          b) Result in adverse physical impacts from new  or expanded utility facilities due to increased  use as a result of the project?    The project would connect to the existing City  facilities and would not result in new or  expanded utility facilities.           c) Result in a substantial physical deterioration  of a utility facility due to increased use as a  result of the project?    It is not anticipated that the project would  result in deterioration of utility facilities due  increased use.          d) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements  of the applicable Regional Water Quality  Control Board?    It is not anticipated that the project would  result in exceeding wastewater treatment  requirements. The construction and  operation of the project would be subject to  all applicable regional and local water quality  standards and regulations.           e) Result in a determination by the wastewater  treatment provider that it has inadequate  capacity to serve the project’s projected  demand in addition to the provider’s existing  commitments?    See response to question XVII.d above.          f) Would the project require or result in the  construction of new water or wastewater  treatment facilities or expansion of existing  facilities, the construction of which could        Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 32 May 12, 2017  cause significant environmental effects?    The project may result in the design and  construction of new storm water drainage  facilities. It is not however, anticipated that  the redesign and construction of the facilities  would cause significant effect on the  environment.     g) Require or result in the construction of new  storm water drainage facilities or expansion  of existing facilities, the construction of which  could cause significant environmental  effects?    The project may result in the design and  construction of new storm water drainage  facilities. It is not however, anticipated that  the redesign and construction of the facilities  would cause significant effect on the  environment.            h) Be served by a landfill with sufficient  permitted capacity to accommodate the  project’s solid waste disposal needs?    The operation of the parking garage would  not result in significant impacts that would  affect capacity of landfills in order to  accommodate the project. Construction of  the project may result in one time need to  dispose of material resulting from excavation  and pavement removal of the existing  parking lot. The construction impact on  landfills will be addressed in the EIR.            i) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes  and regulations related to solid waste?    The proposed project would comply with all  federal, State, and local statues and  regulations related to solid waste.    j) Result in a substantial increase in natural gas  and electrical service demands that would  require the new construction of energy supply  facilities and distribution infrastructure or  capacity enhancing alterations to existing  facilities?                           Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 33 May 12, 2017  The project proposes to include  accommodations for the use of vehicles run  by natural gas or electricity. The additional  demand of electrical and natural gas demand  and impact on energy consumption created  by the project would be evaluated in the EIR.         XVIII. ENERGY    a) Have an energy impact? Energy impacts may  include:    i) Impacts resulting from amount and fuel  type used for each stage of the project    ii) Impacts on local and regional energy  supplies and on requirements for  additional capacity    iii) Impacts on peak and base period demands  for electricity and other forms of energy    iv) Impacts to energy resources    v) Impacts resulting from the project’s  projected transportation energy use  requirements    See response to question XVII.j above.                      XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.    a) Does the project have the potential to  degrade the quality of the environment,  substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or  wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife  population to drop below self‐sustaining  levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal  community, reduce the number or restrict the  range of a rare or endangered plant or  animal, or eliminate important examples of  the major periods of California history or  prehistory?        b) Does the project have impacts that are  individually limited, but cumulatively  considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"  means that the incremental effects of a        Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact City of Palo Alto   Downtown Parking Garage 34 May 12, 2017  project are considerable when viewed in  connection with the effects of past projects,  the effects of other current projects, and the  effects of probable future projects)?      c) Does the project have environmental effects  which will cause substantial adverse effects  on human beings, either directly or indirectly?              Attachment Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to HRB Members. These plans are available to the public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “375 Hamilton Avenue” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “Initial Project Plans”. Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 8328) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 8/24/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: STUDY SESSION: 2601 E. Bayshore, Former ITT Property in Baylands Title: STUDY SESSION: 2601 E. Bayshore Road, Discussion Regarding Former International Telephone and Telegraph (ITT) Property From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) receive this report and take the following action(s): 1. Discuss the former International Telephone & Telegraph (ITT) property, and decide whether to add this topic to the list of potential topics for the August 28, 2017 joint meeting of the HRB and City Council. Report Summary This report provides background information for an Historic Resources Board discussion regarding the ITT property. The buildings on the property are not proposed to be demolished; in fact, the Council is scheduled to discuss a budget amendment on August 28th to ensure funds will soon be available to implement repairs to the building(s); to ensure safety; to protect from vandalism and theft; and to create a trail/ facilities maintenance access route. Background On July 13, 2017, members of the HRB requested that staff place on a future agenda an HRB discussion of the future of the former ITT building, following publication of an article on June 29, 2017 entitled 'Signaling the End?' Staff reached out to the Community Services Department Open Space and Golf Division Manager, who was involved in the park dedication of the Former ITT property, and will be involved in the discussion regarding the future use of the site. Staff also received a report from Public Works staff who are involved in cleaning up the site and determining the future use. In summary, the City is just starting work on the Baylands Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Part of the plan will be to help plan for how to best use the Former ITT property. The Baylands City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Master Plan provides basic guidance on what to do with the recently dedicated 35 acres Former ITT Antenna Farm (Page 96-99 discuss the Former ITT area): “Antenna Field 5. Remove the antenna field, replace with marshland and incorporate this area into Byxbee Park. (In 1993 the City and KFS entered into an agreement wherein the City will buy the easement from KFS once a new site has been constructed and approved by the FCC. However, a proposal to demolish the radio station buildings may not be desirable as they have been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.)” Baylands Master Plan is @: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/14882 A staff report to Council from Public Works (ID #8347 viewable at this link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council/default.asp) provides background about the site and puts forward a recommendation for a budget amendment to allow earlier access to funds for the Byxbee Park Capital Improvement Project. The report notes that Council dedicated the 36 acre International Telephone & Telegraph (ITT) property on June 5, as parkland and staff determined that urgent work was needed to clean-up, repair, maintain and protect the ITT structures from upcoming winter rains. The requested funds for FY17-18 are for initial work to ensure safety and prevent further deterioration, theft and vandalism, without assumptions on the ultimate facility use. Discussion Council Agenda August 28, 2017 The Council report for August 28, 2017 includes a description of proposed activity, summarized here:  Resolving safety issues and preventing further theft and vandalism;  Repairing the road to the facility for use as a trail as well as for maintenance vehicles, matching the rest of the Byxbee Park trails in function and appearance;  Cleaning up unwanted materials left by Globe Wireless;  Grading of heavily disturbed dirt areas and adding new soil to improve appearances adjacent to the buildings. The grade will be sloped slightly away from the buildings to prevent further damage from rainfall;  Repairing numerous leaks in the roof of the main building;  Removing the transformers west of the main building;  Retaining the electrical service cabinets so that electric power can readily be re- established;  Removing the smaller poles and associated wiring (as they continue to be targets for theft and vandalism);  Retaining the antennae (taller poles) in place until decisions are made about them;  Covering of windows (50% broken) with plywood and painting plywood white, along with the rest of the two buildings, to match the current color; City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3  Placing security fences around each of the two buildings to protect them from further break-ins and vandalism, and allow for eventual removal of the perimeter fencing, which has not been effective. Report ID #8347 notes that: (1) the work to be conducted is categorically exempt from CEQA requirements as it is maintenance of existing facilities and does not impact adjacent wetlands; and (2) further environmental review will be conducted in connection with any future use of the ITT facility. Historic Status of ITT Property Briefly, the Federal Telegraph Company was a successor of Paulsen Wireless Telephone and Telegraph Company, founded in Palo Alto by Cyril F. Elwell in 1909. The company reorganized in 1911 as the Federal Telegraph Company and was a pioneer in the development and manufacturing of equipment for continuous wave radio broadcasting. Research and partnership with other inventors, including Lee de Forest, produced the package of technology that placed FTC in the advance guard of the radio industry. The main building at 2601 E Bayshore Road, along with a 626-foot tower, was built in 1921 as part of a planned network for telegraph service along the west coast. In 1924 additional equipment at the site made communications with ships at sea possible. In 1927, the station was sold to the Mackay Radio and Telegraph Company to use for point-to-point and ship-to-shore communications. The following year, Mackay was taken over by the International Telephone and Telegraph Company. Interestingly, in 1941, an operator picked up a signal just minutes before the Pearl Harbor attack, one of the first inklings of the assault. The tower was demolished in 1960 and the station remained in operation into the 21st Century. By 2014, the facilities and equipment at the site had been vandalized and the power turned off. In 2001, Dames & Moore evaluated the ITT property and found it eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A (events/broad patterns of our history) at the national level. The period of significance was suggested to be 1921-1951 (50 years prior to the report) but it is likely the period of significance is 1921-1960, when the tower was demolished. Removal of the tower in 1960 constituted a serious loss of integrity for the facility. However, it retains integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. The property is the best surviving remnant of the once extensive presence of the Federal Telegraph Company in Palo Alto, its early headquarters. [FTC first operated out of a home at 913 Emerson, which has since been demolished. However, the site of their laboratory on Emerson is a CA Landmark known as the “Pioneer Electronics Research Laboratory” and was where the creation of the first vacuum tube amplifier and oscillator occurred. Report Author & Contact Information HRB1 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2336 Amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Attachments:  Attachment A: 2601 East Bayshore Road DPR (PDF) Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 8374) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 8/24/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: STUDY SESSION: Historic Designation for 526 Waverley Title: STUDY SESSION: Historic Resources Board Review of a Proposed Reclassification of the Birge Clark Designed 1927 Building at 526 Waverley in Downtown Palo Alto, from Category 3 on the City's Historic Inventory to Category 2, Prior to Application for Preliminary Architectural Review for Historic Rehabilitation and Potential Upper Floor Addition for Residential Use. Zone District: CD-C(GF)(P). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Sections 15331 Historical Resource Rehabilitation From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s): 1. Discuss the existing historic designation for 526 Waverley, known as the Palo Alto Sport Shop, and discuss the potential reclassification, and 2. Recommend the applicant pursue the reclassification and submit a Preliminary Architectural Review application to allow the HRB, ARB and City Council to appreciate the scope of work to rehabilitate and add to the building. Report Summary This report is to support the HRB’s discussion of a potential reclassification of the Palo Alto Sport Shop from Category 3 to Category 2 on the Palo Alto Historic Resources Inventory associated with a potential building rehabilitation and addition of residential housing units. A reclassification to Category 2 would be based on a building’s retention of the seven aspects of historic integrity as defined by the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, and consistency with the definition of a Category 2 building in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.49.020(b). Background City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The property’s listing on the City’s Inventory dates back to the 1970’s (Attachment A). Historic photos of the building are provided in Attachment B, and an Architectural Review Board staff report from 1998 related to exterior and interior building modifications is provided as Attachment C. The property owner and his architect met with staff on August 4, 2017, to explore the possibility of reclassifying the building from Category 3 to Category 2 related to a proposal for rehabilitation and preliminary concepts for adding upper-floor residential units to the building. The owner provided staff with an Historic Resource Evaluation (Attachment D), existing building drawings (Attachment E), and information regarding assessments for 34 spaces parking not provided for the existing floor area. The parking information is from the 2001 Parking Assessment District document, which noted existing floor area of 8,752 sf and one parking space that appeared to be provided at rear. The then-owner paid for the remaining 34 stalls as part of the 2001 assessment district. Discussion If the HRB is in support of reclassification, the applicant can submit a formal application for reclassification, either separately or in conjunction with an application for Preliminary Architectural Review, at which time the HRB can recommend that the City Council reclassify the building based on retention of the seven aspects of historic integrity as defined by the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, and consistency with the definition of a Category 2 building in PAMC Section 16.49.020(b), “A 'Major Building’ of regional importance. These buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of an architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the state or region.” Once the applicant submits a formal proposal for rehabilitation, the HRB can recommend that the Architectural Review Board and the Director of Planning and Community Environment find that the proposed scope of rehabilitation meets the definition of "historic rehabilitation" set forth in Municipal Code 18.18.030(b) (Attachment F) and that the historic rehabilitation plan complies with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. The HRB can recommend conditions of approval related to the rehabilitation as part of the approval conditions for a formal Architectural Review application. Analysis The building at 526-534 Waverley Street was built in 1927 and was the home of the Hoffacker family, who operated Palo Alto Sport Shop for almost 90 years. The building was designed by Birge Clark, generally considered Palo Alto’s most important historic architect and the city’s master of the Spanish Colonial Revival style. The builder was Wells Goodenough, who was the contractor on most of Clark’s early projects and was known for the highly skilled carpenters on his team. Many Spanish Revival elements remain, including the red tile roof trim, arched cornice detailing and the natural, earthy tones. The building is eligible for listing on Palo Alto’s local inventory under criteria 1, 5 and possibly 6: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 1. The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important events in the city, state or nation; 5. The architect or building was important; and 6. The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship. Currently, 526-534 Waverley would not meet the requirements for the Category 2 designation as a significant amount of architectural integrity has been lost over the years. However, the proposed rehabilitation project and restoration of the primary façade to its period of significance could change that. The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Restoration states “restoration is defined as the act of process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a restoration project.” The restoration of the storefront to its original configuration and the return of previously removed architectural details (corner brackets, wrought iron window coverings, arched entries, etc.) based on historic plans and photographs would possibly allow for the elevation of the building to a Category 2 designation. Environmental Review A reclassification and rehabilitation project is subject to assessment 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. A reclassification and rehabilitation project is Exempt from CEQA Section 15331, Historical Resource Rehabilitation. A minor alteration, if proposed, may be exempt under Section 15301, Existing Facilities. Next Steps The property owner may submit a formal request for reclassification of the building to Category 2. Because the owner is interested in rehabilitation and a major addition to the existing building, the owner is encouraged to submit a Preliminary Review application to indicate what is proposed. Staff would review the application against National Register Criteria and Municipal Code Category 2 definition and return to the HRB. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the HRB may: 1. Postpone further discussion until the applicant submits a Preliminary Architectural Review application for discussion by the HRB. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Report Author & Contact Information HRB1 Liaison & Contact Information Emily Vance, Historic Preservation Planner Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official (650) 617-3125 (650) 329-2336 emily.vance@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Inventory form (PDF)  Attachment B: Historic Photos 526 Waverley Street (DOCX)  Attachment C: HRB 1998 Staff_Report_BODS (PDF)  Attachment D: 526 Waverley_Prelim Assmt_5 July 2017 (1) (PDF)  Attachment E: Waverley_Existing (PDF)  Attachment F: PAMC Chapter 18-18 Excerpt 18.18.030 (PDF) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org 526 Waverley Street – Historic Photos 1 Memorandum To: John R. Shenk Thoits Bros., Inc. 629 Emerson Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Project: 526-534 Waverley Street – Preliminary Assessment Project No.: 17124 Date: 5 July 2017 Via: Email From: Sarah Hahn, Senior Architectural Historian INTRODUCTION ARG has prepared this Preliminary Assessment memorandum at the request of Thoits Bros., Inc. (Client) for the property at 526-534 Waverley Street in Palo Alto, California. Designed by Birge Clark and completed in 1927, the building was the home of the locally owned and family operated Palo Alto Sport Shop for almost 90 years. The property is currently listed as a Category 3 building on the City of Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory. The Client has requested this preliminary evaluation to determine whether the property could qualify as a Category 2 resource, which would allow for certain development benefits. This memo provides a preliminary evaluation of potential historical significance for the subject property under the City of Palo Alto’s Criteria for Designation and Category definitions. This memo does not present a full Historic Resource Evaluation for the building and is not intended for submittal to City agencies as such. METHODOLOGY To complete this memorandum, ARG performed limited historical background research on the subject property and completed a site visit to examine existing conditions in June 2017. ARG visited the Palo Alto Development Services Department to collect available building permit records, and the Palo Alto Historical Association to obtain historical background materials. A summary of the research and site visit findings is provided in this memo to support the preliminary analysis of historical significance. 526-534 WAVERLEY STREET HISTORICAL OVERVIEW Palo Alto Although the land was once occupied by the Ohlone and later part of vast Spanish land grants, modern- day Palo Alto was formed in the late 1800s by Leland and Jane Stanford, the founders of Stanford University. The Stanfords “decided that the new university should have an accompanying college town to 2 provide a clean-living place for student housing and other services.”1 After both the neighboring towns of Menlo Park and Mayfield refused to stop serving alcohol, Stanford decided to create his own dry town and called it University Park. In contemporary advertisements, the area was described as “a tract of beautiful oak-park land, immediately opposite and adjoining the grounds of the Leland Stanford Junior University.”2 The land was “subdivided into villa blocks, comprising about five acres each… in the most artistic manner, with broad avenues intersecting each other at picturesque angles.”3 University Park officially became Palo Alto in 1892. By the turn of the twentieth century, Palo Alto was a developing town that “had solved many of the basic problems of survival by installing an efficient water system, paving the roads, establishing schools, developing sewage management, and other municipal functions.”4 Sanborn Maps dating to 1901 indicate the area directly surrounding the future site of the subject property consisted of lots developed primarily with one- to two-story dwellings and a few churches. A one-story dwelling occupied the subject lot. By 1924, University Avenue – just northeast of the subject property – had become the city’s primary commercial corridor, and the one-story residence still occupied the subject lot. This residence was demolished or otherwise removed from the site to allow for construction of the subject property in 1927. The 1949 Sanborn shows the Palo Alto Sport Shop at 526-534 Waverley Street as a two-story commercial building with a one-story bicycle repair area at the rear of the building. The remainder of the block contained commercial and retail properties along University Avenue, Bryant, and Waverley Streets. Two churches, a social hall, a commercial building and several dwellings lined Hamilton Avenue. 526-534 Waverley Street The subject property at 526-534 Waverley Street was constructed in 1927. Bernard J. Hoffacker commissioned the design from architect Birge Clark, and W.P Goodenough was in charge of construction. (Bernard Hoffacker was the father of Edward Hoffacker Sr., who established business enterprises in the building.) The property originally contained three separate commercial spaces, occupied in the first two decades by the Palo Alto Sport Shop and the Palo Alto Realty Company – both owned by Edward Hoffacker, at 526 and 534 Waverley, respectively. The 530 Waverley space housed a bakery (Home Food Shoppe) through the late 1930s, and was later occupied by Stanford Electric Works. In 1948-49, the building was remodeled, and the Palo Alto Sport Shop expanded into all areas of the building. Prior to moving to Palo Alto, Edward Hoffacker Sr. had worked in the insurance business in San Francisco. After arriving in the area, Hoffacker established the Palo Alto Realty Company, which he ran through the late 1940s. With a desire to establish a business his sons could grow, Hoffacker also established the Palo Alto Sport Shop in the late 1920s.5 In 1946, Edward Hoffacker Sr. retired and passed management of the business to his sons, Bernhard (Bern) and Edward (Ed) Hoffacker Jr.6 1 Pamela Gullard and Nancy Lund, History of Palo Alto: The Early Years, (San Francisco: Scottwall Associates, 1989), 83. 2 Ibid., 85. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid., 137. 5 “Enlarged P.A. Sport Shop to hold Open House Tonight,” Palo Alto Times, 17 May 1949. 6 “Hoffacker Sons Succeed Father in Sports Shop,” Palo Alto Times, 18 January 1946. 3 In 1948, the Hoffacker family announced an expansion plan for the business. Since opening, the Palo Alto Sport Shop had occupied the retail space at 526 Waverley Street and 534 Waverley had housed the Palo Alto Realty Company; the Hoffackers owned both businesses. The family planned to take over the neighboring retail space at 530 Waverley Street - previously occupied by the Stanford Electric Works – and double the size of the store. According to the Palo Alto Times: When stocked with wheel goods and toys, the concern will be the largest of its kind in Palo Alto. The present repair shop – for servicing bicycles, motor scooters and other wheel goods – also will be enlarged.7 To celebrate completion of the $30,000 expansion, the family hosted an open house on the evening of May 17, 1949. At the time, the store was the largest of its kind on the Peninsula. Merchandise included firearms, fishing and tackle, toys, motor scooters, bicycles, sports clothing, athletic goods, and archery supplies. The store also operated a repair shop for bicycles, motor scooters, and lawn mowers.8 In 1956, Ed and Bern Hoffacker opened a new store called Midtown Toy World in Palo Alto, which carried both toys and sporting goods.9 Figure 1. Newspaper advertisements for the post-expansion grand opening event (Palo Alto Times, May 1949). 7 “Sport Shop Expansion Announced,” Palo Alto Times, 5 October 1948. 8 “Enlarged P.A. Sport Shop to hold Open House Tonight,” Palo Alto Times, 17 May 1949. 9 “New Stores are Opening in P.A., MP,” Palo Alto Times, 15 August 1956. 4 The Palo Alto Sport Shop was one of a small number of family-run businesses to survive into the 21st century. The business, and the Hoffacker family themselves, played a notable role in the local community by supporting, and sometimes funding, local youth sports programs and competitions. They assisted several local non-profits and provided a first-time work experience to hundreds of local teenagers.10 The Palo Alto Sport Shop was in continuous operation at 526 Waverley Street from 1930 to 2017, when it went out of business after 87 years. Alterations The subject property was constructed in 1927 and is currently vacant. Below is a brief overview of major alterations over time: • 1927 – Original construction • 1948 – Expansion of Sport Shop to include 530 and 534 Waverley retail spaces • 1949 – Drive-in service area added to rear of store (painted red and green)11 • 1971 – Reroof • 1998 – Remodel existing mezzanine, restrooms, dressing rooms, and rear exit for accessibility; install elevator Figure 2. Original Birge Clark drawing, 526 Waverley, c.1925 (Stanford Atlas, online). 10 Bill Shilstone, “Just a Family Business, Serving the Community, Making a Difference,” The Peninsula Times Tribune, 6 June 1990. 11 Palo Alto Times, 28 October 1949. 5 In addition to the alterations noted above, visual observation indicates that each of the three entrances have been fully reconfigured, including the conversion of the central entrance to a storefront window. The pediment above the northeastern entrance has been removed, as have the decorative corner brackets at the entry opening. The decorative corner brackets and header beam originally at the central entrance have been covered or removed, and the rounded archway at the northeastern entrance has been squared off. The original tilework and storefront assemblies have also been removed and replaces. The wrought iron balconies at the second levels of both the central and northeastern bay are no longer intact, and the full-height French doors at each location modified into windows. Figure 3. Undated photo (Palo Alto Weekly, September 2005). Figure 4. Existing conditions photo (ARG, June 2017). Birge Clark The son of Arthur B. Clark – a noted architect in his own right – and Grace Clark, Birge was born on April 16, 1893 in San Francisco. His parents had moved to Palo Alto the year before when Arthur began a professorship at Stanford University teaching architecture and art. Birge himself studied architecture at Stanford University and later at Columbia University. He earned a Silver Star for gallantry in World War I, after which he returned home to Palo Alto, where he enjoyed a successful career as an architect. Clark resided in Palo Alto until his death on April 30, 1989. Over the course of his prolific career, Birge Clark was considered by many to be the “man who built Palo Alto.” When he opened his practice in 1922, Birge was only one of two licensed architects between San José and San Francisco.12 His early works include the Lou Henry and Herbert Hoover House (1920) at 12 Dave Weinstein, Signature Architects of the San Francisco Bay Area (Layton, UT: Gibbs Smith, 2006), 70. 6 Stanford University, for which his father Arthur was the head architect, and several cottages on the school’s campus. Clark also received the commission for the U.S. Post Office in Palo Alto, which was completed in 1933. Many of Clark’s designs are in the “Early California” style – his version of the Spanish Colonial Revival style. Birge Clark’s architectural contributions to Palo Alto cannot be understated, having designed over four hundred residential and commercial buildings in Palo Alto and the surrounding area.13 Examples of Birge Clark buildings in Palo Alto include: • 323 University Avenue, Commercial Building, 1925 (Category 2) • 544 Emerson Street, Commercial Building, 1926 (Category 4) • 415-419 University Avenue, Commercial Building, 1926 (Category 3) • 528-530 Ramona Street, Commercial building, 1926 (Category 2) • 532-536 Ramona Street, Commercial Building, 1926 (Category 2) • 668 Ramona Street, Commercial Building, 1926 (Category 2) • 628-630 Ramona Street, Commercial Building, 1927 (Category 2) • 436-440 University Avenue, Commercial Building, 1927 (Category 2) • 460 - 476 University Avenue, Commercial/Office Building, 1927 (Category 3) • 261 Hamilton Avenue, Commercial/Office building, 1927 (Category 3) • Police and Fire Station, 450 Bryant Street, 1927 (Category 2) • The Misses Sterns House, 1950/1990 Cowper, 1930 (Category 1) • Palo Alto Post Office, 380 Hamilton, 1932 (Category 1, Listed on National Register) • Palo Alto Medical Clinic, 300 Homer Avenue, 1932 (Category 2) • Lucie Stern Community Center, 1305 Middlefield Road, 1935 (Category 1) CITY OF PALO ALTO HISTORIC INVENTORY Criteria for Designation The City of Palo Alto has identified the following criteria, along with the definitions of historic categories and districts in Section 16.49.020 (see below), to be used as criteria for designating additional historic structures/sites or districts to the historic inventory: 1. The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important events in the city, state or nation; 2. The structure or site is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life important to the city, state or nation; 3. The structure or site is an example of a type of building which was once common, but is now rare; 4. The structure or site is connected with a business or use which was once common, but is now rare; 5. The architect or building was important; 13 ARG, “Historic Resource Evaluation: 450 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA” (23 June 2016). 7 6. The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship.14 Categories The City of Palo Alto's Historic Inventory lists noteworthy examples of the work of important individual designers and architectural eras and traditions as well as structures whose background is associated with important events in the history of the city, state, or nation. The Inventory is organized under the following four Categories:  Category 1: An “Exceptional Building” of pre-eminent national or state importance. These buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of a specific architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the United States. These buildings have had either no exterior modifications or such minor ones that the overall appearance of the building is in its original character.  Category 2: A “Major Building” of regional importance. These buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of an architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the state or region. A major building may have some exterior modifications, but the original character is retained.  Category 3 or 4: A “Contributing Building” which is a good local example of an architectural style and relates to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials, proportion or other factors. A contributing building may have had extensive or permanent changes made to the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of architectural details, or wooden facades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION The subject property may be eligible as a local historic resource under Criterion 1 and 4 of the Criteria for Designation shown above. The building at 526-534 Waverley Street was owned and operated by the Hoffacker family for almost 90 years. The Hoffackers played a publically active role in the community by supporting local sports organizations and non-profits. The family-owned small business, now a rarity in Palo Alto and elsewhere, was a much-loved destination for local residents. One newspaper article noted an octogenarian who had been a customer since she was one year old. Regarding the Categories listed above, the building would not qualify as a Category 2 building for architectural merits. Further, modifications over time have resulted in an appearance that does not fully represent the original design. However, with properties that are significant for association with events and people, physical and design integrity are less important that if the property were significant as an outstanding example of an architectural style. For this reason, it may be possible to achieve reclassification status as a Category 2 building, but it would depend on the current interpretation of how the Classification Categories are to be used. ARG recommends that the Client share this memo with the current historic preservation planner at the City of Palo Alto to attain guidance on next steps. 14 Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 16.49 “Historic Preservation”. 526-534 Waverely – Preliminary Assessment Appendix A: Existing Conditions Photographs 1 | Appendix A Appendix A: Existing Conditions Photographs Front Elevation Front Elevation 526-534 Waverely – Preliminary Assessment Appendix A: Existing Conditions Photographs 2 | Appendix A Store entry/storefront window 526-534 Waverely – Preliminary Assessment Appendix A: Existing Conditions Photographs 3 | Appendix A Front view along Waverley Street 526-534 Waverely – Preliminary Assessment Appendix A: Existing Conditions Photographs 4 | Appendix A View of interior through front window View of interior through front window MEZZANINE Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"2 STREET LEVEL Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"1 16 ' - 1 0 " SECTION THROUGH BUILDING Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"3 Waverley 526 WAVERLEY Randolph B. Popp 2 1 0 H i g h S t r e e t Palo Alto, CA 94301 6 5 0 . 4 2 7 . 0 0 2 6 info@rp -arch.com w w w.r p -arch.com A R C H I T E C T No t e : Ca l c u l a t e d a r e a s t a k e n f r o m s c a n n e d a r c h i v e d r a w i n g s . P r e c i s e m e a s u r e m e n t s m u s t b e v e r i f i e d . Existing Space Mezzanine to exterior face of exterior wall 3,143 sf Ground Level to exterior face of exterior wall 5,815 sf Historic Resources Board Staff Report (ID # 8330) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 8/24/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Joint CC/HRB MeetingTopics (Final Discussion) Title: CC/HRB Meeting Final Discussion Topics From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s): 1. Finalize the presentation for the joint Council and HRB meeting of August 28, 2017. Background/Discussion Staff’s report to Council for the joint meeting is attached (Attachment A). In it, the focus is accomplishments and activities of the HRB and staff, and two potential upcoming projects: Mills Act Program and Modern Age Context Statement. Staff has prepared a slide show for the HRB to use in the discussion with Council. The slides provide a short summary of accomplishments, and the two potential upcoming projects outlined in the Council staff report. The minutes of August 10, 2017 are provided with this packet. On August 10th, the HRB highlighted areas for potential discussion, beyond the two projects identified in the attached report. Due to the limitations of the joint meeting format, these five topics will be difficult to incorporate into the presentation; the number of topics is necessarily limited. Staff recommends that HRB recommend staff bring forward one more topic the HRB identified on August 10th: Zoning code changes (to PAMC Chapters 18.12 and 18.04) to improve incentives for Category 3 and 4 properties; this work effort can be incorporated into the 2017-18 annual code update. The other topics the HRB noted on August 10th would need additional staff resources and further discussion: (1) HRB-ARB relationship and joint meetings, (2) Governance, prioritizing preservation and HRB reviews, (3) National and California Register properties listings and (4) Re-categorization and/or historic ordinance (PAMC 16.49) changes. Report Author & Contact Information HRB1 Liaison & Contact Information 1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Emily Vance, Historic Planner Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official (650) 617-3125 (650) 329-2336 emily.vance@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: 8.28.17 Joint Meeting with CC-HRB (DOC) City of Palo Alto (ID # 8226) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 8/28/2017 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Historic Resources Board and Council Joint Study Session Title: Joint Meeting of the City Council and the Historic Resources Board From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council conduct a joint meeting with the Historic Resources Board (HRB). Below are the potential topics of discussion for the joint meeting with the Historic Resources Board. I. Overview/Update a. Introduction to the HRB by staff b. HRB presentation on recent accomplishments and proposed work program additions II. Council Questions and Comments/Discussion Background The last time Council met with the HRB was May 6, 2015. Council and HRB members provided comments and recommendations on matters related to Palo Alto’s historic preservation work program and activities. No actions were taken. A recording of that meeting can be found at http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-special-meeting-3/. HRB Responsibilities The HRB is tasked with responsibilities set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49 to carry out the Historic Preservation program for Palo Alto, which is a Certified Local Government (CLG). Staff submits an annual report to the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) each year, to summarize the activities, meeting attendance, and annual required training of HRB members, in accordance with CLG guidelines. 2016-2017 This year, staff provided training on how moving of homes on a property comports with City of Palo Alto Page 2 the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Staff also provided the HRB members with an update on state law regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), and the City’s response. Also during the past year, the historic preservation team reviewed several notable development projects, including the Avenidas building expansion and Junior Museum and Zoo. In addition, the HRB reviewed Guidelines projects, such as the Professorville Guidelines (adopted by Council in October 2016). In the fall of 2016, the HRB reviewed a bulletin intended to aid staff and applicants by providing a summary of the City review process for modifications to historic resources and potential historic resources. Improvements to the Historic Preservation Program website are underway. The HRB has also formed subcommittees this year to explore specific topics. One subcommittee was regarding Governance, and explored the HRB’s role in relationship to the Architectural Review Board and PCE Director. Another subcommittee formed to consider potential features of a new Mills Act program for Palo Alto. Eichler Guidelines Project Historic preservation staff began work with the consultant, Page and Turnbull, in early 2017. After two successful workshops to gather input from Eichler owners in the spring 2017, staff has been working on a walking tour brochure for the two National Register District Eichler neighborhoods. Staff also orchestrated the recent Eichler Memory Event. The Draft Eichler Design Guidelines are tentatively scheduled for formal presentation to the HRB in September 2017. Staff anticipates bringing these Guidelines and potential code changes to Council for consideration in early 2018, following review by the HRB and Planning and Transportation Commission. Discussion There are two additional projects that members of the HRB are interested in adding to the Department’s work program: 1. Modern Age Context The HRB is interested in developing a Modern Age Context Statement for Palo Alto. A context statement can provide the foundation for preservation planning, to describe the broad patterns of historical development of a community represented by the physical development and character of the building environment. A context statement, typically developed during the early stages of survey planning, can be developed as a separate activity from a survey and can identify important property types and establish eligibility criteria and integrity thresholds. A context based survey can allow the city to evaluate resources for land use planning purposes without needing to research each individual property. The OHP offers guidance in developing these statements. Staff had prepared a draft Certified Local Government (CLG) grant proposal for development of a Modern Age Context Statement in 2016, but has not had resources to focus on this effort. If the Council is amenable, staff could submit the grant proposal to the Office of Historic Preservation in 2018 following completion of the Eichler Guidelines project. City of Palo Alto Page 3 2. Mills Act Program The Mills Act allows local jurisdictions to enter into contracts with property owners of historic properties much like the Williamson Act allows jurisdictions to enter into contracts with owners of agricultural properties. In both cases, the contract requires preservation of the resource in exchange for a property tax adjustment. The City of Palo Alto has one Mills Act contract, but has never crafted a Mills Act program to incentivize historic preservation. In the next month or so, the Council will see an amendment to an existing Mills Act contract for the Squire House on their consent agenda. From time to time, other property owners have expressed interest in entering into a Mills Act contract and the HRB held three sessions to discuss establishment of a program, beginning with April 27, 2017. The April 27th report recalled the May 6, 2015 HRB-Council meeting suggestion that the HRB discuss possible parameters for an updated Mills Act application, and how to strike a balance for the right amount of incentive for preservation without taking too much revenue away from the schools. Links to the three HRB reports on the Mills Act are here:  April 27th report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57244  May 25th report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57907  June 8th report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58117. Minutes of the June 8th meeting are found at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58351. Councilmember input on these potential additions to staff’s work program would be appreciated. Given limited staffing for the historic preservation program, both projects would have to be completed as time permits.