Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Staff Report 4275
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4275) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/16/2013 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Appeal of 636 Waverley ARB Decision Title: 636 Waverley Street [13PLN-00262]: Council Consideration of an Appeal of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s Decision to Approve the Architectural Review of a New Mixed-Use Development. The Proposed Four-Story 10,278 sq. ft. Building Includes 4,800 sq. ft. of Commercial Uses on the First and Second Floors and Two Residential Units on the Third and Fourth Floors in the CD-C(P) Zoning District; the Project Provides 20 Parking Spaces in a Below Grade Garage. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Sections 15303 and 15332. From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that Council uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s decision to approve the Architectural Review application for the proposed mixed-use project based upon the findings and conditions of approval described in the Record of Land Use Action (Attachment A). Executive Summary On June 17, 2013, an application for Architectural Review was submitted for the development of a new four-story mixed-use building with a below grade parking garage, providing all the required parking spaces. The Architectural Review Board reviewed and recommended approval of the project on October 17, 2013 and the Director of Planning and Community Environment approved the project on October 21, 2013. Within the prescribed timeframe, one appeal of the approval decision was filed by Mr. Douglas Smith, a downtown resident. The appeal cites concerns about the project’s aesthetic impacts and its lack of neighborhood compatibility. Staff believes that the concerns raised in the appeal have been sufficiently addressed in the project’s design and that the required findings to support approval of the project have been made. City of Palo Alto Page 2 Background Review Process This development received a recommendation for approval from the ARB and a Director level approval in October. The application was then appealed to the City Council. The standard procedure for the review of an appealed Architectural Review application is to place the item on the Council’s consent agenda within 30-days of the appeal. The Council may pull the item off of consent (3 Council votes required) and schedule the item for a public hearing. If the Council elects to schedule this item for a public hearing, staff has targeted the January 13, 2014 Council meeting for this possibility. Project Description The project includes the demolition of the existing 1,406 sq. ft. structure, currently used as office, and construction of a new four-story, 10,278 sq. ft. mixed-use building. The first two floors would provide 4,800 sq. ft. of commercial office space and the top floors would each have one three-bedroom residential unit (1,700 sq. ft. and 2,600 sq. ft. respectively) with large open terraces and an additional roof deck for the top unit. The required 20 vehicle parking spaces are provided in a below-grade parking facility utilizing parking lifts to meet the requirements; the project is fully compliant with the City’s code requirements for on-site parking. For clarification, the ARB’s purview is over the design-related issues of a project, which can include the parking facilities and site circulation, but not the regulatory aspects of a project’s parking requirements (i.e. number of spaces provided). The project features a fully glazed front façade and the prominent use of glazing on the remaining three elevations. The proposed materials include grey-toned, smooth integral color concrete and structural glazed window systems with aluminum frames; the glazing would be clear, insulated low-e glass. Grey corrugated metal panels are proposed for the roof screen element. The outdoor treatments include concrete pavers for the garage ramp and the side walkway, two retractable bollards controlling vehicle access to the garage, one non-standard bike rack in front of the building, and landscaping elements that include new planter strips along the sidewalk and a new 24-inch box Ginkgo street tree; the existing Ginkgo street tree, which is not in prime condition, would be removed. The residential terraces would be furnished with landscape planters and outdoor seating. For each residential level, substantial open space is provided with these outdoor spaces. For additional project details, please see the attached project plans (Attachment I). City of Palo Alto Page 3 Figure 1: Proposed Front Elevation Architectural Review Board Action On October 17, 2013, at the project’s third hearing, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed and recommended conditional approval (on a 4-1 vote) of the project. The project was continued from the first two meetings so the applicant could address the ARB’s design concerns regarding the building massing, façade details, and landscaping. At all three ARB meetings, public speakers cited concerns about the project’s design and compatiblity with the neighborhood. Mr. Smith, and five others who are listed on the appeal letter, attended one or more of the three public hearings. The attached ARB staff reports and meeting provide additional details (Attachments F and G). Discussion Architectural Review Findings In the planning review of a project subject to Architectural Review, there are required findings (ARB Findings) that must be considered and complied with in order to support approval of a project. These findings are not based on quantitative standards, such as a maximum height allowance or defined setback requirement, but rather on more qualitative measures (e.g. design appropriate to the function of the project, plant material suitable to the site, and design appropriate with the immediate environment of the site). Within this qualitative realm, the Council-appointed ARB members, who are all experienced design professionals, provide their expertise in evaluating the ARB Findings to support a project. Attachment A includes the project’s ARB Findings and discusses the project’s compliance with each. Context-Based Design Criteria and Downtown Urban Design Guide In addition to the ARB Findings, the project must also be consistent with the Context-Based Design Criteria. In addition, since the project is located in the downtown the Downtown Urban Design Guide helps guide development. The Urban Design Guide in advisory, not mandatory. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Context-Based Design Criteria The zoning code (PAMC 18.18.110 Context-Based Design Criteria) states that development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Context is intended to indicate relationships between the site's development to adjacent street types, surrounding land uses, and on-site or nearby natural features, such as creeks or trees. The word "context" should not be construed as a desire to replicate existing surroundings, but rather to provide appropriate transitions to those surroundings. "Context" is also not specific to architectural style or design, though in some instances relationships may be reinforced by an architectural response. The Context-Based Design findings are very similar to the ARB Findings and focus on the qualitative aspects of the project that considers the following: Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment, Street Building Facades, Massing and Setbacks, Low-Density Residential Transitions, Project Open Space, Parking Design Large (Multi-Acre) Sites, and Sustainability and Green Building Design. Attachment A discusses in detail the project’s compliance with these findings. Downtown Urban Design Guide The Downtown Urban Design Guide (Guide) provides direction to the applicant, staff and ARB regarding development and design in the downtown area. The Guide divides the downtown area into districts, each having a unique identity and design characteristics. The project site is located outside the applicable boundaries of the defined districts within the Guide. It is located on the periphery of the Hamilton Avenue District (Hamilton Avenue), which extends from Alma Street to Middlefield Road. The Guide recommends promoting this area as “an active mixed use district which comfortably accommodates larger scale commercial office, civic, and institutional buildings” while maintaining the “tree-lined pedestrian environment with complementary outdoor amenities to offset the urban intensity.” The proposed project is consistent with the goals of the Hamilton Avenue District. Appeal On November 4, 2013 an appeal was filed by Mr. Douglas Smith and included 11 co-signers. The appeal letter cited three primary concerns for appealing the approval decision. These concerns are focused on quality design, neighborhood compatibility, and the review process (Attachment C), and are discussed below and followed by staff’s response. Concern #1: Quality Design: The appeal states that “there should be something visual on the building exterior to interest the pedestrian both up close and afar, lest the building be judged ordinary or an eyesore. But there is no such interest in the Hayes design. On all levels, seen City of Palo Alto Page 5 from a distance, the design composition is a jumbled mess of elements that fit together in a strictly utilitarian fashion, subject to no overall aesthetic pattern that would please a non- architect passerby.” The primary project elements identified in the appeal letter as unattractive are (1) the extensive use of glass on the building, (2) the concrete blank walls, and (3) minimal landscaping along the street frontage. Staff Response: The proposed project features a modern design that incorporates strong geometric shapes with the use of concrete and glass. The design was supported and generally well-like by a majority of the ARB. The City does not mandate architectural styles for development, but rather requires projects to be generally compatible with the overall context. The ARB defined the existing context as eclectic, with varying architectural styles and building forms; there was not a strong pattern established. Based on this existing condition, the ARB Findings to support the design of the project could be made. For the landscaping issue, the project includes planters in front of the building, green screens on the perimeter walls, planter pots on the terraces, and a new planter strip within the sidewalk with a replacement street tree. These landscaping elements were found to be adequate for providing green elements to the project. Concern #2: Neighborhood Compatibility The second issue raised in the appeal is the project’s compatibility with the existing neighborhood context. The appeal specifies four areas of the project that are of concern: The design has “overpowering siting and massing” by covering 90% of the lot and not providing setbacks; The use of concrete and glass building materials is inconsistent with the existing materials used on other buildings in the immediate area; The primary entrance to the building is not set back from the street and is not centrally located (placed in the middle) on the building, which is unlike the existing street pattern; and The “windows in this design are not inset like all others in the area” and are “radically incompatible with all other buildings on the block.” Staff Response: The standard zoning in the CD-C zone district allows “zero” setbacks from property lines. In fact, many buildings in the area were constructed with little to no setbacks. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Furthermore, the City does not require that new development be constructed with the same materials as nearby existing buildings, use the same window design, or follow an existing pattern for the building entrances. New developments may have unique elements and feature an innovate designs. The ARB, during their multiple discussions on the project, discussed at great lengths the issues relating to design, building massing, and neighborhood compatibility. The project was revised twice based on the ARB’s feedback on these specific concern, and with the final revision project approval was recommended. The ARB made the determination that the modern design of this project, fits within the existing eclectic neighborhood context of the 600 block of Waverley Street. The ARB considers the project’s overall compatibility with the general context. The uses on the block move from commercial on the Hamilton Street edge to high density residential (multi-story condos) uses at the Forest Street edge. The proposed mixed-use building in the middle of the block fit appropriately with the existing uses and with the close proximity to the downtown core. Concern #3: Review Process The final issue identified in the appeal is the City’s review process, citing concern about the lack of analysis of the project’s aesthetic compatibility and the design quality in the project’s ARB staff report. And, as part of the decision making process, there is concern that “the project (was) not considered entirely on its own merits” because the ARB was provided with early design concepts of the potential redevelopment of 640 Waverley, which is adjacent to the project in question. Staff Response: In preparation of the ARB staff report, staff outlines the factual elements of the project and identifies discussion items relevant to the project for the ARB to consider. As part of its review, the ARB reviews the project’s Findings, and provides feedback to staff and the applicant if there are concerns. To clarify the concern raised about the project not being considered on its own merits, it was made clear to the ARB that the concept plan for 640 Waverley Street was included purely for reference only. It was not stated or suggested that the concept plan would be approved or developed; it was intended to provide additional information about the development potential. During reviews of development applications, potential redevelopment of adjacent sites can never be relied upon for making present-day decisions on projects. POLICY IMPLICATIONS City of Palo Alto Page 7 The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and staff believes there are no other substantive policy implications. The project is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies related to quality design, business and economics, and housing. The Comprehensive Plan encourages owners to upgrade or replace existing commercial properties so that these commercial areas are more competitive and better serve the community. The proposed project is consistent with Policy L-23, which supports maintaining and enhancing the University Avenue/Downtown area as the central business district of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses; promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. RESOURCE IMPACTS The cost of project review by all staff is recovered by fees paid by the applicant. Development impact fees are required of development in Palo Alto and an approval condition requires payment prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to California Environmental Quality act (CEQA), this project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15332 (Infill Development Projects) and 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). The infill exemption (15332) is intended to promote infill development within urbanized areas and consists of environmentally benign projects which are consistent with local general plan and zoning requirements. The proposed project meets the following five thresholds for a project to qualify for this exemption: (1) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations; (2) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; (3) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; (4) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and (5) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The new construction exemption (15303) can be applied to projects that are located within urbanized areas for up to four commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 sq. ft. in floor area on sites zoned for such use, if not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances and where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive; and for the construction or conversion of up to three single- family residences. The proposed project in its proposed downtown location, with two residential units and 4,800 sq. ft. of office space, falls within the scope of projects eligible to use this exemption. Attachments: City of Palo Alto Page 8 Attachment A: Record of Land Use (DOC) Attachment B: Location Map (PDF) Attachment C: Smith Appeal Letter (PDF) Attachment D: Applicant's Response to Appeal Letter (PDF) Attachment E: Project Description (PDF) Attachment F: ARB Staff Reports without Attachments (10/17/13, 09/19/13, 8/15/13) (PDF) Attachment G: ARB Meeting Minutes (10/17/13, 09/19/13, 8/15/13) (PDF) Attachment H: Zoning Compliance (DOC) Attachment I: Plans (TXT) Page 1 of 26 Attachment A DRAFT ACTION NO. 2013-xx RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 636 WAVERLEY STREET: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 13PLN-00262 (DAVID KLEIMAN, OWNER) On December 16, 2013, the Council upheld the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s October 21, 2013 decision to approve the Architectural Review application of the for the construction of a new mixed-use development making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On June 7, 2013, David Kleiman applied for Architectural Review of a four-story 10,278 sq. ft. mixed-use development that includes 4,800 sq. ft. of commercial uses on the first and second floors and two residential units on the third and fourth floors in the CD-C(P) zoning district; the project provides 20 parking spaces in a below grade garage(“The Project”). B. Following staff review, the Architectural Review Board reviewed the project on August 15, September 19, and lastly on October 17, 2013 and voted [4-1-0-0] to recommend the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s (“Director”) to approve the project. The ARB’s action is contained in the CMR #4275. C. On October 21, 2013, the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) approved the Architectural Review application. D. On November 4, 2013, within the prescribed timeframe, one appeal of the Director’s decision was filed by Douglas Smith. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. Pursuant to California Environmental Quality act (CEQA), this project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15332 (Infill Development Projects) and 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). The infill exemption (15332) is intended to promote infill development within urbanized areas and consists of environmentally benign projects which are consistent with local general plan and zoning requirements. The proposed project meets the following five thresholds for a project to qualify for this exemption: (1) The Page 2 of 26 project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations; (2) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; (3) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; (4) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and (5) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The new construction exemption (15303) can be applied to projects that are located within urbanized areas for up to four commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 sq. ft. in floor area on sites zoned for such use, if not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances and where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive; and for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. The proposed project in its proposed downtown location, with two residential units and 4,800 sq. ft. of office space, falls within the scope of projects eligible to use this exemption. SECTION 3. Architectural Review Findings. 1. The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project incorporates quality design that recognizes the importance of the area as described in the Comprehensive Plan. The project is also consistent with The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan policies related to business and economics. The Comprehensive Plan encourages owners to upgrade or replace existing commercial properties so that these commercial areas are more competitive and better serve the community. The proposed project is also consistent with the following Comprehensive Goals and Policies: Program L-11: Promote increased compatibility, interdependence, and support between commercial and mixed us centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods; and Policy L-23: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as the central business district of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses; promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. The two additional housing units proposed are also encouraged by the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the existing environment is comprised of eclectic buildings of various architectural styles and building heights and the proposed Page 3 of 26 building, with its scale, massing, and architectural style, fits within this mixed context. The majority of the existing development on the block has two-story or more massing, with three of the corner buildings four to five stories high. The proposed four story project, replacing one of the two single-story structures on the block, would be compatible with the existing mix of building heights and styles within the block. 3. The design is appropriate to the function of the project. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the design of the new building is consistent with modern commercial buildings in the higher intensity downtown area and the large balconies and decks provide outdoor usable space for the residents, and add to the enlivening of the street. 4. In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character. This finding is not applicable. 5. The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses. This finding is not applicable; the site is surrounded by the Comprehensive Plan land use Community Commercial designation and is not between different land uses. 6. The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is compatible in terms of height, massing, and design with the neighboring eclectic buildings and the overall surrounding office and retail uses of the downtown commercial area. 7. The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the building amenities (open space, parking, entry, etc.) are accessible and attractive to users. 8. The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides open space areas with patios and balconies for residents that are functional and desirable. 9. Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and the same are compatible with the project’s design concept. Page 4 of 26 This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the open space, parking, and refuse areas are compatible with the project’s design. 10. Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the building is easily approachable by all modes of transportation and the automobile circulation is safe and does not introduce any significant changes to the adjacent street and sidewalk system. 11. Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed tree removal is supported by the city staff and are not considered significant as to require retention. 12. The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed design with concrete forms, glazing, and neutral colors are compatible elements for a mixed-use building in the Downtown environment. Landscaping is discussed in Finding 13. 13. The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project includes a landscaped street frontage and planter strips within the sidewalk, and provides planters on the roof-top terrace to enhance the building. 14. Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the selected landscaping (planters and frontage area) is relatively low maintenance and drought tolerant. 15. The project exhibits green building and sustainable design that is energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project intends to utilize photovoltaic panels, high efficiency mechanical Page 5 of 26 systems, and natural light; project is required to meet CalGreen Tier 2 requirements. 16. The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review as set forth in subsection 18.76.020(a). This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project design promotes visual environments that are of high aesthetic quality and variety. SECTION 4. Context-Based Design Considerations and Findings. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment. The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that a bike rack is provided near the building entrance. The project also includes bike lockers in the garage to support the bicycle environment. 2. Street Building Facades. Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street(s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the facade includes glazing and a covered area along the street frontage creating a visual connection to the sidewalk and street. In addition, the front facing balconies on the upper floors facilitates interaction with the street. 3. Massing and Setbacks. Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project has incorporated articulation that facilitates the appearance of reducing the mass of the building. 4. Low-Density Residential Transitions. Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties. This finding is not applicable. The adjacent two-story multi-family residential apartment building is zoned the same as the project site and is not considered “low-density” residential with 17 units on a 5,275 sq. ft. lot (140 dwelling units/acre density). 5. Project Open Space. Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for residents, visitors, and/or employees of the site. Page 6 of 26 This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides open space with balconies for tenants and visitors that are functional and desirable. 6. Parking Design. Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project’s parking is located within the below-grade garage and does not detract from the above grade development or conditions. 7. Large (Multi-Acre) Sites. Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood. This finding does not apply; the site is 5,275 sq. ft. (8) Sustainability and Green Building Design. Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project intends to utilize photovoltaic panels, high efficiency mechanical systems, and natural light; project is required to meet CalGreen Tier 2 requirements. SECTION 5. Architectural Review Approval Granted. Architectural Review Approval is hereby granted for the Project by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 18.77 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 6. Plan Approval. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with those plans prepared by Hayed Group Architects, consisting of 31 pages, and received September 3, 2013, except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 7. A copy of these plans is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Development. SECTION 7. Conditions of Approval. A. Planning and Transportation Division 1. The project shall be in substantial conformance with the approved plans and related documents received September 30, 2013, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. 2. The Conditions of Approval document shall be printed on all plans submitted for building permits related to this project. 3. The current project is approved to use the one-time 200 square foot FAR bonus, as permitted per PAMC 18.18.070(a)(1), and Page 7 of 26 cannot utilize this bonus again for any future development. The FAR shall be incorporated into the residential component of the project and therefore does not trigger additional parking requirements for the project. This shall be noted on the Building Permit plan set along with the standard project data required. 4. New construction and alterations in the CD-C zoning district ground floor space shall be designed to accommodate retail use and shall comply with the provisions of the Pedestrian (P) combining district. 5. Development Impact Fees, estimated at $225,342, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the project’s building permit. These fees are adjusted annually in August. Fees shall be calculated at the rate in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 6. The property owner shall be responsible for the regular maintenance and upkeep of the one non-standard bike racks placed within the city right of way. 7. All spaces using the proposed parking lifts shall accommodate large vehicles, such as minivans and sport utility vehicles. Transportation staff shall review and approve the proposed car lift prior to the building permit submittal. 8. All 20 parking spaces shall be available to both the residents and office tenants at any time (i.e. no reserved parking). 9. The applicant shall provide a Lift Parking Management Plan that details standard operating procedures for the lift parking system including training elements, vehicle height/weight limitations, and emergency response procedures that include first-responder and operations contact information. This plan shall be submitted to and reviewed by the Director of Planning & Community Environment prior to the occupancy of the new building. 10. The applicant shall be required to submit a Transportation Demand Management plan to be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment prior to the issuance of building permits for the site. The plan shall include provisions such as passes or subsidies for all employees of the commercial space for using public transit, in addition to car sharing, bike facilities, transportation information kiosks, and the designation of a transportation demand coordinator for the building. 11. The final layout and landscape design for the new planting strips within the public right-of-way shall be submitted to Planning staff and Public Works Engineering for review and approval prior to the issuance of the project’s Building permit. Page 8 of 26 12. The existing street tree well located in front of 628 Waverley shall be enlarged to support additional landscaping within the right-of-way. The design of the planting area shall be reviewed in conjunction with the proposed sidewalk improvements in front on 636 Waverley by Planning staff and Public Works Engineering prior to the issuance of the project’s Building permit. 13. The ARB Subcommittee shall review a concrete sample to be used for the construction; review shall take place at the construction site. 14. All future signage for this site shall be submitted for Architectural Review. 15. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the ARB approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. 16. Government Code Section 66020 provides that project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90- DAY PERIOD OR TO FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. 17. This matter is subject to the Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5, and the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. B. Public Works Engineering SITE SPECIFIC COMMENTS 1. The trench drain in the garage ramp shall be directed to the storm drain system and not the sanitary sewer system. 2. The project shall provide the parking required by the parking assessment formula. Residential properties are not assessed, however, the commercial portions are and therefore shall be fully parked for assessment purposes to avoid paying parking impact or “in-lieu” fees. Page 9 of 26 3. The applicant shall clarify the note “Original right of way line of Waverley” shown on the plans. 4. Sheet A.2 – it appears that there are truncated domes being placed in the ROW sidewalk on either side of the proposed driveway. Please clarify. 5. A ‘Tree Care Permit’ shall be obtained from the Urban Forestry division prior to any work on any tree or the removal of any tree. 6. The applicant shall remove and replace all curb, gutter, and sidewalk along the length of the project’s Waverley frontage. The applicant shall grind and overlay (min. 2”) the width of Waverley along the project’s frontage. STANDARD CONDITIONS PRIOR TO FINAL PLANNING/ARB REVIEW 1. Conceptual grading, drainage and SWPPP plan: To verify the project adequately addresses grading, drainage and surface water infiltration, the applicant is required to submit a conceptual site grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering (PWE) prior to the final ARB submittal. The plan must demonstrate that site runoff is conveyed to the nearest adequate municipal storm drain system and that drainage is not increased onto, nor blocked from, neighboring properties. The plan must also include a conceptual Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), including the permanent best management practices (BMP’s) to protect storm water quality and control runoff, particularly if the “C.3” provisions of the City’s Storm Water Pollution Ordinance apply (see C.3 below). Resources and handouts are available from PWE, including “Planning Your Land Development Project”. The elements of the PWE-approved conceptual grading and drainage plan shall be incorporated into the building permit plans. MAP REQUIREMENTS 2. Parcel Map: A Preliminary Parcel Map and a Parcel Map are required for the proposed development. The applicant shall submit an application for a minor subdivision with the Planning Division. Public Works’ Tentative Maps and Preliminary Parcel Maps checklist must accompany the completed application. All existing and proposed dedications and easements must be shown on the submitted map. No grading or building permits will be issued until the Parcel Map is recorded with the County Recorder. A digital copy of the Parcel Map, in AutoCAD format, shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering and shall conform to North American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NGVD88 for vertical survey controls. PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL OF MAP Page 10 of 26 3. Developer’s project manager: The subdivision includes significant complexity involving coordination of infrastructure design and construction. Developer shall appoint a Project Manager to coordinate with Planning, Public Works and Utility Department staff. Public Works will have regular communication with the Project Manager in order to facilitate timely review and approval of design and construction. INCLUDE IN SUBMITTAL FOR BUILDING PERMIT 4. Grading & excavation permit: A Grading and Excavation Permit is required for the project if the total quantity of cut and/or fill outside of the building(s) footprint exceeds 100 cubic yards or if the disturbed area is 10,000 sq.ft. or greater. A grading permit only authorizes grading and storm drain improvements, therefore, the following note shall be included on each grading permit plan sheet: “This grading permit will only authorize general grading and installation of the storm drain system. Other building and utility improvements are shown for reference information only and are subject to separate building permit approval.” No utility infrastructure should be shown inside the building footprints. 5. Survey datum: Plans shall be prepared using North American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NGVD 1988 for vertical survey controls throughout the design process. 6. Final grading & drainage plan: The plans shall include a final grading and drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional. This plan shall show existing and proposed spot elevations or contours of the site and demonstrate the proper conveyance of storm water to the nearest adequate municipal storm drainage system. Existing drainage patterns, including accommodation of runoff from adjacent properties, shall be maintained. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan. Public Works encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan Guidelines for New Single Family Residences on our website: www.cityofpaloalto.org/public- works/eng-documents.html. 7. Impervious surface area: The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. For non-residential properties, a Storm Drainage Fee adjustment on the applicant’s monthly City utility bill will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. The impervious area calculation sheets and instructions are available from Public Works Engineering at the Development Center and on the Division’s website: www.cityofpaloalto.org/public-works/eng-documents.html. Page 11 of 26 8. Stormwater sheet: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works at the Development Center or on our website: www.cityofpaloalto.org/public-works/eng-documents.html. 9. Basement drainage: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow water to accumulate or stagnate. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7 3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 10. Basement Shoring: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. 11. Basement light/stairwells: All exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells, are required to have a drainage system separate (up to the sump) from the basement wall/slab drainage system. Also, 8" of freeboard is required between the floors of the exterior basement-level spaces and any adjacent windowsills or doorsills. 12. Dewatering: Basement excavations may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April 15th through October 31st due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level. We recommend a piezometer to be installed in the soil boring. The contractor must determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using the piezometer or by drilling an exploratory hole if the deepest excavation will be within 3 feet of the highest anticipated groundwater level. If groundwater is found within 2 feet of the deepest excavation, a drawdown well dewatering system must be used, or alternatively, the contractor can excavate for the basement and hope not to hit groundwater, but if he does, he must immediately stop all work and install a drawdown well system before he continues to excavate. Public Works may require the water to be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, Page 12 of 26 the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for the contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Street Work Permit. The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a street work permit prior to dewatering. Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. Public Works has a sample dewatering plan sheet and dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website. 13. Work in the right-of-way: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is to be conducted in the public right- of-way, such as sidewalk, driveway approach, curb, gutter or utility lateral work. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per Public Works’ standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Permit for Construction in the Public Street from Public Works at the Development Center. 14. Street trees: Show all street trees in the public right-of-way or state that there are none. Include street tree protection details in the plans. Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement installation within 10 feet of a street tree, must be approved by Public Works' arborist. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 15. Streetwork permit: A Permit for Construction in the Public Street (“streetwork permit”) is required from all contractors performing work in the public right-of-way. All construction within the right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to the standard specifications and details of the Public Works and Utility Departments. 16. Logistics plan: A construction logistics plan shall be provided addressing all impacts to the public and including, at a minimum: work hours, noticing of affected businesses, construction signage, dust control, noise control, storm water pollution prevention, job trailer, contractors’ parking, truck routes, staging, concrete pours, crane lifts, scaffolding, materials storage, pedestrian safety, and traffic control. All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map, which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. A handout describing these and other requirements for a construction logistics plan is available from Public Works Engineering at the Development Center or online at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/public- works/documents/eng-LogisticsPlanPreparationGuidelines.pdf. Typically, the construction logistics plan is attached to an Page 13 of 26 encroachment permit or a Permit for Construction in the Public Street. DURING CONSTRUCTION 17. Inspection: The contractor must contact Public Works’ Inspector at (650) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way. PRIOR TO PUBLIC WORKS ACCEPTANCE 18. Storm drain logo: The applicant is required to paint “No Dumping/Flows to San Francisquito Creek” in blue on a white background adjacent to all onsite storm drain inlets. The name of the creek to which the proposed development drains can be obtained from Public Works Engineering. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. 19. Indefinite encroachment permit: An approved indefinite encroachment permit will be required for private infrastructure constructed in the public right-of-way, easement or on property in which the City holds an interest, but that was not authorized by a building permit. Additional comments and/or conditions may apply as the project is revised. C. Solid Waste The following issues must be addressed in building plans prior to final approval by this department: General Comments: The size of the residential enclosure should accommodate a 64- gallon garbage cart, a 96-gallon recycling cart, and a 32- gallon green cart. The commercial enclosure can be reduced in size by replacing the 2-yard recycling bin with two 96-gallon recycling carts. Push service may be required to deliver bins and carts to the curb for pick up PAMC 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling (A) Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. (B) Requirements: (i) Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be accessible to all residents or users of the property. (ii) Recycling facilities shall be Page 14 of 26 located, sized, and designed to encourage and facilitate convenient use. (iii) Trash disposal and recyclable areas shall be screened from public view by masonry or other opaque and durable material, and shall be enclosed and covered. Gates or other controlled access shall be provided where feasible. Chain link enclosures are strongly discouraged. (iv) Trash disposal and recycling structures shall be architecturally compatible with the design of the project. (v) The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to approval by the architectural review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the city council pursuant to Section 18.76.020. PAMC 5.20.120 Recycling storage design requirements The design of any new, substantially remodeled, or expanded building or other facility shall provide for proper storage, handling, and accessibility which will accommodate the solid waste and recyclable materials loading anticipated and which will allow for the efficient and safe collection. The design shall comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 18.22.100, 18.24.100, 18.26.100, 18.32.080, 18.37.080, 18.41.080, 18.43.080, 18.45.080, 18.49.140, 18.55.080, 18.60.080, and 18.68.170 of Title 18 of this code. All Services: 1. Collection vehicle access (vertical clearance, street width and turnaround space) and street parking are common issues pertaining to new developments. Adequate space must be provided for vehicle access. 2. Weight limit for all drivable areas to be accessed by the solid waste vehicles (roads, driveways, pads) must be rated to 60,000 lbs. This includes areas where permeable pavement is used. 3. Containers must be within 25 feet of service area or charges will apply. 4. Carts and bins must be able to roll without obstacles or curbs to reach service areas "no jumping curbs" Garbage, Recycling, and Yard Waste/Compostables cart/bin location and sizing Office Building The proposed commercial development must follow the requirements for recycling container space1. Project plans must show the placement of recycling containers, for example, within the details of the solid waste enclosures. Collection space should be provided for built-in recycling containers/storage on each floor/office or alcoves for the placement of recycling containers. 1 In accordance with the California Public Resources Code, Chapter 18, Articles 1 and 2 Page 15 of 26 Enclosure and access should be designed for equal access to all three waste streams – garbage, recycling, and compostables. Collection cannot be performed in underground. Underground bins locations require a minimum of 77” of vertical clearance. Pull out charges will apply. In instances where push services are not available (e.g., hauler driver cannot push containers up or down ramps), the property owner will be responsible for placing solid waste containers in an accessible location for collection. All service areas must have a clearance height of 20’ for bin service. New enclosures should consider rubber bumpers to reduce ware and tear on walls. For questions regarding garbage, recycling, and compostables collection issues, contact Green Waste of Palo Alto (650) 493-4894. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities New buildings and residential developments providing centralized solid waste collection, except for single-family and duplex residences, shall provide a covered area for a bin/dumpster. The area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams (garbage, recycling, and yard waste/compostables) and designed with grading or a berm system to prevent water runon and runoff from the area. Covered Dumpsters, Recycling and Tallow Bin Areas PAMC, 16.09.075(q)(2) 1. Newly constructed and remodeled Food Service Establishments (FSEs) shall include a covered area for all dumpsters, bins, carts or container used for the collection of trash, recycling, food scraps and waste cooking fats, oils and grease (FOG) or tallow. 2. The area shall be designed and shown on plans to prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area. 3. Drains that are installed within the enclosure for recycle and waste bins, dumpsters and tallow bins serving FSEs are optional. Any such drain installed shall be connected to a Grease Control Device (GCD). 4. If tallow is to be stored outside then an adequately sized, segregated space for a tallow bin shall be included in the covered area. 5. These requirements shall apply to remodeled or converted facilities to the extent that the portion of the facility being remodeled is related to the subject of the requirement. It is frequently to the FSE’s advantage to install the next size larger GCD to allow for more efficient grease discharge prevention and may allow for longer times between cleaning. There are many manufacturers of GCDs which are available in different shapes, sizes and materials (plastic, reinforced fiberglass, reinforced concrete and metal). Page 16 of 26 The requirements will assist FSEs with FOG discharge prevention to the sanitary sewer and storm drain pollution prevention. The FSE at all times shall comply with the Sewer Use Ordinance of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The ordinances include requirements for GCDs, GCD maintenance, drainage fixtures, record keeping and construction projects. PAMC 5.24.030 Construction and Demolition Debris (CDD) Covered projects shall comply with construction and demolition debris diversion rates and other requirements established in Chapter 16.14 (California Green Building Code). In addition, all debris generated by a covered project must haul 100 percent of the debris not salvaged for reuse to an approved facility as set forth in this chapter. Contact the City of Palo Alto’s Green Building Coordinator for assistance on how to recycle construction and demolition debris from the project, including information on where to conveniently recycle the material. D. Environmental Services – Water Quality Please note the following issues must be addressed in building plans prior to final approval by this department: PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater Prior approval shall be obtained from the city engineer or designee to discharge water pumped from construction sites to the storm drain. The city engineer or designee may require gravity settling and filtration upon a determination that either or both would improve the water quality of the discharge. Contaminated ground water or water that exceeds state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm drain. Such water may be discharged to the sewer, provided that the discharge limits contained in Palo Alto Municipal Code (16.09.040(m)) are not exceeded and the approval of the superintendent is obtained prior to discharge. The City shall be compensated for any costs it incurs in authorizing such discharge, at the rate set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(9) Covered Parking Drain plumbing for parking garage floor drains must be connected to an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities New buildings and residential developments providing centralized solid waste collection, except for single-family and duplex residences, shall provide a covered area for a dumpster. The area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams and designed with grading or a berm system to prevent water runon and runoff from the area. Page 17 of 26 PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt, provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory. PAMC 16.09.175(k) (2) Loading Docks (i) Loading dock drains to the storm drain system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. (ii) Where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled or used within the loading dock area, a drain to the storm drain system shall not be allowed. A drain to the sanitary sewer system may be allowed if equipped with a fail- safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non- rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. The area in which the drain is located shall be covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading. Appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent shall be provided for all rainwater contacting the loading dock site. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical. The plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing. Undesignated Retail Space: PAMC 16.09 Newly constructed or improved buildings with all or a portion of the space with undesignated tenants or future use will need to meet all requirements that would have been applicable during design and construction. E. Building Page 18 of 26 1. Sheet A2.1 (dated 7-17-2013): The exit passageway (Stair #3) along Grid Line(GL) A is currently opening at a location slightly passed GL 4. This is still being in the garage which is exit access component of means of egress. The exit passageway needs to continue further and open at exit discharge (GL 2). 2. Sheets A2.1, A2.3, A2.4 (dated 7-17-2013): Openings along GL G have only 5 feet fire separation distance. The need to be addressed in accordance with Section 705 of CBC. 3. Sheets A2.1, A2.2, A2.3, A2.4 (dated 7-17-2013): Openings along GL A and GL B need to be addressed in accordance with Section 705 of CBC. 4. Sheet L 1.0 (Roof plan): It is not clear who will have access to this roof. If this will be available to office staff on the second floor, then it may be treated as assembly area. Currently Stair # 2 is giving that access to all the levels below. 5. Sheet A2.3: Bedroom located on the corner of GL G and GL 6 is located somehow that is not complying with Section 1029 6. Sheets A2.1 through A2.4: Exterior wall openings facing GL 7 need to be addressed in accordance with Section 705 of CBC. F. Utilities- Electrical Engineering GENERAL 1. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. 2. The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the applicant shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1- 800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 3. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN SUBMITTALS FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE 1. A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with all applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included with the preliminary submittal. Page 19 of 26 2. Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested. 3. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 4. This project requires a padmount transformer. The location of the transformer shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural Review Board. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16 (see detail comments below). 5. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. 6. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer’s switchgear. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and shown on plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. 7. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 8. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 9. For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility’s padmount transformer and the customer’s main switchgear. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and approval. 10. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of a transition cabinet will not be required. Page 20 of 26 11. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 12. If the customer’s total load exceeds 2500 kVA, service shall be provided at the primary voltage of 12,470 volts and the customer shall provide the high voltage switchgear and transformers. 13. For primary services, the standard service protection is a padmount fault interrupter owned and maintained by the City, installed at the customer’s expense. The customer must provide and install the pad and associated substructure required for the fault interrupter. 14. Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. 15. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or reinforcement of offsite electric facilities will be at the customer’s expense and must be coordinated with the Electric Utility. DURING CONSTRUCTION 1. Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. 2. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800- 227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be check by USA shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 3. The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no 1/2 – inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer’s expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. Page 21 of 26 4. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at the depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. 5. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. 6. The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the National Electric Code and the City Standards. 7. Meter and switchboard requirements shall be in accordance with Electric Utility Service Equipment Requirements Committee (EUSERC) drawings accepted by Utility and CPA standards for meter installations. 8. Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and greater) and associated hardware must be submitted for review and approval prior to installing the switchgear to: Gopal Jagannath, P.E. Supervising Electric Project Engineer Utilities Engineering (Electrical) 1007 Elwell Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 9. Catalog cut sheets may not be substituted for factory drawing submittal. 10. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. 4. AFTER CONSTRUCTION & PRIOR TO FINALIZATION 1. The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboards, conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and switch/transformer pads. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING OCCUPANCY PERMIT 1. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property for City use. 2. All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector. 3. All fees must be paid. Page 22 of 26 4. All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant. G. WATER - GAS - WASTEWATER ENGINEERING PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 1. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. FOR BUILDING PERMIT 1 The applicant shall submit completed water-gas-wastewater service connection applications - load sheets for City of Palo Alto Utilities for each unit or place of business. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain). 2 The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater laterals and mains need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes, electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral. installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas. 3 Water/Fire/Irrigation services are limited to 2”, 4”, and 6” (don’t use 1 or 1-1/2” services). Water meters are limited to 5/8”, 1”, 1-1/2” and 2” (no ½” meters). 4. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 5. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle Page 23 of 26 anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 6. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of public water, gas and wastewater utilities improvement plans (the portion to be owned and maintained by the City) in accordance with the utilities department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacture's literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant's contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. After the work is complete but prior to sign off, the applicant shall provide record drawings (as-builts) of the contractor installed water and wastewater mains and services per City of Palo Alto Utilities record drawing procedures (see last condition). For projects that take more than one month to complete, the applicant shall provide progress record drawings of work completed on a monthly basis. 7. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. 8. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (a double detector assembly may be allowed for existing fire sprinkler systems upon the CPAU’s approval). Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 9. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 10. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 11. Existing water services (including fire services) that are not a currently standard material shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. Page 24 of 26 12. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 13. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 14. A separate water meter and backflow preventer is required to irrigate the approved landscape for landscaping areas in excess of 1,500 SF (including tree canopies). Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account an no other water service will be billed on the account. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards. 15. The gas meter location must meet the WGW Utility Standards. The City of Palo Alto normal service pressure is 7” WC (.25 PSI). Increased pressure must be requested in writing and is only provided if the houseline size calculates out at greater than 2” diameter for domestic (note: domestic can only be increased to 14” WC max.) and greater than 4” diameter for commercial at standard houseline pressure (7” WC) or the appliance requires increased pressure at the inlet. Further, due to meter limitations there must a minimum of 800 CFH demand for pressures greater than 14” WC. The only available pressure increments above 7” WC are 14” WC (1/2 psi), 1#, 2# and 5# after approval. Pressures in excess of 14” WC, will require testing the house piping at not less than 60 psig for not less than 30 minutes per the California Plumbing Code section 1204.3.2, witnessed by Palo Alto Building Inspection. The City of Palo Alto will not provide increased pressure just to save contractor money on the houseline construction. Requests to increase the pressure will be evaluated with the following submittals: The manufacturer’s literature for the equipment requiring increased pressure; the specific pressure you are requesting; the gas load; and the length of house gas piping from the gas meter to where the gas houseline starts branching off. 16. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilties procedures. 17. Flushing of the fire system to sanitary sewer shall not exceed 30 GPM. Higher flushing rates shall be diverted to a detention tank to achieve the 30 GPM flow to sewer. 18. Sewage ejector pumps shall meet the following conditions: The pump(s) shall be limited to a total 100 GPM capacity or Page 25 of 26 The sewage line changes to a 4” gravity flow line at least 20’ from the City clean out. The tank and float is set up such that the pump run time not exceed 20 seconds each cycle. 19. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 20. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. SECTION 8. Indemnity. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”)from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. SECTION 9. Term of Approval. Architectural Review Approval. The approval shall be valid for one year from the original date of approval, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.77.090. PASSED: x-x-x-x AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: Page 26 of 26 _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: ___________________________ Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Those plans prepared by Hayed Group Architects, consisting of 31 pages, and received September 3, 2013. 120-16-099 120-17-035 7 7 7 6 77 7 7 7 7Downtown Parking Assessment District PF PF PC-2130 PF CD-C (P) CD-C (P) PC-3007 C-3974 PF PC-4195 RM- 40 CD-C(GF)(P) RM-40 DHS PC-4052 2545 Williams ParkCity Hall 459 801 APT 427-453 250 27 707 75 38 40 560 345 321 325315 529 285 650 636628 1-12 628 A-E 385 365 375 380 345 664325 650-654 661 635 300 690 675 555541-549 533 5- 539 352 439-441 435429425415-419405403 453 383 60 502 510 526 520 540 499 467459 439 425 555 400 436-452 456 379 370-374 376 380-382 384-396 550-552 364360 431 440-444 423 432428 460-476 635 446 430 400 745 720 706 385 744734724-730720712704 360 351 332 653 -681 683685 512 501 619609605 518 482 486 496 610 630 455 400 651-687 543-54 470 463451 4434 441 480-498430 473 524 0 531-535 541 505 525 7 6 701 705483A - F 751 350 423425 457-467 469-471 473-481 454 729 A-D 733-743 7247 425 447 565 585 595 372 558 #200-202 558 #C & D 808 435433 421 727 A-C 642 375 530 643 0 423 611 484 508 756 - 760 433-457 651 43 445 447 640-646 506 469 00 411 - 419 ET HAMILTON AVENUE GILMAN STREET WAVERLEY STREET BRYANT STREET FOREST AVENUE RAMON ET ENUE IPLING STREET UNIVERSITY AVENUE COWPER STREET WAVERLEY STREET HAMILTON AVENUE HAMILTON AV COWPER STREET FOREST AVENUE F WAVERLEY STREET NUE WAVE COWP LANE 39 LA NE 30 LANE 21 K DOWNING L Williams ParkCity Hall This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site 0' 172' 636 Waverley Street Location Map CITY OF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CALI FORNIA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f APRIL 1 6 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2013 City of Palo Alto ccampbe, 2013-11-21 13:54:14 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) CITY OF PALO ALTO Offlc9oftha city Clark APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT' For appeals of. flnal decisions on Architectural Review Board and Home Improvement Exception applications (rendered after public heanng), this appeal form shall be completed .and submitted by appellant within fourteen days from date of the Directors decision, Appeals of final decisions on Individual Review applications (rendered after public hearing) must be submitted within ten days 01 the Directors decision. Complete form, the currenl fee and a letter stating reasons for Ihe appeal shall be submltled 10 front desk staff of the Planning Division, (;" floor,City Hall, 250 Hamilton 'Avenue, excepf for 980 Fridays when'Clty Hall Is closed, when these Items shaU be submitted to Plann~g staff at the Development Cenler, 265 Hamilton Avenue (glass storefront across from City Hall on the corner of Bryant and Hamilton). . • Director of Planning includes his designees, which are Planning Managers or the Chief Planning O~clal . Appeal Application NO'-4'<"'""~=d''''-I--.....,._-;>-r- Street City ZIP LOCATION OF PROPE~TY;UBJECTTO APP~AL:, t;; Street Address· ,() 4>1/-ervCU, Name of Property Owner (if other than appellant) ,,", _ ..... "'._"-, -"~_·,-,i=--I-+-,-,-"""",,,,,u.....;:;L::;c~=,-~ _______ _ . Property Owne~s Address ? 3:5 . H'Cfl v-keel. ~ a-io IfYZi . Q/treet·· I City '9 '(30! ZIP The decision .of the Director of Planning and Community Environment dated U ;2/ ,20L5 whereby the application 13 fLd--t!fl;?ffi 2..-by_HJ..,' c::d!.....,.:r.0""e=:::>:.....::6:::::,..<fo..=""LA.-"{'fi2¥--_______ _ ~flIe number) (orlgi~al project applicant). \f e/ was it r , is hereby appealed for the reasons stated in the attached letter (in duplicate) (a roved/deniad) Date:~ PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL (TO BE FILLEO OUT BY STAFF): Date _______ _ Approved Denied __ _ Remarks and/or Conditions: (o~ .. , .,l': {:::l ,,;::; :~-.' CITY COUNCIL DECISION (TO BE FILLED OUT BY STAFF): DaI6 _______ _ Approved benled __ _ , !"'~-: • .&:" .. ~; <-oJ "-'> ( .. ~ Remarks and/or Conditions: --"1 (:Y 0.,.., 1'0 Q SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED: I "f·'-' 1. .. Lettei.slaUngreasons for eppeal __ -/~_ 2. Fee .'$406· oi j .0 ... .' ,-" c: r-; , , , .. i", , ' .... ; Why the City Couucil Should Overturu the Approval of 636 Waverley :6e~ign!:>: ;"",:, Ci i' j The proposed design for 636 Waverley violates numerous City ordinances that govern compatibility of a new structure with the surrounding existing buildings, and that mandate high quality of architectural design" Pedestrian Orientation and Aesthetics of Style We submit that pedestrian orientation means both 'convenient' and 'inviting' or 'attractive' for pedestrians. In the aesthetic sense, there should be something visnal on the building exterior to iilterest the pedestrian both up close and afar, lest the building be judged ordinary or an eyesore. But there is no such interest in the Hayes design. On all levels, seen from a distance, the design composition is ajumbled mess of elements that fit together in a strictly utilitarian fashion, subject to no overall aestlletic pattern that would please a non-architect passerby. From tbe sidewalk close in, the pedestriaJl walking past will see: • An open vehicle entryway occupying approximately 40 percent oftlle street-level fayade; • A cylindrical concrete (?) column which extends from foundation level up to the top floor ceiling. It appears to be entirely unarticulated, less interesting to look at than a wooden telephone pole; • On the other side, frameless glass doors and window revealing elevator and staircase inside. An elevator and staircase are aesthetically irrelevant to passersby unless they are extraordinary, such as the exterior staircase at tlle nearby Stanford Court Hotel; • In between through large glass palles, we see part of the ground floor office and its entry doors; • Boxy, bare concrete walls alld the underside of concrete floors encasing very large expanses of windows and on the top floors, terraces. Thus we're offered at eye level large expanses of glass, concrete, alld airy nothingness, mitigated only by a low planter out front. It's all utility and no aesthetics. From the sidewalk level, we look upward tllfough all the glass into the interior either of the ascending staircase or the second-floor commercial office, but mostly we see the underside of concrete floors. On the north side, much of it easily visible because oftlle setback of the adjacent apartment house (628 Waverley), our eyes view a great expanse of concrete wall from foundation to roof, punctuated by glass doors on ground level aJld some multistory windows further back. On the south side toward Forest Avenue, the viewer sees more blank concrete wall in the front section of the building, punctuated by large open area or windows, tben a huge expanse ofblankcol1crete wall in tlle rear. Though a new building by Mr. Hayes is already proposed to replace the bungalow on the south side, it must not automatically be assumed that it will be approved. There are yet more problems Witll that design. The 636 Waverley must stand on its OWn merits, which aesthetically its south side compromises substantially. The next-door apartment building at 628 Waverley makes the impression of a large building when one walks past, in comparison to its neighbors. But since the proposed project has no setback, is more tban twice as tall, and occupies virtually the entire site, it will make an overpowering 8l1d oppressive impression that is totally out of pedestri8l1-friendly character. The closest equivalent in downtown Palo Alto is the Office Center at 525 University, which was the stimulus for the current height limit. ARB suggestions to set back the top floor recognize the problem but minimally diminish the impact. In summary, this is demonstrably not a high-quality design and therefore does not fulfill the quality requirement of City statutes cited below. Compatibility and Context Palo Alto Municipal Code and Comprehensive Pl8l1 ordinances 8l1d policies (cited below) repeatedly stress compatibility with Or consideration of neighboring buildings, not only the adjacent buildings. Yet even two ARB members opined in session that this design is incompatible with its surroundings. Below we follow PAMC Section l8.18.ll0(a)(2)(B) in analyzing how compatibility may be accomplished, but in fact is not accomplished in this design. Overpowering siting and massing is the first impression of the proposed design. The building proposes to occupy 90 percent of the site, with nearly no space left at the property lines. There will be no sidewalk setback. Visible building materials are almost all glass and concrete. Concrete is consistent only with the all concrete church building across Hamilton Street, which Mr Hayes pointed out when addressing the ARB on August 15 . Yet that is one of the ngliest bnildings in the entire city and hardly worth imitating even partially: The Hayes entry treatment is of metal-framed glass doors right up at the sidewalk, which resembles no entryway in the neighborhood. Other entryways on the even-numbered side of the block are centrally located at the top of low staircases and create a rhythm worthy of emulation. Windows in this design are not inset like all others in the area, but rather consist of curtain walls, radically incompatible with all other buildings on the block. Two Board members and even the architect himself seem to agree with many of these impressions. During the ARB meeting on September 19, Board Member Lew pointed out the differences from other area buildings in mass, style, fenestration pattern, color and material. He encouraged the architect to minimize the massing, and pointed to context, saying that the design looks urban while the immediate context is suburban. Mr. Hayes responded to Mr. Lew: "I agree with you in terms of style, it is not something that compatibility really even addresses head-on. It's more about building texture, building materials, windows,. " In effect, Mr. Hayes seems to confess that he has paid no attention to the compatibility statutes. Mr. Hayes protested that there are other large structures on the block, but Mr. Lew responded that they are set back, and 680 Waverley has punched windows. Mr. Lew added that even on University Avenue, the anchor buildings on corners are the tall ones and the infill buildings are generally smaller, whereas the proposed structure is in the middle of the block. Board Member Gooyer offered a similar analysis to Mr. Lew's. "Size-wise or bulk-wise it looks like based on the variety that's in this area -yes, it doesn't really relate to the two buildings on either side ... " And further: "The style and the wall of glass and everything else are not in context with what's in the area around it." He referred to the Wells Fargo building's brick with smaller windows, planting, and setback. He concluded of 636 Waverley: "And this is sort of an in-your-face, right-up-to-the-property-line design . . . I have a hard time placing it at this particular location." The two structures which are easily the finest 011 the block and most worthy of emulation in their details are the Post Office and the house at 650 Waverley, both of which are recognized historic landmarks. Both were mentioned in passing but not considered seriously in review. Respondents to a recent survey of architectural style preference, viewing a streetscape collage of photographs of these and the other extant buildings together with the Hays design, indicated by a margin of 85.48% to 14.52% that the proposed design is incompatible in its setting. The survey's total respondent COlUlt is now 925. Opinion surveys of national issues (by Gallup, Wall Street Journal, news networks such as ABC and CNN) typically poll about 1,000 voters, thus this is a huge sample size for one small city and the results are surely representative within a small margin of error. We ask the City Council to review carefully the arguments in this appeal and to compare the pertinent statntes. We believe that the Council members will find that the design of 63 6 Waverley Street conforms neither to the letter nor the spirit of the City's wise and far-sighted ordinances. Review Process We believe that the staffreport'for this project, like the one for 240 Hamilton currently under appeal, fails to consider carefully the elements of aesthetic compatibility and quality design explaine.d above. This may be depaJiment policy that should be examined by the Council. We are additionally concerned that this project is 110t being considered entirely on its own merits. A final approval of this project will encourage and help justify two more projects by the same architect on the same order of magnitude, located one on either side. If approved, they will create a near-solid 50-foot high wall of glass aJld concrete 150 feet wide that will overwhelm the block. One of these (640 Waverley) is already submitted. Another (628 Waverley) is reputed to be at least in the talking stages. In the September and October ARB meetings on this issue, one or both of these further planned developments adjacent to the site were discussed. In discussion by PlaJming staff (Ms. French) and ARB . members, a consensus seemed to appear that the 636 Waverley project would be easier to approve in terms of landscaping, at least, if envisioned in this future theoretical context. However, Board Member Gooyer observed that seeing the 636 and 640 projects side byside, the Board's work on scaling back massing on 636 Waverley is defeated. The "massing is much greater." A combination of all three in the area will destroy any architectural harmony in the area, and the process creating the new block is an ominous portent for development all over the City. Respectfully submitted, Douglas Smith, Forest Avenue Co-signers Doug Scafe Lynne Scafe Janice Berman JolmKenney Michael Hodos Jeff Levinsky Helena C. Hurley David J. Hurley AlA Emeritus Andrei Broder Jaffa Dadoull Vera Wolwacz SELECTED PERTINENT STATUTES 18.18.11 0 Context-Based Design Criteria (a) Contextual and Compatibility Criteria Development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. (2) (A) Compatibility is achieved when the apparent scale and mass of new buildings is consistent with the pattern of achieving a pedestrian oriented design, and when new construction shares general characteristics and establishes design linkages with the overall pattern of buildings so that the visual unity of the street is maintained. (B) Compatibility goals may be accomplished through various means, including but not limited to: (i) the siting, scale, massing, and materials; (iii) the pattern of roof lines and projections; . (iv) the sizes, proportions, and orientations of windows, bays and doorways; (v) the location and treatment of entryways; (vi) the shadow patterns from massing and decorative features; PAMC Section 18.76.010 Conditional Use Permit (a), Contextual and Compatibility Criteria: "Development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development ... " "Compatibility is achieved when the apparent scale and mass of new buildings is consistent with the pattern of achieving a pedestrian oriented de.~ign, and when new construction shares general charactehstics and establishes design linkages with the overall pattern of buildings so that the visual unity of the street is maintained. " PAMC 18.76.020: "The purpose of Architectural Review is to: (1) Promote orderly and harmonious development in the city; (4) Enhance the desirability ofliving conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas. (5) Promote visual enviromnents which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other." PA Comprehensive Plan POLICY L-5: Maintain the scale and character ofthe City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and nnacceptable due to their size and scale. Policy L-23 mandates that the Downtown area "Promote quality deslgn that recognizes the regional and historical importance ofthe area and reinforces its pedestrian character." Policy L-48 reads: "Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces." - 1 - WAVERLEY RESIDENTIAL LLC 333 High Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 327-2750 December 10, 2013 Gregory Scharff, Mayor Nancy Shepherd, Vice Mayor Marc Berman, Council Member Patrick Burt, Council Member Karen Holman, Council Member Larry Klein, Council Member Liz Kniss, Council Member Gail Price, Council Member Greg Schmid, Council Member City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 via E-mail delivery Re: 636 Waverley ARB Approval Appeal by Douglas Smith Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Shepherd and Council Members: I am the owner of 636 Waverley Street in downtown Palo Alto, and this is my response to the appeal of my ARB approval of October 17, 2013. As the staff report shows, my approval process has been long, thorough and all-inclusive from a community-involvement standpoint. It began in early 2012, when I first presented my concept for the redevelopment of this property to Planning Staff. In the fall of 2012, a full year ago, I first presented the project to the ARB. We've been back several times with project updates, and received final approval on October 17th of this year. During the planning process, I reached out to many neighbors, including those who signed this appeal. In fact I called or emailed each and every neighbor on my block, and most agreed to meet with me and discuss my plans. In addition, I met with many other community activists during the approval process, in an effort to garner their support for this project. Due to my inclusion of extensive mechanical parking lifts within the design, the project is fully parked onsite. This aspect of the project has allowed us to receive strong support from both adjoining neighbors on the 600 block of Waverley, as well as from the community at large. As just one successful example of my positive community outreach efforts, Neilson Buchanan testified in favor of the project at our August ARB hearing. In support of his appeal, Mr. Smith's makes three primary arguments, each of which I will address in turn. 1. Pedestrian Orientation and Style Aesthetics. Mr. Smith does not like the design of 636 Waverley. He makes these claims to support his views: CLAIM: An open vehicle entryway occupies 40% of the street façade. RESPONSE: The driveway is 12 feet wide, or 24% of the façade. - 2 - CLAIM: A column extends from the foundation to the top floor ceiling. (If true, this would be 50 feet) RESPONSE: The only continuous visible column extends from grade to the third floor ceiling (36 feet) CLAIM: Frameless glass doors and windows reveal the elevator and staircase inside. RESPONSE: The elevator is not visible from the street. The stair design is a highly developed aspect of the facade, and is an integral part of the building's design. In contrast to many modern buildings, where stairs are merely a practical means of egress, the stair design for 636 Waverley is intended to draw building users into the glass stairwell, thereby encouraging stair use, rather than elevator usage. This is why the elevator was placed away from sight lines, as it is intended only for use by those with accessibility needs. CLAIM: Through large glass panes, we see part of the ground floor office and its entry doors and bare concrete walls and the underside of concrete floors. RESPONSE: Absolutely correct! Modern design encourages a dialogue between pedestrians and building occupants. This greatly enhances the pedestrian experience. There is no more accepted design technique to accomplish this than keeping ground floor office and retail space at the same elevation as the sidewalk, and using large, clear windows at this level. The building does not attempt to hide its structure--it gladly expresses it. The smooth concrete is celebrated by making it quite visible to pedestrians. Again, this is a widely accepted modern design technique. CLAIM: Sidewalk view shows staircase and second floor offices; mostly underside of concrete floors. RESPONSE: As previously noted, the clear glass façade encourages interaction between pedestrians and building occupants. This is quite intentional and is in keeping with the best modern design practices. There are many positive references by ARB members to this aspect of the design. CLAIM: North façade view contains large expanses of concrete with some glass at ground level (Same argument is made for South Elevation). RESPONSE: Virtually all of the ground level façade that is visible to pedestrians is glass. Due to the fireproof nature of concrete, the façade design is able to take advantage of the maximum allowable percentage of window openings on both the North and South facades. In addition, to maximize natural light in both the office and residential spaces, the majority of the South façade is set back from the property line. This aspect of the design is especially green in that it substantially reduces the need for interior artificial day-lighting. CLAIM: The building has no setback and is more than twice as tall as its neighbor at 628 Waverley. RESPONSE: The actual setback of the approved building at the ground floor is almost the same as the setback of 628 Waverley. The setback of the upper floors (at the terraces) is substantially greater than the setback of 628 Waverley. While the height of 636 Waverley is greater than 628 Waverley, it is within the guidelines for this zoning district, and no height exceptions were sought, nor received. Moreover, many of the buildings on the block are substantially taller than 636 Waverley. Most notably, the height of 651-681 Waverley (where a majority of Mr. Smith's appeal co-signors reside) is over 54 feet tall. 2. Compatibility and Context. It is Mr. Smith's position that the design for 636 Waverley is incompatible with neighboring buildings. - 3 - CLAIM: The building occupies 90% of site; has no setback. RESPONSE: Setback reality addressed above. There is no maximum site coverage requirement for this zoning district, but 636 Waverley's open spaces exceed the City's required landscape open space requirements by 300% and the usable open space requirements by 900%! CLAIM: Visible building materials are glass and concrete. Concrete consistent only with All Saints Church across Hamilton Street, which Mr. Smith calls "one of the ugliest buildings in the entire city". RESPONSE: Mr. Smith's observation regarding 636 Waverley's visible building materials is only partially correct. The exterior envelope of the building is concrete, glass and of course extensive landscaping. There is a substantial planting strip in the parkway, running virtually the length of the property. This was achieved after extensive discussions with the City's Public Works Department, which initially objected to the oversized planting area. A majority of the glass along the sidewalk façade is accented by a heavily landscaped raised planter. The concrete structure and fence along the South property line are planted with creeping vines along their full visible lineage. All visible terrace spaces have plants growing along vertical concrete areas, as well as planter boxes along the clear glass railings. With respect to Mr. Smith's mean-spirited comments concerning All Saints Church, I would respectfully disagree, as would the Church's members, among whom their love for the beauty of their congregation is well recognized. CLAIM: Windows are not inset like others on the area. RESPONSE: This zoning district encourages mixed-use development like 636 Waverley. Most other buildings on this block are single purpose buildings, either residential or office. The glazing on 636 Waverley is quite specifically designed to differentiate the office component below (curtain wall) from the residential component above (sliding glass doors and large operable windows). CLAIM: Mr. Smith recites selected comments by ARB members and Ken Hayes. RESPONSE: Comments by ARB members and Key Hayes self-explanatory. No need to comment. CLAIM: Mr. Smith expresses the supposed results of his self-created "architectural style preference" survey. RESPONSE: Anyone who has looked at this one-sided and leading survey knows how useless it is at capturing the true architectural preferences of Palo Altans. Moreover, in the downtown area, and especially on the 600 Block of Waverley, any possible preference for a particular architectural style is without merit. The age of the current buildings ranges from an original construction date of 1902 (which building was completely re-built in 2007) to the newest (and largest, at 94,000 feet) building on the block, which was completed in 1984. There is no single architectural style represented. The three dominant buildings on the street, which represent 57% of the floor area built on the block, were all built in the period from 1981-1984. Perhaps we should have designed our building to mirror the post-modern design aesthetic of the 1980's?' 3. Review Process Claims. CLAIM: Mr. Smith feels that the Planning staff report fails to consider certain compatibility and design qualities, and that 636 Waverley was not considered on its own merits. RESPONSE: The ARB performed a careful review of 636 Waverley, and requested numerous design modifications in response to comments from both Board Members and - 4 - the public (specifically including the Appellant and his co-signers). The written ARB record shows a careful, deliberate and meticulous consideration of all aspects of this project, quite specifically including the project's compatibility, and the quality of its overall design, which was universally praised (even the sole dissenting ARB Board Member, Alex Lew, commented that the building is "handsome" at the August 15th ARB hearing). In summary, I believe that I've demonstrated, quite comprehensively, that the October 17th ARB approval of my project was appropriate, and that Mr. Smith's appeal is without merit. I've taken great pains to insure that my project responded to both the City's concerns and those of all relevant neighbor groups. It is one of a very small number of projects that is fully parked, without resorting to un-parked TDRs, in-lieu fees, or the like. I also believe that my community outreach efforts were nothing short of exemplary. I personally contacted every person that expressed any opinion or comment (to staff) on my project, and offered to meet with each such person. Many agreed to meet with me, and those meetings resulted in specific modifications to the project, mostly related to parking concerns. Of those co-signing Mr. Smith's appeal letter, almost all are residents of a single building--651-681 Waverley--a 5 story, 26,514 square foot building built in 1981. Only one family living there would meet with me, and they freely admitted that their primary objection was that they would be losing their Western views. And while the loss of a view is of course unfortunate, I do not think that it is a valid reason to object to new development that is fully zoning compliant. I hope you will consider these facts when formulating your response to this appeal of the Architectural Review Board's approval of my project. Of course please feel free to contact me to discuss this. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Waverley Residential LLC By: David Kleiman, Manager cc via E-mail delivery: Ms. Hillary Gitelman, Director City of Palo Alto Dept. of Planning & Community Environment Mr. Aaron Aknin, Assistant Director City of Palo Alto Dept. of Planning & Community Environment Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Officer City of Palo Alto Dept. of Planning & Community Environment Ms. Clare Campbell, Planner City of Palo Alto Dept. of Planning & Community Environment Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects August 30th, 2013 Clare Campbell Planning Department City of Palo Alto Re: Major ARB Submission 636 Waverley Street 13PLN-00261 Ms. Campbell, An itemized list of responses to the August 15th ARB comments and the August 22nd ‘Parking Requirements’ memo is below. All changes to the drawings have been clouded and marked ‘Delta 3’. If you have any questions or comments, please contact the Hayes Group. Regards, Ken Hayes Hayes Group Architects 08.15.13 ARB Presentation Comment # Sheet Ref. Comment / Response 1 Modify the Waverley Street elevation to reduce the apparent height and bulk of the structure. A3.1, A4.1 The height of the stair tower has been reduced by 3’-0”. Openings have been cut into the roof overhang and into the fourth floor deck to bring light to areas below and reduce the bulk of these elements. 2 Develop the design of the rear elevation to incorporate the delicate elements present in the Waverley Street elevation. A3.2, A4.1 The design of the rear elevation has been refined. Thin concrete slabs define the edges of the third and fourth floors. A narrow window breaks down the bulk of the stair tower. The change to the parking lifts (see comment below) resulted in removing the second floor terrace, which simplifies the rear elevation and puts focus on the residential floors. 3 Remove the swinging gate at the top of the garage ramp. Replace with retractable bollards. A2.1, A3.1 The swinging gate has been replaced with retractable bollards. 4 Provide additional landscaping on the residential balconies and at the street level. L1.0, L1.1 The landscape drawings show increased plant material in the planter at the Waverley entry, and added trellis with vines on the eastern side of driveway entry. Concrete planters are added to 3rd and 4th floor terrace decks. North facing terraces include shade tolerant planting. New shade tolerant plants species added to project: Liriope muscari ‘Majestic’. 5 Revise the lighting design so that the street level at Waverley St., as shown on the photometric diagram, does not have ‘hot spots’ of 25 foot candles. A2.6 Diffuse wide-spread optics have been added to the down-lights, reducing the light levels at Waverley Street so there are no more ‘hot spots’. 08.22.13 ‘Parking Requirements’ Memo 1 The proposed lift operation can not be supported by Palo Alto planning department staff, as the top spaces must be vacated in order to access the lowest space in the lift. Access to these five parking spaces is required. A0.1, A2.1, A3.3 To address the staff comments, the following changes have been made: The head height above the four ‘quad lifts’ at the rear of the site (between gridline 6 and 7) has been increased to allow 24’-0” clear from garage floor to structure above. This allows the top car of the four-car rack to remain while the lowest car is accessed. This clear height projects above the second floor level, resulting in the loss of the second floor terrace and second floor commercial space. An intermediate concrete platform roofs over the parking rack, transferring lateral load to the shear wall at the rear property line and keeping rain out of the garage. As noted above, 250 square feet of second floor commercial space is removed by increasing the clearance of the garage parking racks. This reduces the required parking count for the project by one. See the edited traffic analysis included. The one space reduction allows the final parking lift (between gridlines 4 and 5) to change from a four-space to a three-space lift. This size lift will allow the top car to remain while the lowest car is accessed. END September 18, 2013 Mr. David Kleiman, Manager Waverley Residential LLC 333 High Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Email: dkleiman@d2realty.com (sent through email only) Subject: 636 Waverley Street Parking Evaluation Dear David, The purpose of the letter report is to present the findings of a parking evaluation for the proposed 636 Waverley Street project in Palo Alto. The proposed project would replace the existing building with 4,800 square feet of office space and two residential dwelling units. Parking Analysis Based on conversation with City staff,1 TJKM has completed the estimate of peak parking generation for the proposed site based on the Palo Alto’s Municipal Code with time of day information from the Parking Generation, Fourth Edition, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). According to the City code, office use should provide one parking space per 250 square feet and residential units (3 bedroom units) should provide 2 spaces per unit. This would mean parking requirement for the proposed office is 19.2 spaces (4,800 sf/250sf) and four spaces for the two residential. However, it was noted in ITE that office and residential land use peak at different times of the day. The ITE information showed that office use peak at 10 a.m. which also showed that the residential land use at that time with parking occupancy of 32 percent. The different peak parking demand for the two land uses provide opportunities for shared parking. The resulting parking demand is approximately 20 spaces as shown in Table I. Note that use of shared parking concept generally precludes reservation of parking spaces for residential land use. The ITE parking time of day information are contained in Appendix A. Table I – Estimated Parking Generation Land Use Types Proposed Units Parking Rates Total Parking Required Office 4,800 square feet 250 19.20 Dwelling Units 2 dwelling unit 0.64 1.28 Total 20.48 In addition, due to its close proximity to transit and the Caltrain Station, there is some opportunity for trip reductions. The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Transportation Impact Analyses guideline states opportunity for up to nine percent trip reduction. Conclusion Since the project proposes to provide 20 parking spaces, the projected parking demand would be accommodated adequately. 1 Rius, Rafael May 16, 2013 Mr. David Kleiman September 18, 2013 Page 2 If there are any questions about this report, please contact me at (925) 463-0611 or email at cthnay@tjkm.com. Very truly yours, Christopher Thnay, PE, AICP Director of Planning & Complete Streets \\Pl4\projects\JURISDICTION\P\Palo Alto\042-041 636 Waverly Parking\Report\LR 091813 636 Waverley.docx Appendix A - ITE Time of Day Parking Information City of Palo Alto Page 1 1 =================MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26====================== 2 Thursday, August 15, 2013 3 REGULAR MEETING - 8:30 AM 4 City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor 5 250 Hamilton Avenue 6 Palo Alto, CA 94301 7 ROLL CALL: 8 Board members: Staff Liaison: 9 Clare Malone Prichard (Chair) Russ Reich, Senior Planner 10 Lee Lippert (Vice Chair) 11 Alexander Lew Staff: 12 Randy Popp Diana Tamale, Administrative Associate 13 Amy French, Chief Planning Official 14 Clare Campbell, Planner 15 Elena Lee, Senior Planner 16 17 18 PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS 19 Please be advised the normal order of public hearings of agenda items is as follows: 20 Announce agenda item 21 Open public hearing 22 Staff recommendation 23 Applicant presentation – Ten (10) minutes limitation or at the discretion of the Board. 24 Public comment – Five (5) minutes limitation per speaker or limitation to three (3) 25 minutes depending on large number of speakers per item. 26 Architectural Review Board questions of the applicant/staff, and comments 27 Applicant closing comments - Three (3) minutes 28 Close public hearing 29 Motions/recommendations by the Board 30 Final vote 31 32 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the 33 agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must 34 complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Board. The Architectural 35 Review Board reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. 36 37 7. 636 Waverley Street [13PLN-00262]: Request by Hayes Group Architects for a 38 Major Architectural Review for the demolition of a one-story, 1,406 sq. ft. office 39 building and construction of a new, 10,328 sq. ft., four-story mixed use building 40 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 2 with commercial uses on the first and second floors and two residential units on 1 the third and fourth floors, on a property within the CD-C(P) zoning district. 2 Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California 3 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. 4 5 Chair Malone Prichard: [Starts in progress] architectural review for the demolition of a one-6 story, 1,406 square foot office building and construction of a new, 10,328 square foot, four-7 story mixed-use building with commercial uses on the first and second floors and two 8 residential units on the third and fourth floors, on a property within the CD-C(P) zoning district. 9 Clare? 10 11 Clare Campbell, Planner: Good morning. The Board, the mixed-use project before you this 12 morning with the two residential units and commercial office space has been reviewed by staff 13 and has been determined to be complaint with the development standards of the CD-C 14 Commercial Downtown zoning district. The CD-C zoning district allows development on this 15 site up to 50 feet in height and can be built to the properties lines because there are no setback 16 requirements. Surrounding properties on the same side of the block as well as most of the sites 17 across the street can also be redeveloped based on the CD-C development standards. 18 19 Staff has been contacted by residents who have expressed concerns about the project’s aesthetic 20 compatibility with the existing neighborhood development pattern, which was stated to be 21 generally setback from the street and lower in height. I believe that Mr. Kleiman, the property 22 owner, has reached out to these parties to discuss their concerns. In addition staff and the Board 23 did receive letters of support from the neighboring properties as well. 24 25 Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend approval of the 26 project based upon the findings and conditions of approval outlined in the staff report. This 27 concludes staff’s presentation. Ken Hayes is here this morning to provide you with a detailed 28 presentation. Thank you. 29 30 Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you. You will have 10 minutes. 31 32 Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects: Good morning Members of the Board, my name’s Ken 33 Hayes with Hayes Group Architects. I’ll be presenting the project on behalf of my client 34 Waverley Residential, LLC. Joining me this morning is Sheri Van Dorn with Van Dorn Abed 35 Landscape Architect and she’s here to answer questions when they come up on the landscape. 36 And I’d like to thank Clare, the Planner Clare Campbell for helping us bring the application, 37 which has taken some time to you this morning. 38 39 The site I think we’re familiar with 636 Waverley. It’s a midblock site between Hamilton and 40 Forrest. It’s in the CD-C(P) overlay zone. It is surrounded pretty much by CD-C(P) with the 41 exception of a Public Facility (PF) parking lot behind the property. The property is landlocked 42 on all sides so all ingress and egress will come from Waverley Street. The existing home that 43 will be demolished that’s there is nearly entirely constructed of redwood. So we’re going to 44 dissemble it and recycle the wood for use on the interior of the two residential units. That’s the 45 thinking anyway right now. 46 47 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Just a bird’s eye view of the adjacent development; we have the All Saints Church was a nice 1 poured in place concrete building. It has some similar elements. On the corner here, I’ve lost 2 my cursor, there. And then we have [Chop’s] four-story 400 Hamilton project on the corner of 3 Hamilton and Waverley. Directly across the street the single story commercial building, but 4 then we have a four and a half story multi-family project on the corner here, a five to six-story 5 multi-family project here, a three-story historic building here. A home similar to the one that 6 we’re going to be redeveloping that is also zoned CD-C(P) and it’s occupied by office use, it’s 7 not a residential use in that location there, and a two-story apartment building to the west or to 8 the north however you want to look at that there. So it’s sort of a, it’s a neighborhood of a 9 mixture of heights and certainly not any one particular pattern I don’t think of development. 10 11 This is just some views from the east looking at this site right here. That’s the house that will 12 be demolished and recycled. A view looking the other way there; this is the two-story 13 apartment building there. There’s a gingko tree here in front of the building. In our renderings 14 we’re not showing it because we wanted you to see the building, but the idea is that we’re going 15 to, we’re replacing that gingko with another gingko that is of the same kind of maturation as the 16 one that’s there, but it’s a slightly different location. We can’t relocate it. They don’t think it’ll 17 succeed if we relocate it, but that gingko will be replaced. 18 19 Just a street view across the street 400 Hamilton; this is the commercial building directly across 20 the street and of course the multi-family project on that corner and then on the other corner here 21 the historic building located there. This is our project site and the two-story commercial or 22 apartment building located here. This is the other project that will be coming before you at 23 some point probably, but that will be a complete renovation of that and redevelopment. 24 25 So the applicant was before you in November before we were brought on board and this project 26 was introduced as a preliminary. And I think that the program is essentially the same; it’s two 27 floors of commercial on grade and sort of below grade parking. This had on grade parking 28 covered in back and then two residential units on the upper floors. The uppermost story is 29 actually my client’s, it’ll be his home here in Palo Alto. And so I think we’ve got comments 30 that staff or the ARB made that day on the next slide, but it’s a clumsy kind of composition. It 31 seemed like maybe the structure was a little bit too mega structure like, just too powerful, but 32 the idea of formed concrete and lots of glass and then useable spaces on the outside of the 33 building were something that we liked about it and when Dave came to us we tried to reinforce 34 those aspects of the design. 35 36 The ARB’s comments were, and I just distilled them down into five. They noted that the 37 concrete bracing in the structure is a bit out of scale. You requested better pedestrian scale and 38 amenities as well as entry doors facing Waverley. You requested the residential balconies also 39 try to engage the street as opposed to where they were located previously, and then just sort of a 40 general consensus just a little bit too much architecture perhaps. So we then started to work 41 with Dave who showed us some examples of other ideas and then we’ve distilled them down 42 into some of the images here were formed concrete slabs, lots of glass, but then trying to 43 animate terraces that are intended for living on the outside. 44 45 You can see here it’s kind of a fun bunch of trees on the outside of that building, but this clearly 46 has usable roofs and terraces and a vocabulary that we saw was interesting and the one that 47 we’ve been working with recently in the downtown. Again, some other images just these 48 City of Palo Alto Page 4 elegant concrete shapes. Much more modern, very simple that afford outdoor living areas that 1 can also be covered to provide shading and covered outdoor spaces. This is the All Saints 2 Church and just wanted to show some of the poured in place concrete details of that because 3 there are some similarities although it’s a different form. Just this idea of the plainer walls was 4 interesting. 5 6 Our ground floor plan like I said all the access if from Waverley. We have the driveway 7 coming in here to the parking area. In front of the building we are replacing curb, gutter, 8 sidewalk, providing planting. In here we’ve set the building back three feet to where the glass 9 wall is and then where the commercial entrance is for the upper floor its back about five, five 10 and a half feet. We still have… and the doors then face for those two primary spaces face the 11 street. We do have an ancillary entrance for the residential if they want to just come in and go 12 right to the elevator and up or they can walk in the front door if they so choose to do so. And so 13 those amenities there start to address what we talked about or what your comments were before 14 with bike racks in front and then there’s this relocated gingko tree right in front of our stair 15 tower. 16 17 The paving pattern is a nice paving pattern and going down this is a ramp down to the garage. 18 We have 21 parking spaces in the garage. The project is fully parked. It’s parked with four car 19 lifts in those locations and then the handicapped spaces at grade. We have all of our utilities 20 and garbage and trash and recycling down in this, it’s a four and a half foot below grade, it’s not 21 fully depressed, four and a half feet below. And then our emergency egress stair from the back 22 comes out at grade here. There’s a glass railing along here and you go out through a gate out 23 here to the street. 24 25 I just showed a typical residential floor. The units, this is the top floor. It’s three bedroom two 26 and a half bath. This is the front of the building here. Large terrace outside is completely, well 27 it’s covered I think back to about here with the roof above. This whole side is covered, which 28 helps as some sun shading on that south, southeastern side of the building. Master bedroom, 29 two bedrooms over here, but the main living area is in front and is able to utilize this space 30 there. They’re not big units. 31 32 Three dimensionally we’re looking at this kind of developed form where we have this very 33 sinuous kind of zig-zag of the concrete element as it rises in the building and then we play 34 within that framework in and out with the upper floor being setback to create that outdoor 35 terrace. The third floor being setback to create a similar outside terrace for that space, and then 36 the commercial area on the second floor is here and then on the ground floor there’s a gate 37 [unintelligible] that you see through located there to prevent, it’s a one way driveway so we 38 need a gate to monitor when the cars come in and out so we don’t have two cars on the ramp at 39 the same time. And that’s been negotiated with Transportation. 40 41 The side of the building here you can see the overhangs are about five feet in front of the glass 42 on the residential side and on the commercial side we’re pretty much out to the property line 43 with the exception of where we have it notched out because of property line penetration issues. 44 This is the stair tower that will be animated inside. The commercial entrance here. If you go in 45 the ancillary entrance back here for a residential that’s where that would be. These windows are 46 actually into the stairwell as well as this, so you’ll see people going up and down in the stair. 47 48 City of Palo Alto Page 5 The roof area, the landscape plan has some development of the roof terrace. It’s intended that 1 the rest of the roof will be utilized for photovoltaic (PV) panels. There’s some discussion about 2 greywater reuse in the building. It’s not, because we’re going to have a lot of room in the 3 subterranean garage for tanks, etcetera. This is the area that’s carved out on the side for 4 commercial light on the side of the commercial office space. And then at the back of the 5 building, oh this is the other side of the building here with the residential floor located there and 6 here with lots of outdoor space to live to. The back of the building you can see it has the large 7 overhang still for the residential area, which will provide shading on that kind of southwest side 8 now of the building. And the same thing holds true on the commercial floor there. 9 10 The mechanical systems although we have roof screen the mechanical systems are actually 11 going to be hung in the garage space and we’ll just have fan coils in the units themselves. So 12 the roof screen is really there to hide like exhaust fans and make up air fans, so not a lot of 13 equipment on the roof. We’re concerned about the noise relative to the outdoor space on the 14 roof. 15 16 The material palate, here’s a rendering of the building shows the space more enlivened I think 17 on the terraces. We have an outline here of the potential building next door that our office is 18 working on as well. But the concrete will be smooth form concrete with a pattern of snap ties. 19 The glass is a high performance and do you have the finish board there? Is a high performance 20 Solarban 70 glazing system with a combination of reverse glazed and front glazed. This is all 21 front glaze that you see here. On the residential floors it’s more of a Fleetwood type window 22 system with sliding doors that open up onto the terraces up here and here. 23 24 And then the last view is from the other side and this is where we’re not showing the gingko 25 tree. We didn’t have it in this one either, but there is the gingko tree here, but we felt it was 26 important to see the building. The stair comes down and I think this is about nine feet right here 27 at the front door going into the commercial space, going into the commercial stair that would 28 then take you up to the second floor. And that is my presentation. Thank you. 29 30 Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you. I have two speaker cards. The first is Doug Scafe. You 31 will have three minutes. To be followed by Neilson Buchannan. 32 33 Doug Scafe: Good morning, my name is Doug Scafe. I live at 659 Waverley Street in the 34 condominium units directly across. We are in the front facing these units. Lived there for about 35 19 years; have enjoyed living on that street. It is an open street. Every building in that street is 36 setback including the bank, including the building next door to us, and all of the buildings on 37 the other side of the street. Even the condominium unit that’s referred to as five to six floors is 38 only three floors facing Waverley Street. It is built up going back from that. 39 40 So we have essentially a change in the character of the street completely. We’re going from 41 everything being setback and open from the sidewalk to taking it up to the street with zero 42 clearance from the sidewalk and building it 50 feet. And you can already see there’s another 43 building planned next door exactly the same and I expect there will be another one where the 44 two-story building is next to that. And across the street where we are, which is a one-story 45 building is also opened up to the same zoning. So you’re essentially taking what is an open 46 street with setbacks on all of it to a five-story or to a 50 foot, probably 150 feet long on the side 47 of this development wall of glass and the noise we will get from that, the increased traffic from 48 City of Palo Alto Page 6 that, the narrowing of the sidewalk. I mean the sidewalk is the same size, but it’s open on both 1 sides to the housing. Today lots of people walk up and down this street. It is not a commercial 2 street. There are no commercial buildings except the first floor of the condominium unit on the 3 corner, which has professional offices; very little traffic to that. 4 5 I think that allowing this to happen will essentially destroy the street. We’re going to get a 6 bunch of buildings that are build up out to the street. This is not that type of street today. 7 Again, I mean I don’t see any benefit except to the developer, not to the residents of Palo Alto 8 who have an open street. It’s destroying the character of the street. I think not having it setback 9 further and not having it as massive would be a big change and an improvement. Thank you. 10 11 Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you for your comments. And Neilson Buchannan. 12 13 Neilson Buchannan: Neilson Buchannan, 155 Bryant Street. Once again I’d like to frame my 14 remarks in the context of the broader community, particularly the Crescent Park/University 15 South/Downtown North neighborhoods. I will speak in favor of this project for a change. The 16 developer has met with me and several other citizens, gone over the pluses and minuses as we 17 see the project. I think he has been both responsive and responsible. 18 19 I will just pick one feature of the project due to my limitation of my grey matter I’m not going 20 to talk about the aesthetics of the project because I’m unqualified, mentally limited. But this 21 development is a bit of a sea change and watershed event as far as I’m concerned. The 22 developer for whatever reason, self-interest or sense of community or common sense has 23 aggressively put in almost perfect onsite parking capabilities. And that is a remarkable change 24 in my almost one year experience in dealing with civic issues, particularly the neighborhood 25 issues of jammed parking on our residential streets for those three neighborhoods. So I think 26 this is a great chance to move forward in stark contrast to another public statement by one of the 27 premier developers in town, which basically said to the residents the parking problem is yours, 28 get your cars off the street so my tenants can park all day; the commuter parking syndrome. 29 30 Previously I made a remark about 2,000, 2,500 cars parked on those three neighborhoods. I 31 invite you if you have time we will come to you one by one and show you our open source 32 planning model. You can plug in any number of factors and you can change our assumptions 33 anyway you want to and you still come up with profound parking intrusion into those 34 neighborhoods. It is literally going to be parked out to Embarcadero. It staggers your mind and 35 I think the Planning Department is struggling to come up with their own planning forecasting 36 model, but it’s going to be months if not years behind. 37 38 So I close on supporting this project. It’s a great precedent to set. And if you want to go into 39 intellectual challenge of taking a look at the parking forecast that we citizens have developed it 40 involves seven or eight input factors and you can change every one of them to come up with 41 your model and outcome. Thank you. 42 43 Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you for your comments. Ok, Alex [you can] start off. 44 Questions, comments? 45 46 Board Member Lew: Yes I can. I had a quick question for you on the parking lifts. So I’m 47 familiar with like Klaus puzzle lifts, which are triple stackers, but I’ve not ever seen this quad 48 City of Palo Alto Page 7 lift and it’s all going down and so if you could explain, yeah. If you could explain it and how it 1 works? 2 3 Mr. Hayes: Let me introduce Dave because he has spent probably 100 times more time than I 4 have on the lifts. 5 6 David Kleiman: Hello, thank you. I’ll give a just kind of a brief overview on how they work. 7 Actually we have met with Klaus. They have something similar, it doesn’t work quite as well 8 as this model, which is actually by Harding Steel who has done quite a few of the Bay Area 9 installations including some for Klaus. These lifts when you drive into the garage will appear to 10 be at grade. So the, if you will, the top lift sits at grade. You can park on it, but when you drive 11 up and there’s numerous ways to control them, but the way I plan to do it is using a smart key 12 so that as you drive in you can either have a proximity sensor you drive by and then the lift will 13 automatically raise up to an open space so that you can then pull your car in, get out, you wave 14 your smart key again and the lift goes back down and it’s ready to receive the next car. Now if 15 all of the lifts are full down below, then you can just park on top and if not you could just go to 16 the next lift and they’ll all work in sync. So there will be a computer connected to these so it 17 works in a smart way. 18 19 We also designed it so that a variety of different sizes of vehicles could enter the lifts. And this 20 is, we spent a huge amount of time working out with Jaime and Rafael on sizing these and what 21 we did was we did a survey of every lift installed in Northern California, which there are 19. 22 Almost all of them are by the way in Berkeley for some reason. So actually that’s where Klaus 23 came in because all of the lift designs are there. As I understand that some of you actually took 24 a field trip and saw some of those. So as it turns out about 46 percent, 47 percent of those lifts 25 are what I would call full size and could accommodate SUV’s and minivans and things like that. 26 And 53 or 54 percent are smaller vehicles so you could get a full size car of course and smaller 27 SUV’s like a Toyota RAV4, a Honda CR-V, those kinds of vehicles, which are obviously very 28 popular and so we created these with a mix. So the lower two of the four lifts will 29 accommodate full size cars and mid-size SUV’s and frankly most minivans because minivans 30 really aren’t that tall and weight wise they can handle anything regardless. And then the upper 31 two lifts obviously could handle full size vehicles of any sort. And then of course the top 32 vehicle, the top of the lift because there’s a very tall ceiling could literally handle anything. So 33 if you had an oversized vehicle like a Ford Exposition or something that’s seven feet tall 34 obviously those folks are going to have to pull into the upper part of the lift. And I believe it’s 35 [unintelligible] now after many meetings that the City’s satisfied with this approach so that may 36 be a little bit more than you wanted, but I thought I’d give you everything. 37 38 Board Member Lew: And so are they just moving vertically or are they also moving 39 (interrupted) 40 41 Mr. Kleiman: Uh, no. The puzzle lifts have one major negative, which if you remember those 42 little puzzles as a kid with the squares there’s always one open so the others can lift. Well that’s 43 the problem with the puzzle lifts, you lose a space. These you don’t lose anything so they act 44 individually. If one breaks for example and there’s a 24 hour service. We’re concerned about 45 that. We also will have backup power so that you can get your car out. And then, but in any 46 case each lift holds four and there’s no loss of any spaces, with the puzzle there always has to be 47 City of Palo Alto Page 8 one open for the puzzle to move into place to free up the car. So it’s just a little bit more 1 efficient. 2 3 Board Member Lew: Great, thank you for that. 4 5 Mr. Kleiman: Absolutely. 6 7 Board Member Lew: And then on, so I just want to say on the building design Ken I mean I 8 think, I mean you make it look so easy and I know it’s not and it’s very handsome as an object. 9 I still, I have concerns that Mr. I forgot his name, Mr. Scafe, had. I actually had the same, very 10 similar concerns about this. I mean it seems completely out of character from the rest of 11 Waverley. I [unintelligible] understand that the zoning ordinance and our downtown design 12 guidelines are saying that it’s part of downtown. 13 14 Mr. Hayes: Right. 15 16 Board Member Lew: And zero setback, but it seems very different to me than the rest of the 17 block. The rest of the buildings have a lot more landscaping and more setbacks. I can, I think 18 the Planning Department’s saying it’s part of downtown and I think I can go along with that, but 19 there is one finding that says that you have to minimize the massing of the building and I don’t 20 think you’re doing that. I think like the third floor unit has like 2,000 square feet of decking, of 21 deck space and also on the third floor you have like a, there’s sort of a deep recess where on the 22 fourth floor there’s a recreation room. 23 24 Mr. Hayes: Right. 25 26 Board Member Lew: On the third floor there’s just a niche in the building. 27 28 Mr. Hayes: Right. 29 30 Board Member Lew: And that effectively by putting that recreation room on the fourth floor 31 instead of the third floor I mean it makes the building appear bigger and boxier. I think on some 32 of your other buildings that we’ve seen like we saw one a couple weeks ago there was more 33 landscaping. It was integrated into the upper floor terraces. I mean we don’t really have that 34 here. You’re saying that there’s some planters [above] it’s fairly minimal. I do like the roof 35 deck, but it’s not really visible from the street. 36 37 Mr. Hayes: Yeah, I know it’s not. 38 39 Board Member Lew: It’s sort of in the back. I mean that’s a great amenity to have and I 40 encourage you to do it, but for the purposes of the City and the neighborhood and the other 41 residents on the block there really isn’t much landscaping at all along the front, on the front of 42 the building. I know you’ve got some vines on the back, there’s some vines on the stair tower. 43 44 Mr. Hayes: There’s probably more landscaping than the apartment building next door, which is 45 pretty much paving up to the building. Right? And Sheri is here if you’d like to hear from her. 46 47 Board Member Lew: Sure. And which apartment building do you (interrupted) 48 City of Palo Alto Page 9 1 Mr. Hayes: The one on the corner to the right; no, the one right there to the right. And part of 2 the thinking was that the entrance into the stairwell where we have the glass wrapping it kind of 3 wraps back to a point where it’s almost coplanar with the edge of that yellow apartment 4 building so that you even though there’s building in close space there it’s all sort of frameless 5 glass so it feels like it’s part of the public realm and it’s not a solid wall. So that was the 6 thinking on that corner. 7 8 Board Member Lew: And I do like that particular corner. 9 10 Mr. Hayes: [Unintelligible] So that helps that. We’re not showing the trees in front and so I 11 pointed that out earlier and I’m sure Sheri could talk to any questions you might have on 12 landscaping as well. She’s got the plan in there. The idea is that those terraces would be 13 landscaped with pots and that sort of thing. 14 15 Board Member Lew: I know, but we don’t have, but I don’t think there’s anything here, right? 16 Or minimal (interrupted) 17 18 Mr. Hayes: I think just the roof probably is indicated. 19 20 Board Member Lew: And then on the massing why are the, like why have 2,000 square feet of 21 decking for a small unit? I mean that’s really huge amount of space. 22 23 Mr. Hayes: Well part of the requirement was that the owner wanted to have the larger unit on 24 the fourth floor and so we’re, it’s a balancing act how do you sort of achieve that without, you 25 know, you have to have some floor space below it. So that allowed us to, the forms that we’ve 26 used have allowed us to kind of gnaw out underneath, right? And so it’s similar to what we’ve 27 done in front. I feel like those shadows make the massing very interesting and provide that deep 28 relief that could give you the same kind of relief that another kind of notch in the building 29 would do. So when you look at this I think that the part that you’re really going to read as mass 30 is really up to here because that will be a darker area because of the interior space. And that 31 these spaces here our thinking is that will appear lighter and airier and carved out kind of like 32 Herzog de Meuron’s garage in Florida. Not nearly that scale. So that was the thinking. 33 34 Board Member Lew: So I agree that the building is really interesting. The form is very sexy. I 35 get all of that and I understand why you want to do it and I to a certain extent I like it. The 36 thing is like for me though with like concrete buildings like this and we’ve seen, I mean this 37 was the concrete kind of building like this was fashionable at one time. Is that like, what you 38 don’t get though during the daytime is you get all these dark shadows on the underside of the 39 concrete. Like in your rendering you’re showing it with all the illumination, but you don’t 40 really get that, most of the time the windows are black or dark grey. 41 42 Mr. Hayes: Right. 43 44 Board Member Lew: And all that grey concrete and you have like the dark shadow on it for 45 most people, for laypeople it just looks depressing. Like it looks like a parking garage. Now I 46 understand that you’re much more talented than that and I’m giving you all the credit for that. I 47 understand that, but there’s a leap, there’s a big gap there between what an architect sees and 48 City of Palo Alto Page 10 what the public sees here and it seems to me that this is too much of a stretch for me in its 1 current configuration and lack of landscaping. 2 3 The, but I do want, I mean generally though I’m in support of the project. Like I think this is 4 the right kind of project. I’m not, I don’t want to like turn you off from that, but I just think that 5 it’s, this is a pretty big stretch for me to make the compatibility findings on this one. I think it’s 6 hard. 7 8 Mr. Hayes: Primarily concerns over landscaping and (interrupted) 9 10 Board Member Lew: Just the amount of deck. 11 12 Mr. Hayes: [Unintelligible] 13 14 Board Member Lew: Like you could reduce the amount of porch, porch your decking, you 15 know your deck area to make the building less massive looking and still have a nice project. 16 17 Mr. Hayes: Sure. 18 19 Board Member Lew: That’s my take on it. I haven’t studied it, but I mean (interrupted) 20 21 Mr. Kleiman: When I was before you last time actually one of the comments Lee made was that 22 he, he really did want to see the residential units setback and I think from the angle, the other, 23 the rendering view if you kind of notice it when you’re on the street certainly when, if you were 24 those pedestrians on the sidewalk looking up you actually wouldn’t see the residential units at 25 all. You would just see the overhang and it is our intention to fully landscape both of those 26 decks. The reason we didn’t is the same reason the gingko tree’s not here. We really wanted 27 you to be able to see the structure and what the building looks like and it’s definitely our 28 intention as Sheri can maybe shed some light on that to have that to be a very green space so as 29 you look up you’ll see, you’ll read it as a two-story building with two upper kind of landscaped 30 green spaces. And the glass set very far back so you really don’t read the residential units and it 31 really makes it feel a little bit more like a two-story building than a four-story building. 32 Anyway, that’s the, that was the idea. 33 34 Board Member Lew: No, I mean I think you’ve done something very important, which is have 35 the porch space on the front of the building. And I don’t want to discourage you from, I mean I 36 think that’s really important. I’m just saying that it’s really big. Really, really, big. I mean 37 those are just (interrupted) 38 39 Mr. Kleiman: It’s their yard. Right? 40 41 Board Member Lew: I know, but if you have a 2,000, you have a 2,000 square foot unit and like 42 with a 2,000 square foot deck. I mean that, it’s just, it’s huge. So, that’s all I have to say on this 43 project. I do want to encourage you to continue (interrupted) 44 45 Mr. Kleiman: To continue in this direction. 46 47 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Board Member Lew: And maybe, well you may get approval today. I have a different point of 1 view than most of the other Board Members usually. Thank you. 2 3 Chair Malone Prichard: Lee. 4 5 Vice-Chair Lippert: Well first of all I want to thank you Dave for listening to our previous 6 comments. I think you’ve done the right thing here by rethinking your approach to the building 7 and it’s paid off I think handsomely. This is a much more desirable direction that you’ve picked 8 than the other one that we saw on the prelim. The prelim project there was just no way I could 9 even begin to think about approving that. And today you’ve made significant steps in listening 10 to our comments and are beginning to move in that direction. 11 12 I agree with some of the comments by my fellow Board Member and as well as some of the 13 members of the public here. I don’t know what to describe it other than in some ways the 50 14 foot height limit while it’s allowed does begin to impose itself on the street in a way that I think 15 can be mitigated or addressed differently and where I’m beginning to go with this is I’m not so 16 sure that the cover over the top deck is quite necessary. And because of that it reads as another 17 whole, it actually accentuates the height of the building whereas you don’t have solar panels 18 directly above that. The solar panels are actually stepped back a good, it looks like a good 10 19 feet from the front of the building. Is that the case? 20 21 Mr. Kleiman: We actually set them, I met with all of the neighborhood residents that contacted 22 Clare with the one exception because she was traveling, but one of them said would you mind 23 setting the solar panels back so that as we walk down the sidewalk we won’t see them. I said 24 no, that’s absolutely fine. So it’s actually our intention once we’re, once the building’s up to try 25 to add additional solar panels, but only to the point towards the front where they would not be 26 visible from the sidewalk in front of the building. So our original design had them coming all 27 the way up and then we thought ah, no, that’s not such a great idea. And so we are hoping to 28 actually fill that in with a few more panels. 29 30 Vice-Chair Lippert: Ok. Right now that piece of roof that overhangs the top deck there adds to 31 the mass [so] the height of the building. And I think that that’s really where I’m having some 32 issues or concerns. You’ve got that wonderful glass railing up at the top level and I really 33 appreciate you putting the terrace out there and getting the residential units and their terraces out 34 towards the street. I think that that’s a really important planning element in terms of being able 35 to have eyes on the street, ok? But I’m not convinced about the way the building’s been capped 36 and accentuating the height there. So I feel as though if that could be peeled back, it becomes 37 easier to approve the project, ok? 38 39 The other element that I have difficulty with in terms of height is you’ve got your stair tower. I 40 think it’s a beautiful element, but again it’s a double height space with staircases and I don’t 41 know if that’s absolutely necessary. Perhaps I would feel differently if that was an open stair, if 42 that was something that didn’t have a roof over it and it was open and you could just simply go 43 up the staircase. I don’t, is that necessary for protection? 44 45 Mr. Hayes: To have it enclosed? 46 47 Vice-Chair Lippert: Yes. 48 City of Palo Alto Page 12 1 Mr. Hayes: It’s not necessarily for protection, no. I think that, I think from Dave’s standpoint 2 he probably want, he wanted it as an interior environment and not an outside stair. What’s, so 3 what we really like about it is that you’ve got these two glass elements that you’re going to get 4 reflection off of and I believe that that’s going to read as the skin of the building and then you 5 have the two voids. And if that stair were also a void like we had at the second or the third and 6 fourth floors it’s almost like it’s kind of like a non-building. It might be too much negative 7 space on that front and that’s, I like the glass there. Certainly have a lot of light in the stairwell. 8 The height of that stair we probably, there’s probably three feet there that could come down if 9 we wanted to lower it. We have it lining up just from trying to be, have a disciplined approach 10 to the form generation, but that stair we don’t need to have that height when you get to the 11 fourth floor in the stairwell. We want probably at least 9 or 10 to the roof at that point. 12 13 Vice-Chair Lippert: I think there are ways of dealing with that stair tower and helping to reduce 14 the mass that’s right up against the Waverley Street side, ok? So that’s what I would look at; 15 ways to reduce the massing of that element. 16 17 I have a question with regard to your gate at the parking garage. Is it necessary to have the gate 18 there at the street or can we, can you use a roll up gate that’s not down during business hours or 19 can we put it at the bottom the ramp or do something to get that, to get that gate back away from 20 the street? 21 22 Mr. Kleiman: Really good question. We actually the original design didn’t have a gate at all 23 and we really frankly don’t want one, but as a condition of approving the parking system and 24 obviously the one way ramp (interrupted) 25 26 Vice-Chair Lippert: Right. 27 28 Mr. Kleiman: Which as you can see by I mean the retail on the first floor is only 12 feet wide. 29 30 Vice-Chair Lippert: Right. 31 32 Mr. Kleiman: They wanted the gate and we initially said well can we put it down? They said 33 no, we want people up on the street who would turn into the garage to attempt to use their door 34 opener to enter and if someone were coming up the ramp where… actually I didn’t give you all 35 the details, we’re actually installing a little stoplight in the garage area so that as people are 36 coming up towards the ramp if there’s someone coming down the ramp there will be a red light 37 in the garage saying no don’t and if they start to come up then that gate won’t open for people 38 coming in. And so they don’t want a conflict of potential parker coming in. 39 40 So we actually have looked at other gate designs and frankly we tried to pick one, it’s really 41 hard to see in this rendering, that picks up the kind of big move in the building, which is kind of 42 the back and forth horizontal move that you see both in the stair tower and in the residential 43 units and commercial space. And I’m not sure that that’s totally final, but I mean we did want 44 to at least have some reference to Ken’s design, but unfortunately the City was very firm about 45 wanting that gate up towards the front. And they don’t want us to keep it open even during the 46 day and almost especially not during the day because that’s when most of the commercial 47 City of Palo Alto Page 13 tenants would, will use the parking. You know would be, need to be kept from the driveway 1 conflict. 2 3 Vice-Chair Lippert: I’m going to recommend that you look at something here that could 4 possibly work. This is very site specific in what you tried to do here. They do make retractable 5 pneumatic bollards. And they’re a really great element. 6 7 Mr. Kleiman: I’ve seen those. Yeah, they… I agree. I wonder if the City would go for that 8 because that would be a great solution. 9 10 Vice-Chair Lippert: And because the width of that opening I don’t think you’d need any more 11 than one or two. 12 13 Mr. Kleiman: Yeah, I agree. 14 15 Vice-Chair Lippert: It’s just going to keep vehicles from going in. 16 17 Mr. Kleiman: You know Lee that’s a great idea. Honestly I love it. I’d much rather have them 18 than that gate. I mean really the openness that you see on the third floor balcony, that’s exactly 19 what that space was like on the first floor before we had to put the gate there. I love that idea. 20 21 Vice-Chair Lippert: Yeah. I think that that, this is one instance where I think it could work. 22 And then (interrupted) 23 24 Mr. Kleiman: I think by the way that they would go for that. 25 26 Vice-Chair Lippert: Yeah. Well it does the same thing. 27 28 Mr. Kleiman: Yeah, absolutely. 29 30 Vice-Chair Lippert: I mean it’s not meant to keep pedestrians from going down there, but it is 31 meant to keep traffic collisions. Yeah, ok. And then the part of the building that I’m, I guess I 32 have the most difficulty with is the backside of the building. The front of your building really 33 has a great theme to it. I think that Ken really came up with a really great approach in terms of 34 the ribbon feel of that building. I think that that’s really great. It reminds me a lot of Design 35 Research in Boston, you know in Cambridge. That was really a wonderful building by Ben 36 Thompson. And in some ways the back of the building doesn’t have the sophistication and 37 delicacy as the front of the building and that’s what I’m sort of missing there. Any thoughts on 38 that? 39 40 Mr. Hayes: I mean it certainly doesn’t have the repetition of the zig-zag. If we were going, my 41 thought that we started there, but programmatically what we’re dealing with is a little bit 42 different on the back where we don’t have these large spaces on the inside. It’s more 43 subdivided. And if I, my thinking is that if I’m going to, if I want to sort of not replicate but 44 mirror maybe what’s happening at the front in the back wouldn’t it be great if it was the same? 45 You saw the same form so it was just an extruded piece that went all the way through. Was not 46 able to make that work so thought that having the residential block kind of have the similar slab 47 edges and then the, this is all setback. This is five feet setback. So this perspective is a little bit 48 City of Palo Alto Page 14 odd. So you do have that fine, the tracery still. This is not a mass here. I wish I could, I can’t 1 rotate this model, but this plane of glass at the commercial floor is setback I think five or six 2 feet from that slab edge above. So you do get the distinct sort of reading of, you follow what 3 I’m saying? 4 5 Vice-Chair Lippert: Yeah. Let me tell you, let me tell what I’m thinking, ok? The front of your 6 building has a lightness and delicacy to it because it, you’re looking on edge at all this concrete. 7 The sides of your building is where you really have the mass of that (interrupted) 8 9 Mr. Hayes: The solidity of the form. 10 11 Vice-Chair Lippert: Exactly. 12 13 Mr. Hayes: Right. 14 15 Vice-Chair Lippert: And so the sides are far more forgiving in terms of allowing you to do that. 16 And it can be, those forms can be punctuated on the side easily, but on the backside it reads a lot 17 like the sides of your building again. And I’m looking for something that’s going to be an 18 element that’s going to work much better than that. And right now it butts up against the public 19 lot, which is where we have the (interrupted) 20 21 Mr. Hayes: Farmer’s market. 22 23 Vice-Chair Lippert: Farmer’s market. So the public is going to see that on a regular basis. 24 25 Mr. Hayes: Oh yeah, we didn’t intend to forget about the design of that. I mean I felt like 26 having this residential piece, those two floors as part of that sort of outline slab I understand 27 what you’re saying with relative sort of to this piece here, we could certainly that could be 28 around the corner. But felt like having the slab edge and the glass setback was what was 29 important to give it that sort of tracery look. 30 31 Mr. Kleiman: Just one other comment, we in one of the neighbor meetings they requested 32 specifically that we kind of close this up. They really didn’t want to see any of the cars. And 33 so, yeah, plus it’s a little deceiving. The public lot is actually the elevation is about two and a 34 half to three feet above our property. In fact there’s probably an illegal fence or something that 35 they’ve used, but you can walk from the public lot down onto our property and you have to go 36 down a set of steps. So this, the top of this wall is probably even with, at most a foot higher 37 than the top of the wood fence that currently sits between the public lot and our property. So 38 you basically see kind of glass and open terraces on all of the three visible levels if you were 39 standing at the public market. 40 41 Vice-Chair Lippert: Yeah, you know the base of the building is the least problematic for me. 42 It’s really up above and what I’m looking for is something that’s as sophisticated and as delicate 43 on the front of the building. That you begin to treat the back of the building as well as you 44 treated the front of the building. So that’s, again that’s the area that I think needs some work. 45 And Ken you’ve just over on the next block on Cowper Street we just reviewed that project a 46 week ago. 47 48 City of Palo Alto Page 15 Mr. Hayes: Correct. 1 2 Vice-Chair Lippert: And you’ve successful done that on all three sides of that building. 3 4 Mr. Hayes: Yeah. 5 6 Vice-Chair Lippert: So I don’t think that this challenge here is particularly onerous. 7 8 Mr. Hayes: Insurmountable. 9 10 Vice-Chair Lippert: Yeah. Ok, thanks. 11 12 Mr. Hayes: Thank you Lee. 13 14 Chair Malone Prichard: Ok, I’m generally in support of the direction you’re headed here. I 15 share I think Alex’s concerns about what you’re creating is sort of a 50 foot high wall by having 16 these folded concrete shapes, which they are sexy. They’re very cool, but given that everything 17 else in the area is lower it does feel to me as though the upper floors need to be pulled back 18 some. And I think the biggest move would be to take that overhang at the top floor and push it 19 back. That would go a long way toward solving some of the incompatibility issues as far as 20 massing. 21 22 Another thing and I don’t recall what the building next door is going to look like. 23 24 Mr. Hayes: That’s because we haven’t shown it to you. 25 26 Chair Malone Prichard: No wonder that’s, my memory isn’t as bad as I thought it was. That 27 third floor large terrace right now in this view on the left has a big solid wall. And if that were 28 more open and airy it would help to break down the mass of this building. However, I don’t 29 know if that’s appropriate with what’s next to it. 30 31 Mr. Hayes: It’s also with the fourth floor terrace we can’t have an opening in that wall. It’ll be 32 an opening on the property line. 33 34 Chair Malone Prichard: Oh, that’s right on property line. Good point. Ok, rear of the building. 35 Can we go to the image you were just showing? 36 37 Mr. Hayes: Yeah. 38 39 Chair Malone Prichard: So you’re starting to use some of the same vocabulary by bringing 40 through these concrete forms the, you can see the concrete floor expressed and I like what 41 you’re doing with pushing the glass back five feet, but at the third and fourth floor you’ve got a 42 couple of vertical walls which are fairly wide, which seem to be in plane with the edge of that 43 concrete. So by doing that you’re sort of losing the delicacy of that floor that protrudes out 44 elsewhere on the building. 45 46 Mr. Hayes: Yeah, got to have some structure somewhere. 47 48 City of Palo Alto Page 16 Chair Malone Prichard: Oh absolutely. I just it weren’t quite in that plane. 1 2 Mr. Hayes: Yes. 3 4 Chair Malone Prichard: Not that those walls have to go away, but just if you could express the 5 edge. 6 7 Mr. Hayes: Yeah, I think we can think about that. 8 9 Chair Malone Prichard: You just need to take another look at that backside. 10 11 Mr. Hayes: [Unintelligible] 12 13 Chair Malone Prichard: Ok. The gate, yeah, I had an immediate dislike for the gate. I 14 understand why it’s there. I love Lee’s idea. 15 16 Mr. Hayes: The gate was a last minute thing when we finally completed the negotiation. 17 18 Chair Malone Prichard: Yeah. 19 20 Mr. Hayes: I love Lee’s idea. 21 22 Chair Malone Prichard: Yeah. The planting, perhaps the landscape architect would like to come 23 and talk about the planting. It’s the planting at the ground plane to me it isn’t really feeling 24 integrated into the floor plan and the forms. So. 25 26 Mr. Hayes: Sheri. 27 28 Sheri Van Dorn, Van Dorn Abed Landscape Architect: Hi. Well so what doesn’t really show up 29 too much in the renderings… Oh. Oh, go ahead. 30 31 Mr. Hayes: Which one do you want? 32 33 Ms. Van Dorn: That’s both floors so that’s fine. 34 35 Mr. Hayes: Ok. 36 37 Ms. Van Dorn: So we have a planter immediately in front of the building and then down the 38 garage ramp as well. And then we have obviously the gingko tree. And then in the back of the 39 building there’s vines along the building. And then on the side entrance there’s also vines along 40 the walls there as well. It’s a little hard to see in that view. And then the majority of the 41 landscaping is of course on the roof deck right now. And I think that they expressed, I think the 42 imagery that was shown early, the inspirational imagery of the architecture with the glass and 43 the trees, all those terraces would be landscaped and unfortunately we didn’t show that on the 44 renderings, but there would be trees and things shown as the terraces rise as well. 45 46 Chair Malone Prichard: So you have some imagery of trellis components, laser cut. Where do 47 you see those being used? 48 City of Palo Alto Page 17 1 Ms. Van Dorn: That was a last minute thought that we had. Our client was expressing some 2 desire for some shade on the roof deck. So it’s set way back from the street. 3 4 Chair Malone Prichard: Oh, that’s too bad, but the residents will enjoy it. 5 6 Ms. Van Dorn: Yeah. 7 8 Chair Malone Prichard: So do you have any thoughts about how you could better engage that 9 planter that’s at the sidewalk with the building? Because right now it’s just a rectangle sitting in 10 front of the building and it doesn’t seem to relate all that well. 11 12 Ms. Van Dorn: Right, there’s not of course a lot of room there and there’s glass as well. We 13 could certainly pull it out some, but there isn’t a whole lot of room to engage it into the street a 14 whole lot more. 15 16 Chair Malone Prichard: And that may be something that needs to be worked out with the 17 architecture as well. 18 19 Ms. Van Dorn: Yeah, right. 20 21 Chair Malone Prichard: Ok. I think that’s all I had for you, thanks. 22 23 Ms. Van Dorn: Ok, thank you. 24 25 Chair Malone Prichard: A technical lift question. I was looking at this section. 26 27 Mr. Hayes: That’s for Dave. 28 29 Mr. Kleiman: Section? 30 31 Chair Malone Prichard: Yeah, you had a section through the lift. And just sort of eyeballing it if 32 you look at the way the lift moves in order to get the bottom car out do you have enough 33 headroom? If there’s a car on top and a car on the bottom and you need to get the bottom one 34 out how much? 35 36 Mr. Kleiman: The car on top does need to be removed in order for the lift to go all the way up. 37 38 Chair Malone Prichard: That explains it. 39 40 Mr. Kleiman: Yeah, absolutely. 41 42 Chair Malone Prichard: Ok. And Transportation understands that? 43 44 Mr. Kleiman: Yes. 45 46 Chair Malone Prichard: Ok. 47 48 City of Palo Alto Page 18 [Unintelligible] 1 2 Chair Malone Prichard: Well you can drive a convertible, leave the top down. Yeah? 3 4 Mr. Kleiman: Yeah I mean keep in mind that although the lifts are massive the building 5 although you may feel that it’s very tall it’s only 5,000 square feet of office users. And we have 6 a similar size building there were probably 18 to 20 employees maximum and our experience so 7 far in Palo Alto is that 65 percent of them actually drive. So I don’t actually see the garage 8 filling up on a daily basis. 9 10 Chair Malone Prichard: That’s our experience at our office in Palo Alto too. 11 12 Mr. Kleiman: Yeah. 13 14 Chair Malone Prichard: Not everybody drives. More couple little technical things; domestic 15 water backflow preventers, I don’t see those. I saw the Fire Department backflow preventers, 16 but not the domestic. 17 18 Mr. Kleiman: I’m just going from memory, but I thought the backflow preventers were along as 19 you, the side entrance to the north of the building where you can access the elevator there’s a 20 little screen and then between that and the building where it kind of juts out there’s an area 21 where the preventers I think are located. 22 23 Chair Malone Prichard: Ok, I think that was called out for Fire Department only, but maybe 24 you’ve got room for everything. Just take a look at that. 25 26 Mr. Kleiman: Sure. 27 28 Chair Malone Prichard: The civil drawing actually has (interrupted) 29 30 Mr. Hayes: There’s room there for all of it. 31 32 Chair Malone Prichard: There is? 33 34 Mr. Hayes: Yeah. 35 36 Chair Malone Prichard: Great. The civil drawing has a note that it’s in the garage, but it isn’t 37 shown there. Sheet A2.6 your photometrics, there’s some really bright lights out near the edge. 38 39 Board Member Lew: I saw that too. Is that because they’re LED’s? 40 41 Chair Malone Prichard: Yeah, sort of in front of the stair. 42 43 Mr. Hayes: Right. We’re only using LED’s in the building. There is no incandescent at all. 44 45 Chair Malone Prichard: Yeah, so take a look at that area in front of the stair on the photometric 46 diagram. Something’s going on there. 47 48 City of Palo Alto Page 19 Mr. Hayes: 20 to 25 foot candles. 1 2 Chair Malone Prichard: Yeah. That needs to come down. 3 4 Mr. Hayes: It really falls off fast. 5 6 Chair Malone Prichard: And then I think my last thing, these are all sort of nitpicks, is you have 7 short term bike parking in the garage, which wasn’t a great location for it especially when you 8 had a gate. It’s probably better now that you’re thinking about bollards, but you might want to 9 think about your short term bike parking being more accessible from the street. 10 11 Mr. Hayes: We have bike parking on the sidewalk as well. 12 13 Chair Malone Prichard: I saw that, but I think you still got two in the garage. 14 15 Mr. Hayes: Yeah. 16 17 Chair Malone Prichard: Which is fine for long term, but it’s not great for short term sort of 18 tucked between a parking lift and an accessible space. 19 20 Mr. Hayes: I’m pretty sure that is the long term parking. So it might be mislabeled. 21 22 Chair Malone Prichard: Ah, that could be. 23 24 Mr. Hayes: That is the long term. 25 26 Chair Malone Prichard: Excellent, that will work fine. 27 28 Mr. Hayes: So the requirement is the short term is outside and that is the long term inside. 29 30 Chair Malone Prichard: Great. Well that’s all I’ve got. I think it’s a handsome project. 31 32 Mr. Hayes: Thank you for your comments. I think we can address those pretty quickly at 33 subcommittee. 34 35 Chair Malone Prichard: Yeah, Lee has another comment. 36 37 Vice-Chair Lippert: You know just one other thought. You talked about adding extra solar to 38 the building. And they do make vertical solar panels that you can use as cladding on the 39 building. So maybe on the rear of the building that might be a, something you could use as an 40 element there. 41 42 Mr. Hayes: Thank you Lee. 43 44 Board Member Lew: I have one follow up question for you guys. 45 46 Mr. Hayes: Yes. 47 48 City of Palo Alto Page 20 Board Member Lew: So how did you come up with the floor to floor heights for the building? 1 2 Mr. Kleiman: Certainly the ground to the second floor was largely dictated by the parking lifts 3 as you can see. And then after that we just picked fairly reasonable heights. We weren’t 4 looking to kind of maximize anything. In fact at one point we looked at a taller fourth floor and 5 I said no. I really, my wife is Asian and she’s shorter and she doesn’t really like super tall 6 ceilings even though I’m a little taller. So yeah, I don’t think there was any magic to that. We 7 just wanted something that would be considered a reasonable height. We are hoping finish wise 8 we’re wanting to have exposed concrete surfaces as you might guess and so we’re designing the 9 mechanical systems so those can be visible and you could enjoy that height in the commercial 10 space as well as actually in the residential spaces. I mean there would probably be visible 11 HVAC. 12 13 Board Member Lew: Right, so that’s what I was getting at because [unintelligible] seem like the 14 second floor, which is like 12 foot floor the floor was kind of low for an office space, but if it’s 15 an exposed then it’s ok. And then the top floor is like or the third floor is 11 feet floor to floor, 16 which is kind of, which is ok. And the top floor is 13, which seems kind of high, but I realize 17 that the top floor you might have roof slope and you have other things to negotiate. 18 19 Mr. Kleiman: Exactly, and by the way I think as we study this in subcommittee we can look at 20 bringing that down. We looked initially we did plan on having exposed ductwork. We actually 21 met with the MEP and we can get the system actually into the floor and avoid exposed 22 ductwork so we actually don’t need that extra height. We need some of it obviously for the roof 23 slope, but not everything we thought we would need. 24 25 Board Member Lew: Should we weigh in on what we think should happen on this one, come 26 back to subcommittee or to continue it? 27 28 Chair Malone Prichard: I would lean toward continuing. There are quite a few items to be 29 addressed. 30 31 Board Member Lew: That’s my sense too, just because it’s massing issues. If it was only the 32 other items like bollards and bike parking and whatever then I’d be fine for it to come back to a 33 subcommittee. 34 35 MOTION 36 37 Vice-Chair Lippert: Yeah, I’m going to move that we continue this item. Would you like it to a 38 date certain? We do have one other hearing in? September 19th. Ok, September 19th and I 39 think there were a number of issues that we had outlined here. I can sort of go through them if 40 you want. 41 42 Mr. Hayes: That would be helpful and the 19th will be great. I can assure you we’ll be very 43 responsive. 44 45 Vice-Chair Lippert: Yeah. One of course is the massing of the building. You’ve got this 50 46 foot height limit and we really want to bring the front of the building down. Number two, to 47 deal with the back of the building; it’s not quite as delicate or refined as the front of the building 48 City of Palo Alto Page 21 is. With regard to the parking to lose the gate and to consider some other treatment there at the 1 street. Were there other items that you had Clare? 2 3 Mr. Hayes: Sounds like you’d like to see a little something on the landscaping side. 4 5 Vice-Chair Lippert: Yeah the planting I believe, the landscaping. 6 7 Mr. Hayes: We can cover that and we’ll cover the planting on the terraces. That’s part of the 8 program. 9 10 Chair Malone Prichard: The photometrics. 11 12 Vice-Chair Lippert: Photometrics. Board Member Lew did you have anything else? 13 14 Board Member Lew: Just a minor comment. So I think that your planting like star jasmine on 15 the back wall of the, on the façade. And that needs some sort of, that particular vine needs some 16 sort of support. Other vines don’t, but I think that one does. 17 18 Mr. Hayes: Yeah, and we’re in about 20 inches from the property line. So all the way around in 19 fact because of the depth of those, because of the depths of the pits we have about 20 inches of 20 area where we can plant as well. So. 21 22 Vice-Chair Lippert: Ok, I need a second on that. 23 24 SECOND 25 26 Board Member Lew: I will second. 27 28 Chair Malone Prichard: All in favor? Aye. None opposed. 29 30 Mr. Hayes: Great, thank you for your comments. 31 32 Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you. 33 34 MOTION PASSED (3-0-1, Board Member Popp absent) 35 36 Mr. Hayes: And we have a subcommittee meeting, right? 37 38 Chair Malone Prichard: We do have a subcommittee. 39 City of Palo Alto Page 1 1 =================MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26====================== 2 Thursday, September 19, 2013 3 REGULAR MEETING - 8:30 AM 4 City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor 5 250 Hamilton Avenue 6 Palo Alto, CA 94301 7 ROLL CALL: 8 Board members: Staff Liaison: 9 Clare Malone Prichard (Chair) Russ Reich, Senior Planner 10 Lee Lippert (Vice Chair) 11 Alexander Lew Staff: 12 Randy Popp Diana Tamale, Administrative Associate 13 Robert Gooyer Amy French, Chief Planning Official 14 Jodie Gerhardt, Senior Planner 15 Clare Campbell, Planner 16 17 18 PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS 19 Please be advised the normal order of public hearings of agenda items is as follows: 20 Announce agenda item 21 Open public hearing 22 Staff recommendation 23 Applicant presentation – Ten (10) minutes limitation or at the discretion of the Board. 24 Public comment – Five (5) minutes limitation per speaker or limitation to three (3) 25 minutes depending on large number of speakers per item. 26 Architectural Review Board questions of the applicant/staff, and comments 27 Applicant closing comments - Three (3) minutes 28 Close public hearing 29 Motions/recommendations by the Board 30 Final vote 31 32 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the 33 agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must 34 complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Board. The Architectural 35 Review Board reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. None. 36 37 2. 636 Waverley Street [13PLN-00262]: Request by Hayes Group Architects for 38 Architectural Review of the demolition of a one-story, 1,406 sq. ft. office 39 building and construction of a new, 10,328 sq. ft., four-story mixed use building 40 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 2 with commercial uses on the first and second floors and two residential units on 1 the third and fourth floors, on a property within the CD-C(P) zoning district. 2 Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California 3 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. This 4 item was continued from the ARB meeting of August 15, 2013. 5 6 Chair Malone Prichard: Alright, item number two, 636 Waverley Street: request by Hayes 7 Group Architects for architectural review of the demolition of a one-story, 1,406 square foot 8 office building and construction of a new, 10,328 square foot, four-story mixed use building 9 with commercial uses on the first and second floors and two residential uses on the third, two 10 residential units on the third and fourth floors, on a property within the CD-C(P) zoning district. 11 Do we have a staff presentation? 12 13 Clare Campbell, Planner: Yes, good morning Board Members. The project before you today 14 was reviewed last month on August 15th and was continued to today’s meeting. As indicated in 15 the staff report the applicant has revised the project to respond to the comments previously 16 provided by the Board. The project was also modified to address the parking lift layout. The 17 previous design of the garage required the top space of the four space parking lift to be vacated 18 in order to access the bottom space on the lift. The garage has been redesigned with increased 19 ceiling height to enable all lift spaces to be accessible at all times without having to shift any 20 cars around. With this modification the second floor is pulled back and 250 square feet of 21 commercial floor area was eliminated. The project as proposed provides the required 20 22 parking spaces for the project. 23 24 In addition due to building code requirements the wall opening along the first floor near the 25 property line adjacent to the garage ramp was not approved by the Building Division. The 26 applicant has responded by placing a seven foot tall wall along this opening and the applicant 27 will provide you some details on this modification of the project. And lastly, staff has received 28 written comments on this project from Mr. Douglas Smith, which has also been forwarded to 29 the Board for their review and has been provided at places today. The primary concern that he 30 raises in the project is the compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. So this concludes 31 staff’s presentation. The applicant Ken Hayes is here this morning to provide you with the 32 detailed presentation for the project. Thank you. 33 34 Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you. Ken you will have 10 minutes. 35 36 Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects: Thank you Chair Malone. Excuse me. My name is Ken 37 Hayes with Hayes Group Architects. I’ll be presenting the project on behalf of 636 LLC, or 38 Residential LLC. I’d like to thank Clare for her help getting here this morning. 39 40 So we the site is right here in red down Waverley Street between Hamilton and Forest. We’ve 41 got kind of an eclectic neighborhood. Four-story building here on the corner, office building, 42 we have the old Post Office here, we have a five to six-story condo building here that sort of 43 spans the whole block, and then there’s a historic home here that’s a three-story structure and 44 then across the street a four and a half story building there, and then a one-story office directly 45 across the street. So it is an eclectic neighborhood of varying height buildings. 46 47 City of Palo Alto Page 3 When we were here we had comments from you: modify the Waverley Street elevation to 1 reduce the apparent height and the bulk of the structure; develop a rear elevation to sort of be 2 more reflective of what we’re doing on the front; replace the swinging, we had discussion I 3 think with Mr. Lippert about the gate and there was a suggestion to study bollards, so we have 4 actually looked into automatic bollards; provide additional landscaping where we have 5 opportunities both at the ground plane and at the upper floors of the building; and then lastly 6 reduce the foot candle. We had some spillover foot candle issues of, on the ground floor from 7 the ground floor lighting. 8 9 So we’ve organized this with the prior submission above and then the current below. The 10 change here on the ground floor plan essentially this lift here went to a three car lift. These all 11 remained as four car lifts back here. At the front of the building you can see where we have two 12 bollards to prevent people from coming down the driveway and those would be automatic 13 bollards operated by the people that work or live in the building. And then at the front of the 14 building right here we incorporated a, actually a raised planter now [so] to provide opportunities 15 for someone to sit and then have plant material there as well. There’s also plant material 16 running down the side of the building here on our side of the property line to kind of get some 17 vegetation on the wall. 18 19 The second floor changes really had to do with what’s going on at the rear of the building and 20 they will become more obvious when you see the rear of the building, but essentially we had a 21 terrace there before and now we have a roof because of the lifts below. So the lifts below sort 22 of extend through the floor and would still, through the second floor, but still allows us to 23 provide opportunities for windows at the rear of the building and those windows are right here. 24 But this terrace is now gone. 25 26 Third floor again the changes primarily at the rear relative to the modifications we made there. 27 You start to see a window we put in the stairwell here to wash the wall and the stair with light. 28 The terrace is just minor reconfiguration on the terrace. The front terrace has an opening above 29 and we’re showing that opening dotted here. If we go to the third floor you actually or I’m 30 sorry, the fourth floor you actually see the opening in the floor. The idea there is to bring light 31 down into those terrace levels and that’s also reflected in the roof of the fourth floor terrace 32 there. And then the rear of the fourth floor has also been revised because of the changes at the 33 back of the building, but otherwise nothing else on the fourth floor. 34 35 The front elevation previous on the left, current on the right, hopefully those are consistent 36 through the presentation. We have retractable bollards that would be located here. This is an 37 idea what they’d look like. They go down flush and then would come back up to prevent cars 38 from driving down. We have the raised, the raised planter there. The change really here was to 39 reduce this whole side of the building where the stair core is and the lobby to address the 40 concern over the height of the building. You see that in elevation here and you see it again here 41 where it was formerly up at this height. It’s now been brought down all the way back at that 42 height so that’s the main change there. And then beyond you see the stair and the window 43 located there. It was off in the distance, we didn’t show it before, but because we’ve added the 44 window we decided to show the stair in the distance there. 45 46 The rear of the building prior on the left again because of the lifts below we do have a solid wall 47 now extending up to the sill of the windows that are in a deep, a deep recess, but you can see we 48 City of Palo Alto Page 4 now have brought the language from the front of the building very clearly to the rear of the 1 building. And then at the stairwell to break up the plane of the stair we start to mimic what was 2 happening if I go back on the front elevation although at the front elevation this is inscribed 3 with glass. On the back elevation it’s a pattern in the concrete form work. 4 5 And then this is the south, the south elevation. And this is the wall that we’re talking about. 6 It’s, the building official was concerned about egress. It’s a landscape wall essentially, it’s not a 7 fire rated wall, it’s a non-combustible wall, seven feet high to afford some protection from 8 people leaving the egress passageway here as they come out to the street. And that’s the 9 primary change on that elevation. 10 11 This is the section and so you can see here before we were stopping at the terrace level, right 12 there. So the second floor had a terrace which would have been nice, but it’s more important I 13 think at this point to make the car parking lifts more usable and so you don’t have to move a car 14 now to get another car out. And to achieve that the lifts had to extend higher in the building, but 15 we’re still able to get glass at that point to bring light in. This shows the reduced stair. Our 16 perspective drawing showing the reduced stair height here, the raised planter there, the bollards, 17 the new wall back here, which is a metal panel wall, and then where we’re proposing to have 18 vegetation on the roof terraces. And then from the other direction with this lower element there, 19 but you start to see what’s happening with the openings in the roof, which is an opening, air 20 opening and then an opening, which is a glass opening here at the floor to start to make this look 21 lighter and allow light to wash down and lighten that space up. There was concern it might be 22 too dark. 23 24 And then at the back of the building you can see where we brought the same vocabulary now 25 through so this reads as a nice element there and then the zig-zag concrete that we have at the 26 front of the building now looks like it’s been extruded through. And you can see the window 27 into the stairwell and then the higher wall. We have jasmine, star jasmine I believe planted on 28 this wall. So this is where the Farmer’s Market side is and so we’re proposing that that wall 29 would be covered with star jasmine. You can see it on the landscape plan. 30 31 And then just a view from above again showing we still are keeping the roof terrace at the back 32 of the building. This will still have the solar panels on it, I just didn’t show them for clarity, but 33 the roof plan shows the solar, the photovoltaic (PV) panels up on the roof still and you can see 34 where we have planters on the terraces here and the opening that allows light down to give them 35 some more natural light and then a little more polished renderings. We’re still not showing the 36 gingko tree because we want you to see the building. So there’s a new 24 inch box I think 37 gingko planted here in front of on [axis] you can see it in the plan with the stair element, but this 38 gives you an idea of where we’re proposing additional plant material mostly up on the 39 residential balconies here and then down here in the ground plane as well. 40 41 And then from the other side give you an idea what we’re doing there. I think this really 42 lightens, lightens it up. And then this is an outline of the building potentially next door. And 43 then from the rear of the building from the [unintelligible] now we’re showing, we’re not 44 proposing taking the City parking lot out, but that is indeed grass. So this would be the star 45 jasmine here growing on the wall, the windows for the office setback, and then the residential 46 floors above that and you can see the window into the stairwell there. And that completes the 47 presentation. I’m happy to answer questions that you have. Thank you. 48 City of Palo Alto Page 5 1 Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you. We do have a number of speakers for this item. You will 2 each have three minutes. We will start with Janice Berman to be followed by Douglas Smith. 3 4 Janice Berman: Good morning. I live at 661 Waverley Street. David Kleiman, developer 636 5 Waverley says that he met with his potential neighbors; however, he failed to say what the 6 neighbors told him. My husband and I told him that at nearly eight times the size of what it is to 7 replace the Hayes Group’s building design is out of scale and out of sync with the rest of the 8 street. We told him that the architecture is unimaginative, unattractive, and devoid of any 9 discernable or enviable style. What most alarmed us was Mr. Kleiman’s news that virtually 10 every building on the west side of the 600 block of Waverley is either under contract to 11 developers or for sale. He said there would eventually be a wall of 50 foot buildings with small 12 breaks in between them. 13 14 Mr. Kleiman has been quoted as liking the idea that the buildings on Hamilton Avenue come 15 right up to the sidewalk. That’s what he wants on Waverley, but Hamilton is completely 16 different from the 600 block of Waverley. Downtown Hamilton Avenue is commercial. 17 Waverley Street is substantially residential rather than commercial despite its misleading 18 downtown designation and is two lanes to Hamilton’s four. Keeping in mind the woeful Alma 19 Plaza, home of the now shuttered Miki’s and the new penitentiary style apartment house at 801 20 Alma we told Mr. Kleiman his proposed needs setbacks from the sidewalk for the safety of 21 pedestrians and to somewhat mitigate its bulk. 22 23 Mr. Hayes today has failed to mention the small, that small bungalows constitute the majority of 24 buildings neighboring 636. We do not buy Mr. Kleiman’s assertion to us that it’s inevitable that 25 these small structures will be replaced with 50 foot high-rises. It simply makes no sense. A 26 wall of outsized ugly buildings on the 600 block of Waverley Street will destroy the last buffer 27 between commercial downtown and a quiet residential area. It will increase congestion, noise, 28 and block out the vistas, the hills, trees, and sky that are so much a part of the attraction of Palo 29 Alto. Most crucially developers have absolutely no right to exploit our City and ruin our quality 30 of life in the name of profit. Thank you. 31 32 Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you for your comments. Next we have Douglas Smith who will 33 be followed by Jeff Levinski. 34 35 Douglas Smith: Good morning. I refer you to the letter that I sent to the Board and the Planning 36 Department on Monday citing ten statutes of the Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan, 37 which require a new design to be compatible with and considering of, or considerate of 38 neighboring buildings. The sections eight, or Section 1876020D2 of the Municipal Code 39 prescribes that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) must in its findings find that “The design 40 is compatible with the immediate environment of the site.” I interpret this to mean the entire 41 block, but I see in Mr. Hayes design a modernist flat roof, large open surfaces of glass and raw 42 concrete, and an unusual zig-zag four-story configuration that are compatible with nothing on 43 the block. 44 45 The definition of immediate environment may be in doubt, but yesterday I found yet another 46 code statute that I hadn’t noticed before; Section 1818110A, Contextual and Compatibility 47 Criteria, which states “Development in a commercial district,” these are my italics, “shall be 48 City of Palo Alto Page 6 responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development.” That section continues 1 defining compatibility, “Compatibility is achieved when the apparent scale and mass of new 2 buildings is consistent with the pattern of achieving a pedestrian oriented design and” emphasis 3 “when new construction shares general characterizes and establishes design linkages with the 4 overall pattern of buildings so that the visual unity of the street is maintained.” Therefore I 5 believe the statute refers to the entire block. I see no such design linkages in this design. 6 Further, “Compatibility [gills] may be achieved through various means including, but not 7 limited to” and then there follows a list of eight different means including the [siding], scale, 8 massing, and materials, the pattern of rooflines and projections, the sizes, proportions, and 9 orientation of windows, bays, and doorways, the location and treatment of entryways, the 10 shadow patterns for massing and decorative features of which I see none in Hayes design. I 11 submit that these code sections cannot be interpreted in a way that supports the Hayes Group’s 12 application [unintelligible] compatibility aspects. 13 14 Furthermore, the online survey of public preferences in the architectural style in Palo Alto very 15 strongly supports my interpretation. By a margin of 84 to 16 percent respondents indicate the 16 design of 636 Waverley as incompatible with neighboring buildings. Even 65 percent of 17 architects, designers, and buildings [Note—bulders?] taking the survey find it incompatible. I 18 will gladly submit proof upon demand that the survey statistics I’ve cited to you here and 19 elsewhere and to the newspapers are accurate and truthful. Therefore I believe for the legal 20 reasons cited above that the Board must deny approval of this application. Thank you. 21 22 Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you for your comments. Next we, next we have Jeff Levinski 23 followed by I believe it’s Doug Scafe. 24 25 Jeff Levinski: Good morning Commissioners [Note—Board Members] and staff. I’d like to 26 point out two major problems with the parking analysis in the revised Attachment F, which 27 claims that this building will need just 20 parking spaces when full parking would require 24. 28 The first problem is that on Page 1 of the Attachment it claims well that the site will need 20.48 29 parking spaces and then rounds that down to 20. I believe the norm in parking is to round up as 30 a fraction represents a car that will sometimes be present and thus needs to have a space. So the 31 analysis is really saying that 21 spaces are needed, not 20. I can anticipate an objection that at 32 other hours fewer spaces will be needed, but if you use the office data table the urban rather 33 than suburban statistics that are in there, and by the way full parked out downtown Palo Alto is 34 pretty urban at this point, then the building needs 20.52 spaces at 2:00 p.m. So that gets you to 35 21 as well instead of 20. 36 37 The second major problem is that the analysis of the parking for the residential units simply 38 isn’t plausible. It’s apparently based on one data point for unstacked town homes from 39 somewhere in North America from 12 or more years ago, but this project is creating large 40 luxury condominiums in wealthy Palo Alto. In the original staff report these units averaged 41 2,600 square feet in size. They somehow each shrank 422 square feet by the revised report. 42 The analysis claims that each unit will need just .64 of a parking space at ten in the morning on 43 weekdays. Well checking my own neighborhood on Hamilton with homes smaller than these at 44 10 a.m. on weekdays every single house had one or more cars parked on the street or in the 45 driveway. I couldn’t check the garages, but there’s probably more there as well. Two of my 46 immediate neighbors had three cars each. 47 48 City of Palo Alto Page 7 So claiming that these units are going to need only .64 of one car isn’t plausible, but if you think 1 it is then please make it a condition on this project. You could say it this way, each resident can 2 have just one car in the garage two workdays out of three and the third day no car in the garage. 3 The residents will have to get one or both of their cars out of the garage every workday even 4 when they’re sick or on a trip or working at home or retired or they have a nanny or a guest. 5 Imagine a luxury home in Palo Alto with such a crazy restriction. But if the developer won’t 6 agree to this that suggests even he doesn’t believe these numbers. So please review the analysis 7 carefully. I think you’ll find there needs to be more parking for this project. Thank you. 8 9 Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you for your comments. And next we have Doug Scafe and I’m 10 reminded that you need to state your name when you begin your comments. 11 12 Doug Scafe: I’m Doug Scafe. I live at 659 Waverley directly across the street from this project. 13 My windows face this project. I spoke to you last time at this meeting. I still have the same 14 concerns. I agree much with what Janice Berman said about the size and the look of the 15 building. I have a terrible concern about the setback also. What we’ve allowed to happen in 16 this plan is that we’ve filled up essentially 99 percent of space in this block. We have no 17 setback from the street. Every other house on the street is setback and we are just ruining that 18 view of an open neighborhood. It doesn’t fit as you can see by looking at this and by the way 19 just looking at this picture that apartment house next door, this is what was used in the last 20 meeting saying we don’t need any landscaping because the house next door has no landscaping. 21 If you went and walked there that apartment building is full of landscaping in front of it. This 22 picture is not correct, not even close. 23 24 I went out and measured all the setbacks from all the buildings on that street. I sent that in an e-25 mail to the ARB. I hope you received it. Even this building that they’re replacing is setback ten 26 and a half feet. Now it is zero and that’s a huge change to this block and I really do believe that 27 the statement that we’re going to build all of the buildings like that and you can see the picture 28 of the one next door that’s proposed that are 50 foot buildings with no setback it just ruins the 29 neighborhood. I hope you don’t approve this project. Thank you. 30 31 Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you for your comments. Alright, let’s start with Alex with 32 Board Member questions and comments. 33 34 Board Member Lew: So I did have some questions for staff. So I think the biggest question that 35 seems to be coming up is like our Downtown Urban Design Guideline, which and also our 36 zoning, which say that this block is part of downtown and the zero, and therefore like the zero 37 like the zero setback. And I was wondering if you could give the Board some background on 38 how long that, do you know, I mean just generally how long has that zoning been in place? 39 And then also I know this is going back a long time, but the design, the Downtown Design 40 Guidelines, which were done right in the Nineties, early Nineties as a recall, maybe earlier. Sort 41 of give the overall vision for that and so imagine that there was some sort of community process 42 for coming up with that thing. I know we’re going way back. 43 44 Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Yes, going back before all of our times here, but yes the 45 Downtown Urban Design Guide was the culmination of a process that involved, engaged the 46 community, residents, business owners, and went up to Council. And so the concept of that 47 guidelines book was there are several areas of the downtown it kind of called out distinct 48 City of Palo Alto Page 8 different areas, Hamilton Avenue, University focused on the cross axis’s and trying to get some 1 pedestrian movement and life and the focus was amenities trying to have quality signage, 2 quality spaces, public spaces. I think the efforts to bring in the bike racks and the improve the 3 news racks and all that kind of bring up the quality of the downtown in terms of what the 4 pedestrians experience at the street level and then also there was a focus on massing as well that 5 looked at corners being more massive as far as the buildings that would get redeveloped there. 6 7 For this particular street I think it was included in the Hamilton Avenue district. I think it’s 8 discussed in your report and I believe, and the zoning [here the] question was zoning? CD-C 9 zoning, I don’t know the answer to that, what was the previous zoning, but I believe it was 10 commercial for, before that. A different acronyms, but I believe it was commercial prior to that. 11 12 Board Member Lew: And so and then the houses that are, the things that are built, constructed 13 as houses, but now are being used as various uses, is that correct? Are they all commercial 14 (interrupted) 15 16 Ms. French: Yeah, so this is the (interrupted) 17 18 Board Member Lew: Being used as commercial buildings even though they’re old residential 19 buildings? 20 21 Ms. French: Yeah, so there’s this kind of the whole grandfathered concept that, so that was 22 brought in again right around 1986 when there was the whole Parking Assessment District 23 established and leading up to that the regulations were retooled to kind of acknowledge that 24 we’re doing this parking assessment we’re going to be putting in parking garages, there’s going 25 to be higher Floor Area Ratios (FAR) allowed, we’re going to, they went around and counted 26 the spaces all around that. But yeah, so back in the mid to late Eighties I think there was quite a 27 bit of change envisioning what the downtown would be. And that’s when the Cap was set of 28 350,000 square feet and then when we got to two thirds of that it was let’s study it and we’re 29 indeed at that point. And actually coming up next week there’s going to be some ordinances 30 that are looking at kind of shutting down some of the bonus area and the breaks on parking. So 31 that goes to Planning Commission on Wednesday. 32 33 Board Member Lew: And then I think my one other option, observation that I had is that it 34 seems like this block of Waverley has been widened to be part of downtown. It’s different than 35 the more residential blocks farther down and it seems like there’s always been, I mean I don’t 36 remember that ever happening in my recent memory. And so, I mean my take on it is that the 37 City has always thought of this as being more downtown because of the zoning and the fact that 38 the street is wider than a residential street. 39 40 And oh, if I may go back for a second on the Urban Design Guidelines. So I know, my 41 understanding is that these were not adopted. Is that correct? The Urban Design Guidelines? I 42 know we’ve been using them and we refer to them, but like if there’s, ok, say there’s an appeal 43 as has been… is that document, can that be used one way or the other or is it really just a piece 44 of paper? 45 46 Ms. French: I think it’s more than a piece of paper. First of all, it is referenced in the 47 Comprehensive Plan and the Comprehensive Plan is one of those tools that the Council takes 48 City of Palo Alto Page 9 into account. The other part of that is in the zoning code it is code that refers to context based 1 guidelines and so the context based guidelines are certainly in the Title 18 zoning code. And so 2 those would be the place that are not as much policy as legal code, but certainly it’s all at the 3 Council’s disposal and in fact staff and the ARB’s disposal to include a consideration of the 4 Comp Plan and the reference Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. 5 6 Board Member Lew: Ok, thank you. So, ok. To Ken, thank you for the changes that you’ve 7 made. I was actually hoping for more massing reductions on this particular one, but mostly on 8 the porches. I think the things that you’ve made are fine, but I was actually looking for 9 something more substantial. And I think really in the main, the main thing is that the with 10 regard to the compatibility findings is that you’re change, you have something that’s different in 11 mass, style, fenestration pattern, color, and material. So it’s like, it’s everything. And I can 12 support the staff’s position that this is supposed to be in all of our documents this is supposed to 13 be part of downtown, so I can, and all of our zoning and stuff does ask for buildings to be up 14 close to the street and so I can go there even though it’s changing everything that everybody, 15 everything that people know about the block, but again it’s like it’s a such a drastic difference 16 between the neighbors. And I understand that some of the stuff is changing, but at the same 17 time I have to, the context is what it is and I think it’s even more than just your two immediate 18 neighbors. I mean just generally a characteristic of Waverley is different than what you have, 19 than what you’re proposing. 20 21 Mr. Hayes: You have buildings that are over 50 feet high just a half a block away that anchor 22 the corner of Forest and Waverley, right? 23 24 Board Member Lew: But they’re setback though. I mean if you look at like say if you look at 25 like the Wells Fargo Bank, it’s sort of setback and it’s, and it has built in planters like integral 26 into the structure and it has brick to help it make, to give it a little scale and texture. And then I 27 would say like the big apartment building (interrupted) 28 29 Mr. Hayes: That’s what I’m talking about. 30 31 Board Member Lew: Yeah, and then the big apartment buildings also they do have a setback 32 from the street and they have and they’re just residential scale, right? I mean they just have the 33 punched windows and stuff. And they’re taller, but (interrupted) 34 35 Mr. Hayes: They’re tall. 36 37 Board Member Lew: They’re taller, they’re also larger lots. 38 39 Mr. Hayes: Right. 40 41 Board Member Lew: And I think that’s the other factor. I mean I think in down just generally 42 we think about buildings downtown as that the corner buildings are allowed to go higher and 43 then the smaller 25 foot infill buildings in the middle of blocks in University are generally 44 smaller and they, and I think the key thing like I don’t really care about so much about style, but 45 it’s really that like I think University is the best example is that there are all sorts of Apple Store 46 and then we have traditional stuff that all maintains the same rhythm. 47 48 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Mr. Hayes: Right (interrupted) 1 2 Board Member Lew: [Unintelligible] the style is it’s kind of irrelevant when you have that 3 texture and I think that that’s the thing that’s kind of missing, is missing from (interrupted) 4 5 Mr. Hayes: I would think that this would add to that texture and rhythm. You’ve got this sort of 6 cadence from the Post Office to the apartment building here with a gap between all the 7 buildings that just it repeats that 50 foot kind of module and then given that we do have higher 8 buildings on each end it seemed like it was a natural kind of infill. I actually think that from the 9 front this building it’s going to read very open up in here. I mean you’re going to see up and 10 through. It’s not like a wall at the setback. It’s a terrace balcony at the setback and you’re 11 going to read the mass of this probably in a more pronounced way and the stair tower as 12 opposed to what’s happening above. That’s my opinion on how it’s going to be perceived. 13 14 But I agree with you in terms of style is not something that compatibility really even addresses 15 head on. It’s more about building texture, building materials, windows, the idea of public space 16 and how the public kind of interacts with the building. Getting balconies on the front so that 17 you do have faces on the street so you feel like there’s people there and it’s not just a kind of an 18 abandoned balcony. 19 20 Board Member Lew: Right. 21 22 Mr. Hayes: [Unintelligible] consistent with all of those ideas. 23 24 Board Member Lew: [It’s a, so I no], I mean I agree that all, those are all important things and I 25 think that concrete buildings can be beautiful. I would say everybody should look at the 26 Clyfford Still Museum in Denver. It’s just, it’s like the most amazing concrete that ever, I’ve 27 ever seen, but again I think that you’ve had a lot of, there’s a lot of neighborhood opposition to 28 this and it seems like it’s at the moment it’s too different than all the neighbors and even if you 29 were saying like if this is part of downtown, like say it was on one block over, say where the 30 like [Tie Pan] or like over there. 31 32 Mr. Hayes: Right. 33 34 Board Member Lew: I think it’s still even then like if it was in the downtown context I think 35 more closer to the downtown context I think this would be even still be a little bit of a struggle 36 for me for this one. Like I think it would be closer to make the compatibility findings, but just 37 because you’re one block over I’m having a hard time making the compatibility findings for this 38 one. 39 40 Mr. Hayes: Ok, so when we met last time on the 15th your concern was the height (interrupted) 41 42 Board Member Lew: Well the porch, yeah, the porches and I was concerned about the 43 [unintelligible] on the side. Yeah, the large depth of the porches. 44 45 Mr. Hayes: Right. 46 47 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Board Member Lew: And in addition to the compatibility finding think is that we have another 1 finding that says that you’ve minimized the massing and I don’t think you’ve done that. 2 3 Mr. Hayes: I think the massing is minimized. It’s 50 feet high though. We’re a 50 foot 4 building, but the massing I think is very cut up. 5 6 Board Member Lew: It is, you’ve, it is cut up, but like say like [unintelligible] like the 7 recreation room on the, I mean that’s up on the fourth floor and then but there’s nothing below 8 it. 9 10 Mr. Hayes: The third… Yeah, I’m sorry that outdoor terrace that you commented on on the 15th 11 yeah is right (interrupted) 12 13 Board Member Lew: Yeah. 14 15 Mr. Hayes: Right there. 16 17 Board Member Lew: I mean it seems to me that that is like that if the recreation room were on 18 the third floor for example, that opens more sky up to the neighbors and so that’s like reducing 19 the bulk. Like I think everything you’ve done is to try to make it, to fill the envelope 20 (interrupted) 21 22 Mr. Hayes: And then carve away. 23 24 Board Member Lew: And carve away. 25 26 Mr. Hayes: Right. 27 28 Board Member Lew: Which I understand your position and I think in the really urban context 29 this is a very cool solution and I think that the problem here is that your context is different than 30 it’s more of a suburban, the buildings around it are more suburban. So anyway that’s where I 31 am with this one. I really, and not to say like I do like the design, it’s just it’s the, for me it’s the 32 context. Thank you. 33 34 Mr. Hayes: Thank you. 35 36 Chair Malone Prichard: Lee. 37 38 Vice-Chair Lippert: Yeah I have a couple of, excuse me, I have a couple of questions for staff. 39 In going through the staff report here it did mention that they were entitled to a 200 square foot 40 bonus FAR and yet in the presentation it was mentioned that the building was actually being 41 reduced by 250 square feet. Is that, how is that reconciled with the numbers currently? 42 43 Ms. Campbell: The, so when we looked at the project last month the difference between then 44 and now is basically they’ve removed that 250 square feet of commercial space on that second 45 floor. So with that reduction of the 250 square feet that eliminates the requirement for the one, 46 for one, that’s the equivalent for one parking space. So the 200 square foot special bonus that 47 we give is still incorporated into the project. 48 City of Palo Alto Page 12 1 Vice-Chair Lippert: Ok. 2 3 Ms. Campbell: Ok. 4 5 Vice-Chair Lippert: But that’s, I didn’t think that that had gone away. 6 7 Ms. Campbell: Ok, yeah. 8 9 Vice-Chair Lippert: Ok. 10 11 Ms. Campbell: It didn’t go away. 12 13 Vice-Chair Lippert: Great. And then with regard to the underlying zoning that’s there I couldn’t 14 find in the staff report the table that enumerates sort of the residential and commercial square 15 footage. Usually when there’s under the zoning they’re going for a more intense zoning 16 because they’re looking at the maximum allowable commercial square footage and then the 17 maximum and then also there’s the residential component, correct? And those are being added 18 together cumulatively, correct? 19 20 Ms. Campbell: So on page, on Attachment G of the staff report there’s sort of the basic 21 breakdown of the floor area and the code allowances. 22 23 Vice-Chair Lippert: That’s where it was. 24 25 Ms. Campbell: Which is the last, the last page of the staff report. 26 27 Vice-Chair Lippert: Got it. 28 29 Ms. Campbell: So we have a two to one allowable. 30 31 Vice-Chair Lippert: Great. 32 33 Ms. Campbell: And then we’ve got the individual breakdown for each of the spaces is listed in 34 the proposed project column. And so the total for that FAR is 1.9 to 1. 35 36 Vice-Chair Lippert: Ok, so if they were to build a residential, purely residential building there 37 would be one set of regulations that would apply and then because they’re, and if they were 38 building a purely commercial building there would be another set of development regulations 39 that would apply. And what happens in this case is that the two of them are actually being 40 added together and if I’m not mistaken that’s embodied in the zoning and it’s a property right. 41 Is that not correct? 42 43 Ms. Campbell: Correct. 44 45 Vice-Chair Lippert: So the Board really doesn’t have anything to say about that mix. All we 46 really have to say, talk about is the quality and character of the building. If the applicant were 47 presenting say a Mission style building or something that approximates Laning Chateau or 48 City of Palo Alto Page 13 Spanish Revival look, any other style of building the massing does not come into play in terms 1 of the height. Where they’re allowed to build in terms of the width of the property, the amount 2 of FAR, is that correct? 3 4 Ms. Campbell: The amount of FAR for these uses is definitely something that’s written into the 5 code that applicants can take advantage of to develop the property. We wouldn’t say that you 6 have to do all commercial or you have to do all residential. I know I’ve gotten comments from 7 other property owners with those kinds of concerns like why shouldn’t it just be all residential, 8 but with the code allowances they can do this type of project mixed-use. 9 10 Vice-Chair Lippert: Ok. And in terms of the building itself located in that neighborhood it is a 11 very eclectic neighborhood. I’m very familiar with it. If you go further south it does have a lot 12 of Arts and Crafts style Bungalow style buildings. It also has right on the corner of Forest and 13 Waverley I believe it’s a Planned Community (PC) that’s basically block for the first story and 14 then it’s a concrete building above that. It’s a PC. If you go around the corner that building 15 continues around to Gilman Street, then we’ve got Laning Chateau and then across from Laning 16 Chateau there’s another tall building. If you look immediately across the street there’s 400 17 Hamilton Street, which is a pretty austere building. And then again at the corner of I guess 18 Waverley and Forest there is 653 Waverley, which is again a four and a half story building. So 19 the whole neighborhood is really a mix of buildings that are about the same size or height as this 20 building, correct? 21 22 Ms. Campbell: Yes. 23 24 Vice-Chair Lippert: Yeah. And one of the other aspects of this site I guess is that the property 25 owner could in fact if they had mechanical equipment locate that on the roof and have screens 26 that are added up to 15 feet tall to screen it from sight lines. Is that correct? 27 28 Ms. Campbell: That’s correct. 29 30 Vice-Chair Lippert: Ok. So I have some questions for the applicant. With regard to the in the 31 last review I guess we had asked you to look at the massing of the building and graduating or 32 stepping back some of the massing from the street, particularly at the roof. You have this large 33 overhang. What have you done to sort of change that or augment that? You can answer. 34 35 Mr. Hayes: So what we’ve done, so we interpreted there were a couple things that you talked 36 about, one the height and then we heard the dark underside being an issue of looking up and 37 seeing kind of the dark underside. So I think the first thing we thought of was let’s try to cut the 38 fourth floor roof back that’s over the terrace, but we felt that that didn’t meet the owner’s 39 program in terms of wanting to have sheltered outdoor space and so there was that quandary. 40 Then we thought well how do we still maybe get light down in and that’s when we had this idea 41 of putting these large 8 by 14 foot holes essentially in the roof diaphragm that will allow light to 42 come down like it’s showing now. And then we were still faced with that third floor maybe 43 being too dark and so how do we get light there that would also help promote the growth of 44 plants, because that was something that you wanted to see more plant material on the balconies 45 or more life. So that’s why we have the glass floor to allow that light to come through. So 46 that’s how we addressed the one side, but we felt strongly that we wanted to maintain the 47 predominant architectural form of the building and that was how we proposed to solve that. 48 City of Palo Alto Page 14 1 On the stair side we were, we didn’t need to be 50 feet from a functional standpoint on the stair. 2 So we reduced the stair to where I believe we have 10 feet from the landing to the top of the 3 roof, which will give us enough room for roof slope and an 8 foot high ceiling at that stair at the 4 top level. So that’s the primary changes to the front in terms of reducing the mass. And then 5 your other concern Lee was the back. 6 7 Vice-Chair Lippert: Right, right. You did, actually you know what first of all I want to thank 8 you and the owner, the applicant for taking our comments and actually incorporating most of 9 them. I think you did a really fine job on the back side of the building. [Unintelligible -- Man 10 talking off microphone] Well, I think it works well to have the bollards instead of a gate there. I 11 think that the gate is a little too imposing. But on the back side of the building as well I think 12 you’ve done a lot to take the architecture that’s on the front side and have that show through on 13 the back side of the building as well. I think that that’s very successful. 14 15 I do have a couple of concerns on the front side of the building still. I think my comments are 16 probably in keeping with my colleagues, Board Member Lew’s comments. And I still don’t 17 think that the roof is quite there yet. I see what you’re doing in terms of expressing the S plane 18 on the face of the building, but I really think that it needs to be, that element at the roofline 19 needs to be pushed back. And I’m not saying that you can’t have an overhang there, I just think 20 that it needs to be pulled back and be more restrained. And maybe the overhang only comes out 21 as far as where the opening is that you have that just starts there. Part of what I see is that it 22 adds additional massing and height to the front of the building and it may not be necessary. 23 And so I’m looking for ways of reducing the massing the same as Board Member Lew is trying 24 to look for a reduction in the massing. And that’s one element. 25 26 The other thing that I, I’m sort of having difficulty with is that that roof plane is at a different 27 height than the tower, the stair tower element. And by pulling that roof plane back it’s not 28 going to be as apparent that they’re at a different height there. So I think that that would begin 29 to achieve what needs to be done in terms of reducing the massing on the street. 30 31 With regard to the landscaping I had a couple other thoughts there. Right now it’s a pretty 32 austere plain, wide piece of sidewalk and I know that the City Council has really talked to us 33 about wide sidewalks. The important thing is that wide sidewalks are important in terms of 34 public life on the street, but the landscaping is also important. And so maybe there’s a way of 35 introducing more landscaping by bringing that out to a planting strip, out right next to the 36 parking area. Ken do you have any thoughts on that? 37 38 Mr. Hayes: We wanted to do that after the last meeting and so we contacted Public Works and 39 they said no. We’re happy to do landscaping. We’d love to have a landscape strip out there in 40 front of the building. 41 42 Vice-Chair Lippert: You know I’d like to find out more from Public Works as to why that isn’t 43 permitted particularly because if you go to other streets in Palo Alto you go into I look at Homer 44 Avenue. You know Homer Avenue has planting strips the entire (interrupted) 45 46 Mr. Hayes: We’re in support of that. We just (interrupted) 47 48 City of Palo Alto Page 15 Vice-Chair Lippert: Clare do you have something you can add to that? 1 2 Ms. Campbell: Yes, I do. So I with this particular subject I did also speak with Public Works 3 about it and basically their concern was that for this particular block there are no existing 4 planter strips on the street. So with this project introducing a planter strip it definitely is 5 something that stands out and doesn’t fit I guess with the street because it’s not an existing 6 condition. So I think that was the concern that Public Works had had when they gave their 7 response to the applicant. 8 9 Vice-Chair Lippert: I’m glad they’re the arbitrators of [unintelligible – talking over each other] 10 in Palo Alto. 11 12 Mr. Hayes: It would be great because then we could have a planter strip on the building that 13 we’ve submitted for preliminary, which is next door as well. That would start to establish a 14 rhythm or a pattern. 15 16 Ms. French: I’ll jump in here. So when Public Works reviewed this they did not have the 17 benefit of understanding that there was a project coming next door, which has now been 18 submitted. A preliminary architecture review application for the adjacent site to the, what is 19 that? Southwest or whatever the… southeast? Yeah. So with that now there are two projects 20 side by side that might be a more compelling argument for the public works staff to consider. If 21 it were a PC for instance you could say well a public benefit might be for the applicant to 22 continue that planter strip across the existing apartment building to the north or west, northwest. 23 It’s not a PC so it’s not a public benefit requirement, but that would be nice since it is a 24 residential to have three properties in a row with a planter strip. So I think it would be worth 25 having a conversation again with Public Works. 26 27 Vice-Chair Lippert: Yeah, I agree. I think that this is an item that’s open for discussion and 28 maybe what we can begin to do is establish some changes along that portion of Waverley Street. 29 I know if you continue down Waverley Street across Forrest there are planting strips there. So 30 it’s not something that’s unfamiliar. I think it would be definitely something that would be, 31 would make it more agreeable to approve. And then also not only that, but it would be done at 32 the I guess cost of the applicant. It wouldn’t be something that the City would do. And of 33 course the maintenance of that planting strip would of course be the property owner’s as well. 34 So, so those are my comments. I don’t think it’s quite here yet, but I think you’re really close 35 Ken. 36 37 Mr. Hayes: Thank you Lee. 38 39 Chair Malone Prichard: Robert. 40 41 Board Member Gooyer: I don’t have any questions, but just throw out my comments, ok? I’m 42 new at this or should I say new to this particular project so I wasn’t involved in the first go 43 arounds so some of these things I throw out probably are going to be irrelevant at this point, but 44 I’ll sort of throw out where my, where I’m coming from. 45 46 Just a couple of minor things going back to the as basic as the parking is that in every project 47 that I’ve been involved in that uses a lift system I find out that nobody uses the lift system. 48 City of Palo Alto Page 16 There, people are way too lazy. They pull their car out in the morning and then yes they put it 1 back in the lift system at night, but during the day they park on the street. And in an area like 2 this where it parking is limited as it is it’s going to make it tougher. Now again like I said this is 3 way it’s already been run through the system, but I’m just giving you sort of my point of view 4 of this because I have run into this quite a bit or quite a bit, quite a various projects that have 5 done that. 6 7 Going to the massing seems to be a, the does it fit the context? Size wise or bulk wise it looks 8 like based on the variety that’s in this area yes it doesn’t really relate to the two buildings on 9 either side, but obviously as was mentioned there’s already a project in for redoing the building 10 adjacent to it. So in that case the massing I guess if you want to call it is appropriate based on 11 what’s in the area around it. What is different is that massing may be in context, but the style 12 and the wall of glass and everything else are not in context with what’s in the area around it. 13 The bank building, the Wells Fargo is brick with smaller windows, planting, stepped back, and 14 this is sort of a in your face, right up to the property line design. This building standing by itself 15 I like the design. It, I think it works well. I just don’t think, I have a hard time placing it in this 16 particular location. 17 18 The way you did a nice job as far as I’ve always been a real advocate of what I call four sided 19 buildings where in most cases as Lee was commenting that people do spend a lot of money on 20 the front or maybe one side and then they sort of forget the back side, that sort of thing. You’ve 21 done a nice job at that. The other way to look at it though is you’ve got a lot of glass and a lot 22 of things going on on each side, but if there’s a 50 foot building that gets placed on the south 23 side, that sort of puts a damper on those nice big windows that you’ve got on the south side of 24 this building because all of a sudden the quality of life for that person on that fourth floor they 25 may be looking at either a roof or a blank stucco wall or something. So right now this picture 26 looks magnificent where you’ve got these great views, but that may only last a year. 27 28 So I mean and I think part of that is also because of the whole concept of what we were talking 29 about is this, the massing of the stepping back. The way I think you have the design is one of 30 these where it is very light, very open, but you have a the way it’s designed you have this 31 perceived image of bulk. And I think you’re going against what was asked of you. You’ve 32 lightened up the bulk, but the bulk is still there. And I know, I understand you’re going, you’re 33 doing your, what the client wants. 34 35 Mr. Hayes: No I’m not. 36 37 Board Member Gooyer: Ok. Alright, I mean I thought I heard you say the client wanted the 38 covering on the fourth floor, because I agree it’s a very light airy cover, but still looking, when 39 you stand back and look at it that very light awning really squares off that building and makes it 40 a big bulk. So it there’s a dichotomy here I think that it fits in certain aspects, but doesn’t in 41 others. Let’s see, I think that’s probably it for right now for me. 42 43 Mr. Hayes: Thank you and welcome to the ARB. 44 45 Chair Malone Prichard: Ok, I’d also like to thank you for paying attention to most of the things 46 that we asked you to do. As far as the setback goes I’m actually comfortable with the setback of 47 the building based on what else is going on on the site and based on the fact that this is in the 48 City of Palo Alto Page 17 commercial district. I think the setback is appropriate. Also the entry is setback so you’re 1 coming out to the street at certain points, but not the entire building. There’s something you 2 wanted to add to that? 3 4 Mr. Hayes: The ground floor does not come out to the street except, yeah. 5 6 Chair Malone Prichard: It does at some very small points. 7 8 Mr. Hayes: Yeah. 9 10 Chair Malone Prichard: Yeah. I think that’s important for the pedestrian experience and I think 11 you’ve done a good job with that. 12 13 Mr. Hayes: Thank you. 14 15 Chair Malone Prichard: The apparent mass, actually I’ll start with the height. I think the height 16 is entirely appropriate based upon some of the other buildings around. Obviously the building 17 next door is smaller, but there are other buildings around that are five stories in the immediate 18 vicinity. So I think this is an appropriate size, appropriate height for the neighborhood. 19 20 I believe I mentioned last time this undulating form that you’ve created is quite lovely, but the 21 fact that you’ve taken it all the way up to the top of the building you’re creating an apparent 22 wall there, which is creating the feeling that you have a 50 foot building that comes all the way 23 out to the street. So I’m in agreement with Lee that if that upper roof form were pulled back 24 and perhaps the vertical that supports it you would start to get a feeling that you’re breaking 25 down the mass, that you’re being more respectful of some of the smaller buildings around while 26 still having a 50 foot building. So I think stepping back at that upper floor is a really important 27 move that I’m not seeing yet. I appreciate that you made the opening in the roof, but I don’t 28 think that’s enough. 29 30 I very much like what you’ve done with the rear elevation. That’s hugely improved from 31 before. It’s much lighter, airier, and more in context with the rest of the building. 32 33 Mr. Hayes: Thank you. 34 35 Chair Malone Prichard: I like what you’re doing with the planting. I think it’s much better 36 integrated into the building and I would absolutely support a planting strip at the edge of the 37 sidewalk. 38 39 There are some things I would like to see revised in the findings in Attachment A. So in 40 Finding 2, you say the existing environment is comprised of buildings of various heights and 41 that’s absolutely true. I think it would be good to also put in there that it’s comprised of eclectic 42 buildings of various heights because there are various different styles on this street ranging from 43 vary stark modern to more historic. Finding 3, “Design appropriate to the functions of the 44 project” I would add in there that indoor and outdoor usable spaces are provided. I think that’s 45 important for the residential functioning of the project. In Finding 4, Finding 4 asks for us to do 46 things when an area is considered by the Board as having a unified design character. From my 47 perspective this area does not have a unified design character. So I would say this finding is not 48 City of Palo Alto Page 18 applicable. Finding 5, “Promoting harmonious transitions in scale and character” I would say if 1 the upper floor were stepped back you would be starting to have a transition in scale and 2 character between the taller buildings and the lower buildings. I would also say that the mixed-3 use nature of the project is a good bridge between the commercial and residential zones that this 4 block is sandwiched between. Finding 9, “The use of efficient ancillary functions” I would add 5 a notation about parking and recycling trash as ancillary functions that are appropriately 6 handled. And Finding 12, you say this, you refer to other findings there. I think only Finding 7 13 is applicable, I’m not sure that 2, 3, and 4 are actually applicable to that. 8 9 So my inclination on this project and it would be interesting to see what the other Board 10 Members say would be to continue it to give you an opportunity to take a look at the fourth 11 floor massing and pulling it back and also adding the landscaping strip. So let’s have some 12 Board Member discussion. Lee. 13 14 Board Member Lew: I just have one quick follow up question for staff. Sorry, I forgot to 15 mention this before. So to follow up on Mr. Levinski’s question about the parking and so we 16 received at places like a different parking attachment than what was in our packet, they are 17 dated differently. This one’s current September 18th and then I think the one in our packet is 18 from May or June or somewhere. And so, and the numbers are different and I was wondering 19 what, I haven’t read this so I was just wondering if you could explain (interrupted) 20 21 Ms. Campbell: And actually I have not either so. 22 23 Board Member Lew: Ok. So why don’t we, we need to, we haven’t reviewed it. We need to 24 review it later I think. 25 26 Ms. Campbell: Ok, thank you. 27 28 Chair Malone Prichard: Ok and I will now close the public hearing so that the Board can discuss 29 where to go from here. Lee. 30 31 Vice-Chair Lippert: Well I definitely think we should continue this to a date certain. I don’t 32 think that there are that many elements that the applicant couldn’t achieve those and get them 33 back to us quickly. It would be helpful since the same architect is on the adjacent project to and 34 there is a preliminary application now in the works to actually see the relationship of those two 35 buildings. I think that that’s going to tell us an awful lot and also talk more about the actual 36 compatibility of those two projects. 37 38 And then just a very minor thing I wanted to mention. First of all I agree with Chair Malone 39 Prichard’s comment with regard to the stepping back at the ground floor plane the way the 40 façade has been, the glass has been pulled back that that begins to achieve the setback of what 41 (interrupted) 42 43 Mr. Hayes: A buffer. 44 45 Vice-Chair Lippert: Yeah, but I think it begins to achieve that. The other element that’s sort of 46 gone un I [seem] recognized is that that column that you have in the front of the building. You 47 know I’m sure that you’ve made it as slender and thin as structurally (interrupted) 48 City of Palo Alto Page 19 1 Mr. Hayes: [Unintelligible] 2 3 Vice-Chair Lippert: Structurally needed, but the one column there is I think an important 4 architectural element and maybe you want to look at actually [ferring] out the column or 5 treating it differently or doing something with it so that it becomes an important architectural 6 element. In this case here it transcends four stories and maybe there’s a way to look at that and 7 make it part of the architecture as well rather than having it be, just be slender and sort of go 8 away. So that’s my thought. 9 10 And then I just want to thank you. I’m seeing this beginning to approach something very 11 similar to Design Research in Cambridge. I think you’ve taken that feedback and it’s, it seems 12 to be working. So thank you. 13 14 Mr. Hayes: Thank you. 15 16 Chair Malone Prichard: Alex, any thoughts? 17 18 Board Member Lew: On the, regarding the landscaping like the planters that you added at the 19 last meeting you showed us some really compelling images with a different sort of landscape on 20 the balconies. And so I was wondering what the thinking was in… 21 22 Mr. Hayes: I’m sorry, I’m not, you want to know what the plant material is? 23 24 Board Member Lew: Well, I think the last time you showed some just like precedent images or 25 your inspirational images of other buildings. 26 27 Mr. Hayes: Oh, yeah. 28 29 Board Member Lew: And you were showing some with more substantial landscape, I mean like 30 trees and stuff on the terraces and then this is looking much smaller. 31 32 Mr. Hayes: Well we have to consider that we have a 10 inch slab. We don’t want that to 33 [unintelligible] (interrupted) 34 35 Board Member Lew: Weight, right. 36 37 Mr. Hayes: Yeah, so it’s really I think a weight issue. And the terrace is not that big. We did 38 do, we have created planters here and up on the second floor. If you look on the floor plan they 39 are actually quite substantial, but the idea is to get plant material to grow on the wall here. 40 There’s no wall up here, but for the benefit of the fourth floor terrace, for the benefit of the third 41 floor terrace here, and then we have the same vine down here. These are planters, moveable 42 planters. They are called out as concrete, but they’re moveable planters. And they’re 43 positioned in a way that I mean when I go out on a balcony I want, I don’t want to be impeded 44 from walking. I always like to go to the edge first. I just can’t help myself. That’s where I go. 45 And so these planters are setback so that one can go between the planter and the glass railing, 46 which I think is important just from a behavioral thing. 47 48 City of Palo Alto Page 20 Board Member Lew: So, ok. So just on the Board’s business I mean I think I’m fine with 1 continuing the project. I think the changes to the fourth floor thing I think would be substantial 2 in reducing the apparent bulk of the building. And I would just say whatever, however we get 3 more landscaping we need to get more landscaping. However it is I think that if it’s the planter 4 strip that’s fine. It seems to me that this block of Waverley was intended to have like 12 foot 5 wide concrete downtown sidewalk, which is what’s kind of there and it seems that the character 6 of the block is the landscaping in the people’s front yards and if that’s being removed through 7 our downtown, our zoning policies then we need to figure out other ways of getting landscaping 8 in there. So yeah, so I’m fine with continuing the project. 9 10 Vice-Chair Lippert: I have a question for staff. When is the prelim on the adjacent property 11 coming forward? 12 13 Ms. French: I believe the application was just received this week so certainly we could get you 14 the plans that were submitted without a staff report just for comparison purposes, but we 15 wouldn’t be ready to take that one to hearing probably until the first meeting in November. 16 17 Vice-Chair Lippert: Yeah, that’s too far out. I was thinking that perhaps we could see that as 18 the same time as the revisions to this. 19 20 Ms. French: You can see the plans, but you wouldn’t have the analysis by staff. 21 22 Vice-Chair Lippert: Yeah. 23 24 Ms. French: Or at least not much of an analysis because of the workload, but if you continued it 25 to October 17th we could certainly like I said get you those plans and see the applicant’s analysis 26 of their own project. 27 28 Vice-Chair Lippert: Ok. 29 30 Board Member Lew: It could be a study session where we don’t have any staff feedback. 31 32 Ms. French: Yes. If you’d like we could make it a study session. 33 34 Board Member Lew: Is that the applicant’s discretion? [Unintelligible] (interrupted) 35 36 Ms. French: It happens to be the same architect who is standing before you as well so for that 37 project. 38 39 Vice-Chair Lippert: I think in this case the projects are so tied together in terms of their quality 40 and character I think it’s important to see the two of them in context. So if there’s some way 41 that we can accelerate this and move forward to a date certain and be able to see them both on 42 October 17th is it? 43 44 Mr. Hayes: Is there not a hearing on the 3rd? 45 46 City of Palo Alto Page 21 Ms. French: We have already advertised the meeting on the 3rd and we have a limitation on time 1 that day due to an event. So I would appreciate and I think it’s more reasonable to look at the 2 October 17th for this project and bringing you the other plans with some maybe a table. 3 4 Vice-Chair Lippert: And I also think it’s going to take a little bit of time to sort of work out the 5 landscaping issue with Public Works. If that can be sort of handled at the same time so we 6 know coming back (interrupted) 7 8 Ms. French: Yes. 9 10 Vice-Chair Lippert: That there will be more landscaping and where it will be. 11 12 Ms. French: Thank you. That’s a really critical piece of this. I do want to have, set up a 13 meeting with Public Works and talk about the two projects together and I believe that’s enough 14 to convince them to allow the planting strip. 15 16 Vice-Chair Lippert: So I’ll move this, oh, I’m sorry. 17 18 Board Member Lew: And then I just wanted to add one thing. Is, on Ken that we need to see 19 the… just say that we need to see the landscaping. So like in the renderings that we need to see 20 the, I’m sorry Ken, I’m sorry. In the renderings we need to see the street trees, like we need to 21 see it in context. 22 23 Mr. Hayes: [Unintelligible] 24 25 Board Member Lew: I know that you (interrupted) 26 27 Mr. Hayes: Put the gingko in. 28 29 Board Member Lew: I know that as you as the architect, I mean this comes up on every 30 architect’s rendering is the architect wants to show off the building, but we need to see the 31 landscaping and I think we showed like a 10 year, I forgot exactly what it is, like a 10 year 32 maturity level [for in general in] renderings. So. 33 34 Mr. Hayes: Yeah I’m just, so we’re saying the 17th? Oh. 35 36 MOTION 37 38 Vice-Chair Lippert: Yeah that was the Motion I was going to make is to continue the item to 39 October 17th with the comments that they received today and on that same agenda we would 40 like to see the adjacent building as a study session. 41 42 Mr. Hayes: Ok, just let me ask one question before you… in terms of the fourth floor roof 43 because (interrupted) 44 45 Vice-Chair Lippert: Sorry, we need a second on that. 46 47 Mr. Hayes: Sorry. 48 City of Palo Alto Page 22 1 Chair Malone Prichard: And the reason I’m not giving a second on that is I don’t want to force 2 the other project to be a study session at the same time. I do want to see the plans, but it’s 3 possible that it won’t be feasible to get a study session together for some reason. So. 4 5 Ms. French: We can commit to a study session. What we can’t commit to is writing a full staff 6 report, having comments from all the departments. So it’s not going to be an actual preliminary 7 review of that project because of the nature of routing, we have to advertise it. So I, you 8 know… 9 10 Chair Malone Prichard: Exactly. That was my concern that something would get in the way, if, 11 if staff can commit to a study session and the applicant is ok with that. 12 13 Mr. Hayes: And when would that study session be? 14 15 Chair Malone Prichard: Same date. 16 17 Mr. Hayes: Oh. 18 19 Chair Malone Prichard: October 17th. 20 21 Mr. Hayes: I see. So we have the study session before and then have the hearing? 22 23 Ms. French: Typically study sessions are a half an hour at the beginning of the hearing so that 24 would be where we would place it. Obviously staff would prefer November 3rd for everything 25 because then it’s a comfort level we can vet some things through the City staff, but I understand 26 the applicant’s urgency. 27 28 SECOND 29 30 Chair Malone Prichard: Then I will second. Did you have a question? 31 32 Mr. Hayes: I had just a clarification because when we come back I want to make sure that we 33 have clearly addressed the concern of the mass of the bulk. And I, the one that I heard Clare I 34 think probably or I forget who stated that if we thought that if we pulled it back to the edge of 35 the opening on the fourth floor that that would start to, [unintelligible] I’m just trying to frame 36 it, alright? That may not be what we end up doing, but could you clarify that a little bit? Was it 37 the front edge of that opening or the back edge or it doesn’t really matter as long as it’s 38 somehow pulled back and the vertical wall is eliminated? 39 40 Chair Malone Prichard: I think Lee was the one who picked the opening as the appropriate place 41 to pull it back to. I just feel it needs to be pulled back to some degree in order to create a step 42 back. Lee did you have anything else? 43 44 Vice-Chair Lippert: Yeah, I was, what I was looking at was actually pulling it back to the back 45 edge of that opening and the reason is that I, you have that overhang on the side of the building 46 and then it would be able to wrap around. That’s the north side of the building. You’re less 47 inclined to have a lot of sunlight on that side of the building. 48 City of Palo Alto Page 23 1 Mr. Hayes: No it was just to get out of the rain is what it was for. 2 3 Vice-Chair Lippert: Yeah. Another way to approach it is to have a material change and do 4 something maybe different in terms of a different kind of structure there. It might be lower, it 5 might be different material. I mean there are tons of ways of dealing with that. What we’re 6 concerned about is massing. 7 8 Mr. Hayes: Thank you. 9 10 Chair Malone Prichard: [Andy] 11 12 Man: Oh, sorry. 13 14 Chair Malone Prichard: And part of my comment was also that the vertical support [set up at] 15 roof is contributing to the massing. 16 17 Board Member Lew: Ken if you could on your streetscape Page AO2, if you could draw the 18 outline of the condominium building at the corner of Forest and Waverley, like you’re just 19 showing the two adjacent neighbors, you’re not showing like the Post Office or the yellow 20 house or the apartment building. I think it would be a better way for us to gauge the height of 21 and bulk of your building because I think what you’re showing now is sort of you’re showing 22 even like the least flattering way. So thank you. 23 24 Mr. Hayes: Thank you. 25 26 Chair Malone Prichard: Ok. Anymore discussion before we vote? Alright. All in favor? Aye. 27 None opposed. Thank you. We’ll take a brief break to get our fifth Board Member back. 28 29 MOTION PASSED (4-0-1, Board Member Popp [recused or absent?]) 30 City of Palo Alto Page 1 1 =================MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26====================== 2 Thursday, October 17, 2013 3 REGULAR MEETING - 8:30 AM 4 City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor 5 250 Hamilton Avenue 6 Palo Alto, CA 94301 7 ROLL CALL: 8 Board members: Staff Liaison: 9 Clare Malone Prichard (Chair) Russ Reich, Senior Planner 10 Lee Lippert (Vice Chair) 11 Alexander Lew Staff: 12 Randy Popp Diana Tamale, Administrative Associate 13 Robert Gooyer Amy French, Chief Planning Official 14 Elena Lee, Senior Planner 15 Jason Nortz, DS Planning Manager 16 Clare Campbell, Planner 17 Jodie Gerhardt, Senior Planner 18 19 20 PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS 21 Please be advised the normal order of public hearings of agenda items is as follows: 22 Announce agenda item 23 Open public hearing 24 Staff recommendation 25 Applicant presentation – Ten (10) minutes limitation or at the discretion of the Board. 26 Public comment – Five (5) minutes limitation per speaker or limitation to three (3) 27 minutes depending on large number of speakers per item. 28 Architectural Review Board questions of the applicant/staff, and comments 29 Applicant closing comments - Three (3) minutes 30 Close public hearing 31 Motions/recommendations by the Board 32 Final vote 33 34 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the 35 agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must 36 complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Board. The Architectural 37 Review Board reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. None. 38 39 40 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES City of Palo Alto Page 2 1 1. 636 Waverley Street [13PLN-00262]: Request by Hayes Group Architects for a Major 2 Architectural Review of the demolition of a one-story, 1,406 sq. ft. office building and 3 construction of a new, 10,328 sq. ft., four-story mixed use building with commercial uses on the 4 first and second floors and two residential units on the third and fourth floors, on a property 5 within the CD-C(P) zoning district. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of 6 the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. This 7 item was continued from the ARB meeting of September 19, 2013. 8 9 Chair Malone Prichard: And our next item is 636 Waverley Street. Request by Hayes Group Architects 10 for a Major Architectural Review of the demolition of a one-story, 1,406 square foot office building 11 and construction of a new, 10,328 square foot, four-story mixed use building with commercial uses on 12 the first and second floors and two residential units on the third and fourth floors, on a property within 13 the CD-C(P) zoning district. Do we have, Amy are you our staff? 14 15 Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Yes, I just e-mailed Clare to let her know we’re on her item. So 16 this project you had seen of course, two other hearings and so we have a revision. We have the 17 architect I believe I saw walking in. Yes, we have the architect here to present. I think may be best to 18 just cut to the architect and then as Clare comes down if there’s some questions you could ask those. 19 Thank you. 20 21 Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you. You’ll have 10 minutes. 22 23 Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects: Oh so we’re going to need help. 24 25 Chair Malone Prichard: We won’t start your time right until you’ve got your project up. 26 27 Mr. Hayes: [unintelligible] 3225 make it? 28 29 Man: I believe so. 30 31 Mr. Hayes: Ok, good. 32 33 Man: We didn’t get drawings, but… 34 35 Mr. Hayes: Didn’t we submit two large scale sets? 36 37 Man: Those got routed for department review. 38 39 Mr. Hayes: Oh. 40 41 [unintelligible] 42 43 Mr. Hayes: Then start slideshow. Should I wait for Amy to come back? 44 45 Chair Malone Prichard: Nope. Go ahead. 46 47 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Mr. Hayes: No, go ahead? Ok. Good morning Members of the Board, Ken Hayes with Hayes Group 1 Architects. We’ll be presenting the project for my client David Kleiman, who just walked in. Perfect. 2 So a short presentation really just to show you the modifications from the last hearing. Comparison 3 slide of the site plan, the lower slide is the previous and there was some discussion about trying to 4 create more pedestrian amenity through plant material in the ground plane and something that would 5 eventually carry through to the adjacent project. And in fact I think that Public Works has said they 6 want to have it carried down the street as the next project is done. So it’s going to, so that the upper 7 slide here is the revised site plan. This shows the planting in front that was added around the base of 8 the new ginkgo tree located there and there’s two options on that. And I think you have both options. I 9 have them in perspective so you’ll see them. 10 11 In elevation there was concern from the Board and in the neighborhood about the height of the 12 building. And so the September 19th presentation still had the sinuous outline of those slabs kind of 13 zig-zagging up to the 50 foot height limit. They now stop at 37 feet. We still have a nice, elegant zig-14 zag in our opinion and what has happened is we pushed the entire slab back to allow, I don’t know, five 15 feet off of the face of the glass. So there’s still a little covered area. This is a comparison here. 16 Previously that roof slab came out to there and the revised design brings it back to there. It’s about five 17 feet I think from the face of the glass. So it steps back a good 12 to 15 feet probably from where it was 18 before and it’s at 37 feet. 19 20 Now you also asked at that time and you should have the project that we’re, have for next door that’s a 21 prelim right now, has not been brought to you yet but will soon. You wanted to see how it related to 22 the building. So we just, we stuck these… were these in your packet? Oh they were. Ok. So we have 23 the two buildings. This is Mr. Kleiman’s project here and this is for James Lin and his wife Clarissa 24 there. A lot of similar features actually even the bay window in the existing building here has that 25 vertical accent that we’ve kind of picked up boom, boom, boom. Our project today here and then the 26 new project they are both carved out sort of in the center where we have windows that face one another. 27 The buildings step back in the center. This, Dave’s project really has views out towards Waverley 28 Street unless you walk out on the terrace, but there’s plenty of light in there that comes in vis-à-vis this, 29 the big opening between the two projects. I think I had and the view of the back. This is 636 and then 30 the building next door, again you can see the carve out there. A lot of similar features, similar building 31 size, different materiality to some extent. These are two-story condos on this side whereas these are 32 flats. And then the bases of the buildings are very similar in terms of vocabulary and materiality. 33 34 And this is the revised rendering for 636. Shows how we’ve pulled that roof slab that was actually out 35 here back and this is the one option on the planter which is raised and it has like a two foot zone for 36 someone to pull up and get out with their door to be able to open between the curb and the planter. 37 This is the preferred direction. We don’t yet have Public Works support on that. We’d like to get your 38 opinion I think. We believe that this is going, the plant material has a better chance of surviving 39 without getting trampled and then this is the other option where it’s either that or that in front. And I 40 think that’s it. So thank you very much. Hopefully we’ve responded to the neighborhood’s requests as 41 well as your concerns from last meeting. Look forward to your comments. 42 43 Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you. We have four speakers. You’ll each have three minutes. The first 44 is Doug Scafe to be followed by Janice Berman. 45 46 Doug Scafe: I have one slide, but she’s not here so I [unintelligible]. My name is Doug Scafe, I reside 47 at 659 Waverley across the street from the proposed development. I’m formerly representing the 48 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Waverley Plaza Homeowners Association Board of Directors today. Homeowners Association 1 includes 17 homeowners from 653 to 685 Waverley. The Homeowners Association Board has 2 expressed the following concerns with the proposed building: 1) is not compatible with the 3 neighborhood because it’s too large and too tall, i.e. the massing is not compatible; 2) it needs to be set 4 back from the sidewalk as are all of the buildings on both sides of the street; 3) it needs to have 5 landscaping at least equivalent to what is in the neighborhood; and 4) there is a strong concern about 6 street parking especially when an Architectural Review Board (ARB) Member at the last ARB meeting 7 said that in his considerable experience nobody uses the lift systems because they are too lazy and park 8 on the street instead. 9 10 I also want to point out several misleading items presented by the architect in his presentations. 11 Building heights: the presentation says that the condominium building at 690 Waverley is five to six 12 stories tall when in fact it is three to five stories and only three facing Waverley Street. The historic 13 house at 650 Waverley was stated as three stories when it is two. And lastly they’ve shown the two-14 story apartment building at 628 Waverley approximately 20 percent taller than it really is making their 15 building look smaller. That’s that picture right there. And 628 Waverley they’re showing again with 16 no landscaping in front when it does have landscaping. I brought that up at previous meetings. All of 17 these however intentional tend to make their building look better, in a better light than it really is. And 18 five of the six buildings on that street are one or two stories. I don’t know how a four-story in the 19 middle of a block fits. 20 21 As I said there’s essentially no landscaping, one planter on the sidewalk and some vines on some walls. 22 The solution proposed at the last ARB and shown today, let’s build a planting boarder in the City’s 23 parking narrowing the sidewalk to five feet, how does that fit in the downtown zoning? And since it, 24 doing a boarder just in front of 636 would look bad, let’s extend it to 640. I really don’t understand 25 how the ARB can justify one building which hasn’t been approved by basing it on another unapproved 26 building. So if you approve one you must approve the other and then I suppose a third at 628. This 27 domino effect is an abuse of the planning process and why whole neighborhoods can disappear when 28 you approve the first building. 29 30 I marvel at how the ARB can really believe that the proposed building is compatible with the 31 neighborhood. If I could show my slide, sorry for the… 32 33 Vice-Chair Lippert: I put you on hold until we get your image up there. 34 35 Mr. Scafe: It’s up on the top. And it’s not a great representation, but this is how that building looks on 36 that street and the sizes are approximate. You have one-story Post Office, you have a two-story 37 apartment building, currently you have a one-story building where this one is going. You have a one-38 story building next to it, you have a two-story building next to that, and on the corner you have three-39 story going up to five. 40 41 Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you for your comments. Next we have Janice Berman followed by 42 Douglas Smith. 43 44 Janice Berman: My name is Janice Berman. As we have seen over the past few months the concerns 45 about the Kleiman and Hayes proposal for 636 Waverley are many and varied. I leave it to the experts 46 to discuss the parking situation. I’m here as an owner at the condo building at 661 Waverley Street, 47 corner of Forest, which Mr. Kleiman has characterized as “modern.” Clearly he hasn’t lived here. He 48 City of Palo Alto Page 5 feels we are hypocritical to dislike his building. I am not particularly fond of Neo-Spanish, 1 Neocolonial, or neo-anything. Frankly I like the work of Frank Gehry. But I do like my home, not 2 because of its style, but because it comfortable and nicely sited far away from the street and accented 3 by a few trees with leaves, birds, and nasty squirrels who eat the plants on our balcony. 4 5 Mr. Kleiman has said we don’t want his building because it will interfere with our views. Nonsense, 6 we don’t have views. We have greenery and a few nice chunks of sky. That’s what we have and that’s 7 what we think as human beings we are entitled to continue to enjoy and required to protect. Mr. 8 Kleiman would eliminate our chunks of sky, a big ginkgo tree out in front of his project, and yes, the 9 hills beyond Palo Alto when we can see them if his plans are fulfilled and a 50 foot high, oh, plus 15 10 feet in would be accessories if a series of buildings is constructed across Waverley Street from our 11 home after 636 and 640 are permitted. These buildings while they may be described as contemporary 12 are also out of character with our Street. They are too close to the curb, they have no setbacks, they 13 lack greenery. There is no inevitability in this project. It will destroy the character of our street and be 14 the opening brick in a 50 foot wall of buildings further crowding and dehumanizing our community. I 15 urge you to press for further modifications in the plans for 636, especially for larger setbacks and more 16 effective landscaping and to use that process as a template for all future proposals that may be 17 concocted for our block of Waverley Street. Thank you very much. 18 19 Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you for your comments. Next we have Douglas Smith to be followed by 20 [Jafa Dadone]. 21 22 Douglas Smith: Good morning Members of the Board, I am Douglas Smith. I’ve reviewed video 23 recordings of prior ARB meetings on this application and of the September ARB study section on 24 aesthetics and compatibility. I have two comments. On August 15th Mr. Hayes refers to his design as 25 similar to some elements in All Saints Church on the corner of Hamilton and Waverley across the street 26 from the proposed project, but this structure is truly ugly. It’s an all concrete Brutalist abstraction that 27 really nobody should be emulating. It faired very poorly in my architectural style preference survey 28 compared to the Carpenter Gothic Saint Thomas Aquinas just a couple of blocks away on Waverley. 29 30 In both the August and September ARB meetings on 636 Waverley Mr. Hayes either did not mention 31 the best buildings on the block, which are the 650 Waverley, the yellow house, heritage house, built in 32 1901 or the Birge Clark Post Office or he mentioned them only in passing. The, his design is 33 completely at odds with both of them, stylistically incompatible with these really fine buildings. The 34 public agrees. 85 percent in my public survey find it incompatible with other buildings on the block 35 and only 14 and a half percent believe it is compatible. Pertaining to the survey in the study session 36 and in his participation with a group of 24 architects who wrote a letter to [unintelligible] organization 37 recently Mr. Popp, Board Member Popp declared that he finds the survey distorted in its perspective, 38 has too few respondents, and is generally unreliable method of representing public opinion. Mr. Popp 39 and his colleges either I believe do not understand the mechanisms of public opinion surveys or do not 40 wish to accept the results. 41 42 To date more than 900 respondents have registered their opinions. The results have not shifted by more 43 than one or two percent’s. Last time I reported 83.9 percent incompatibility, a vote on incompatibility. 44 Now the number is 85 and a half. A survey company like SurveyMonkey could not succeed if surveys 45 of a small but representative sample were not truly accurate. National surveys by news organizations 46 like CNN, NBC, Fox News in 2012 used a sample size of about 1,000 to 1,500 for the 2012 47 Presidential election. 900 for a local group, a local area like Palo Alto is in comparison an enormous 48 City of Palo Alto Page 6 sample and I stand by the results. 85 to 15 percent is an overwhelming vote against compatibility of 1 this design. I hope you will abide by public opinion. 2 3 Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you for your comments. 4 5 Mr. Smith: Thank you. 6 7 Chair Malone Prichard: Next we have Jafa is it Dadone or DaDune? Dadone. Followed by John 8 Hannah. 9 10 [Jafa Dadone]: Yeah, thank you. I live in 671 Waverley and I have two comments to say. I am 11 concerned about the look of the building. It is too massive really with no setback and [blank audio at 12 1:14:00ish] residential area. Second, I’m really concerned about parking, ok? I think that the employee 13 are [unintelligible] to the inconvenient lift and they will fill the neighborhood. I now having visitors 14 and they have a hard time finding parking so I’m really concerned with this extra project that that will 15 really hinder on a weekly basis my helper have a hard time finding a parking spot so. So there is no 16 parking for them and all the street around when I go it sometimes take 15, 20 minute to find a parking 17 lot for my car so my helper can take my parking [unintelligible] and that’s really on a weekly basis. So 18 I would like this project to consider a lot of parking that is [going to be] I don’t know where they going 19 to put it, but it’s the parking solution need to be found. Thank you. 20 21 Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you for your comments and our final speaker is John Hannah. 22 23 John Hannah: Good morning. I came here because I’ve been reading some of the letters to the paper 24 commenting about this project and I feel unable to express my opinion as to how difficult your job must 25 be when you have your own opinions and you have all the opinions from the public trying to tell people 26 how to design their buildings and the unenviable result if you listen to that cacophony is you end up 27 with a camel, meaning no disrespect to camels, but it’s a metaphor. And to me it seems I go along with 28 the staff report, which says that the existing environment is comprised of eclectic buildings of various 29 architectural styles and building heights and the proposed building with its scaled massing and 30 architectural style fits within this mixed context. So without trying to tell the architect how to redesign 31 his building I think the building that you see certainly I go along with the staff finding that it fits with 32 what’s there. It’s not all Birge Clark, it’s not Neo-Spanish, it’s eclectic. 33 34 And the one thing I do want to make a note of is that the biggest problem that we’ve had and heard 35 about lately in Palo Alto is the lack of parking. And so you look at this building and not only has he 36 gone underground partially, which makes the parking much more expensive, he’s also put in lifts, 37 which makes it even more expensive. So this is the most expensive solution that you can find to 38 develop adequate parking on the site like this. And I think that that’s the kind of thing that ought to be 39 encouraged. We should see more of this where people are willing to spend the money to satisfy the 40 parking requirement and that’s about all I have to say. I hope that you approve the project. Thank you. 41 42 Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you for your comments. So let’s go to Board Member questions and 43 comments. Let’s start with Lee. 44 45 Vice-Chair Lippert: First of all I want to thank the applicant for listening to our last comments. You’ve 46 done exactly what I requested of you and I think you’re spot on here with reducing, bringing the 47 canopy back I think reduces the height of the building significantly. Mr. Scafe’s image up here does 48 City of Palo Alto Page 7 not reflect that, does not show that, but in looking at your drawings here or the documents here it does 1 and I think that it helps in terms of reducing the massing of the building. I think that you’re in terms of 2 the landscaping I really appreciate you trying to work things out with Public Works. I prefer the raised 3 planter, but I don’t think that they would go along with that either. But its, I think it’s a vast 4 improvement and if I were to, if this were to move forward I would want to see it with the raised 5 planter proposal. I think that it’s significant. 6 7 I just want to reiterate a couple of comments that I made earlier before. This is really an additive 8 project. What I mean by that is that the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in terms of this is taking the 9 commercial FAR and a residential FAR and adding them together correct? To reach the maximum 10 allowable FAR. If anybody were to come forward with this project with that proposal we really don’t 11 have very much to say in terms of the size and the massing. What really helps in terms of looking at 12 this project today is that you are able to provide us with images of what the proposal or at least the 13 preliminary proposal for the adjacent property, which really allows us to look at the whole context there 14 now. It’s a complete streetscape and so we understand what the massing of the building is for the 15 proposed project and the adjacent projects and even though that this is a very eclectic sort of 16 neighborhood, there are a variety of styles here I think that that really sort of finishes off your building 17 and really makes it look complete even though it’s the adjacent property. 18 19 What I also wanted to make mention of is that we do have two historic properties along that block. 20 Actually there are many more, but they’re not immediately adjacent. And the Secretary of Standards, 21 the Secretary of Interior Standards they’re back to work again require that whatever is built in the 22 context of historic buildings really needs to be of a different style so that you’re not creating a false 23 history. And so in this case by using a modern theme to both of these buildings what you’ve done is 24 you’ve actually elevated the nature of the two historic buildings on the block as being far more 25 identifiable as being part of Palo Alto’s history. There’s no way that anybody would ever confuse these 26 as being historic buildings. So I think your choice of style here within this neighborhood is also 27 appropriate from that point of view. So with that I have no problem in moving on this and approving it 28 today, but I’d like to hear what my colleagues have to say as well. 29 30 Chair Malone Prichard: Alex. 31 32 Board Member Lew: So I have a couple suggestions for the applicant to add to the drawing set and 33 then, well [unintelligible] just give me a second. In anticipation of this project being appealed and I 34 think that there’s some document and some drawings that could be added to this set that the Council 35 would probably want to see. One is I think that is a contextual site plan. The second thing here is 36 really not, it’s just a building site plan. I’m thinking like a neighborhood site plan that actually has all 37 of the neighboring, like the whole block, all the buildings with the footprints and also maybe like the 38 fourth floor setbacks. I think the neighbors are generally right that there is very nice landscape quality 39 to the block that is missing in your particular project. I think in fairness I think you have a very small 40 parcel and you’re trying to park, fully park it and that you’re fairly constrained and I think that some 41 leeway should be given for that with regard to the landscaping, but I mean generally on this particular 42 block since you’re doing like this is a mid-block infill generally I would recommend like for staff like a 43 contextual setback. I know that’s not, you do that elsewhere in some of the residential areas, but we 44 don’t really do that for commercial, but generally I would think of this block as being like something a 45 transitional block between downtown and the residential blocks. Our zoning doesn’t say that. Our 46 zoning actually says its downtown and it should be at the 50 percent should be at the build to twelve 47 foot setback, excuse me. The, but anyway I think that that drawing would be useful to have. 48 City of Palo Alto Page 8 1 I think that the quality of the block is mostly determined actually on the other side of the street. There 2 are a couple of really beautiful oak trees and there’s sort of like nice landscaping all along the edge of 3 the sidewalk and I don’t think that the character is quite so determined by the, the high quality aesthetic 4 isn’t really determined by your side of the street as much. I think that’s mostly because there’s large 5 landscaping and stuff in front of the Post Office. And if we’re actually saying that this is like largely 6 compatible with like Hamilton, like buildings downtown on Hamilton then I think we actually need to 7 that should be drawn. If we’re saying the context is somewhere else then I think it needs to be drawn. 8 Generally though I think that the massing with the reduced setback on your second floor porch 9 overhang has helped the building tremendously. I think the, if you compare it to the condominium at 10 Forest and Waverley and also the Wells Fargo Bank those, their upper floors are setback and I think 11 that reducing that overhang has really helped the building a lot. 12 13 The building if I might address the concrete I think there are some important environmental or 14 sustainable decisions in making in the choice of concrete and we haven’t really talked about that a lot, 15 but I do know of other architects doing work like your building, like net zero buildings who have 16 chosen to use concrete for sustainable reasons. And I was wondering if you would be willing to talk 17 about how you’ve chosen to do this instead of like a wood frame building with finishes with like 18 aesthetic fishes or veneer finishes? And then also with regard to the concrete it seems like you’re 19 picking a fairly grey color and it seems I was looking at some of the other concrete buildings, say like 20 the All Saints Church. I also looked at the Berkeley Art Museum, which is a really beautiful concrete 21 building and it seems like the concrete that you’re choosing is very dark and grey and cool and it seems 22 like a warmer color like the All Saints Church could be more compatible with the neighboring 23 buildings. Thank you. 24 25 Mr. Hayes: Alex I’m going to jump in and answer some of your questions. We’re actually using the 26 same contractor that did the Berkeley Art Museum and the renderings really don’t reflect what we’re 27 planning, which would not be a dark concrete at all. We want a natural concrete. 28 29 Board Member Lew: And then could you… the sample looks fairly, the Davis color looks grey and I 30 was wondering if you could, I really it’s hard to judge it inside. Yeah. I’d have to, yeah, I’d have to 31 see, you know concrete is like a chameleon color. You actually have to see it in the sun and we can’t 32 really judge it here. Could I just (interrupted) 33 34 Mr. Hayes: [Unintelligible] is a little bit lighter. Actually the Berkeley Art Museum is a little bit 35 darker, but there is fly ash which kind of colors the mix. But we’re definitely looking for a natural not 36 a colored concrete at all and that’s something that would really be a darker grey. It would be more of a 37 natural appearing. 38 39 Board Member Lew: Can I say like All Saints there’s the existing building and there’s like the [Cootie 40 Anderson] addition and they’re very different. Night and day. And I don’t really like the addition at 41 all, it’s very white. And I realize that concrete can get a patina over time and change like, change 42 colors and stuff. And then I also think that concrete is like if you look at the best concrete buildings 43 like say like [Moviecom] it sometimes it relies on the materials that are next to it. So [Moviecom] is 44 like has like the weathered teak right next to the oak and that give or next to the concrete and that gives 45 it the richness. And is there a way to review the concrete like actual samples from when you’re doing 46 (interrupted) 47 48 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Mr. Hayes: Absolutely. 1 2 Board Member Lew: Tests and samples and you know (interrupted) 3 4 Mr. Hayes: [Unintelligible] plan to have them mold a small section on the site so we can see it, review 5 it, and agree that that’s the one. 6 7 Board Member Lew: And then also on just on the your choice of using concrete as opposed to wood or 8 steel or whatnot? 9 10 Mr. Hayes: We actually just as a slight aside we are, we do plan to deconstruct and fully reuse the 11 materials in the existing building, which as it turns out is redwood. So we’re going to plane it. There is 12 some lead paint. Obviously we have to properly remove that, but we do plan to reuse it as an interior 13 finish. But the decision to go with concrete was very purposeful. We really didn’t want to use new 14 materials. We want to use a recycled product and most of the concrete as you know is recycled now 15 and with fly ash and we do plan to have integral heating, we’re not adding additional sheet metal duct 16 work. We’re trying to actually reduce the drywall to less than about 800 square feet total on the entire 17 building so it’ll be fully exposed. We just barely make it within the energy code, but we can do it with 18 this design. As you know it is going to be net zero. That’s our goal. So yeah, we definitely we’re very 19 purposeful and the choice it’s clearly we could do a much less expensive building with the exact same 20 footprint by going with wood or something, but I’m not interested in trying to do that. 21 22 Board Member Lew: Right. And [unintelligible] in some of the buildings that I’ve worked on like 23 energy consultants that they actually liked the concrete because it provides thermal mass and cool, 24 which is sort of a weird term. So it’s just it keeps the temperature of the building more stable and you 25 don’t have to use like basically what happens now you have a cheap wood building with leaky 26 windows and people just blast on the heat and blast on the air conditioner and causes all sorts of 27 craziness and uses a huge amount of energy and isn’t really, it’s just it’s terribly inefficient. 28 29 Ok, and then I think the in the conditions of approval there in the electrical engineering department is 30 saying that the project requires a pad-mounted transformer and then the plans are showing an under like 31 tying into an underground vault and I was wondering what the status is of that. 32 33 Mr. Hayes: We were able to convince them to reconsider that. They actually went out and tested the 34 load on the existing transformer so not only will we definitely not need a pad-mounted transformer, but 35 tentatively that we’ll actually have a final answer tomorrow. It appears that we’ll be able to reuse the 36 existing recessed transformer that’s on the adjacent property. They think there’s load and he said that 37 almost as a kind of worst case if there isn’t we should be able to reuse that exact same vault and just put 38 a new slightly larger transformer in. 39 40 Board Member Lew: That was excellent news because otherwise we would have a problem. 41 42 Mr. Hayes: We definitely wouldn’t do it above grade. 43 44 Board Member Lew: Ok. And then I did want to address, we did get an e-mail from Mr. [Levinski] 45 who has come before us previously about the parking issue. And I just wanted to say that he, I mean he 46 was opposed to the shared parking reduction on your particular project. And I just want to clarify with 47 City of Palo Alto Page 10 staff, that’s a Director’s level adjustment that the Board doesn’t really have any say over. I mean 1 you… 2 3 Ms. French: Yeah. So the Director upon acting on the application is making that determination based 4 on what’s proposed as far as reductions and of course all of it is subject to appeal to the Council. So if 5 appealed it’s the Council’s decision. 6 7 Board Member Lew: Ok. So I just want to address a couple of things. I did take a, I did go to a lecture 8 by Richard Willson who’s a professor at Cal Poly Pomona and has a book about parking reform and 9 he’s a student of Donald Schoup and has a book on the high cost of free parking. And Mr. [Levinski] 10 does have some very important points, which is that just using the regular Institute of Transportation 11 Engineers (ITE) data is not really that great to rely on. That really it’s better to have your own data. 12 And I think that if I understand staff correctly that in the downtown what do you call it? The 13 downtown cap? That the parking is going to be studied and maybe I don’t know if we’re going to get 14 data for that. I know Aaron is sort of in charge of that, but getting good data is really important. And I 15 don’t think that we should require for like this very small infill project, but I think having the right data 16 for what people are actually doing and the actual parking utilization rates and all of that is the way to 17 go. Let’s have the data for Palo Alto because things are different here than in elsewhere in the country. 18 19 And then I think the other thing to think about is that in the code is whether you’re designing for like 20 peak use or like the author Donald Schoup is arguing for like design for the 85 percent use or some 21 other and then also Richard Willson was arguing for like the average parking use. And I don’t know 22 what’s right for Palo Alto. I think our code designs for the peak use if I’m understanding it correctly. 23 And the issue is not to, you don’t want to over park. There are beautiful buildings in, like I went to 24 school in St. Louis. There would be like two beautiful side by side historic buildings and the 25 developers would tear down one historic building to put in a parking garage to serve one historic 26 building. And the preservationists were torn. It’s like which one? Are we going to save one building 27 and sacrifice the other? Or we might lose both so maybe we should preserve one? Or if you look at 28 Detroit there’s parking everywhere. It’s actually very dangerous to say like the idea of having fully 29 parked is kind of a dangerous way of going. The best cities are actually difficult to park in. I think the 30 issue is how we manage it. So I think that Mr. [Levinski’s] comments are valid. I think it should be for 31 the whole downtown study and not sort of targeted to this one particular project. 32 33 And then I think others have testified about the lifts and I think yeah, I think it’s right. I mean people, 34 why use this lift if you can just park on the street? My understanding when I worked in downtown was 35 parking was so scarce we actually when I worked on Hamilton we actually sort of had our own little 36 informal valet service and we just jammed all the cars in the lot and we just managed it ourselves. And 37 I think that’s what typically happens downtown I mean people if they’re not parking in the residential 38 areas and hopefully the changes to the parking zones will help with that. 39 40 And I think that’s all I have to say on this project. I think generally I would recommend more, a little 41 bit more landscaping on the front of the building. I think your planter right by the front door looks 42 awfully small. I’m a gardener and it’s really hard to plant in such a narrow space. And but generally, 43 conceptually I’m in support of your project. I think the colors and stuff and all of that I think need to 44 come back to us just for somehow the actual, the concrete samples or something, yeah. At some point. 45 Thank you. 46 47 Mr. Hayes: Thank you. 48 City of Palo Alto Page 11 1 Chair Malone Prichard: Robert. 2 3 Board Member Gooyer: Ok, I’m sort of struggling with something in the sense that a lot of the 4 discussions have been regarding how eclectic this streetscape is and we’ve worked hard on trying to 5 step the massing back a little bit so it doesn’t look as overpowering and the reality of it is seeing 6 something like this in an elevation you’re never going to see it that way in real life anyway. So I 7 understand what you said in the picture you’ve got now that it actually looks like a three-story building 8 as far as that instead of four, which I think is a great step in the right direction. 9 10 The thing that is always, that bothers me a little bit is the whole once the genie is out of the bottle or the 11 cat out of the bag now that I see the building that is proposed, again we haven’t addressed it yet, but 12 next to it all of a sudden it’s like whoa! That to me changes the whole concept because the reality of it 13 is we’ve taken a lot of effort to get rid of the eyebrow if you want to call it for the other building and 14 step it back and go through all that and then the proposed, and again maybe I’m stepping over my 15 bounds and I’m not allowed to look at that, but hey, if it’s here I’m going to comment on it. The reality 16 of it is then you have the new building coming in with its stair tower right next to the same thing. So 17 all of a sudden that second stair tower sort of defeats any of the stepping back concept we did for this 18 building. And it’s like whoa! You know, I mean it also there’s nothing eclectic about those two 19 buildings. They are almost identical. I mean it obviously if I didn’t sit here, but walking by I’d go 20 that’s obviously probably from the same architect, same vintage, everything else. And all of a sudden 21 the massing becomes much greater because then all of a sudden the building at 636 is just sort of half of 22 a much larger building and then this, the modern portion here begins to almost dominate that side of the 23 block. And so it… and again maybe I’m just I’m getting worried about something, but the reality of it 24 is if both of these buildings get built it’s still going to be perceived that way. Nobody’s going to say 25 “Oh, well they decided to do one building first and then the second one came around.” If the eclectic 26 aspect of it seems to disappear like I said with these two buildings that all of a sudden that are, that will 27 be four stories and at this point also have a pretty wide footprint on the streets. 28 29 So again I haven’t been involved in all the nuances as much, but it just seems to me that a lot of the 30 changes I’ve seen have been to diminish the even virtual bulk or virtual mass of the eyebrow because 31 actually if you look at it just from an aesthetic standpoint it’s actually a very delicate building. It just 32 has the perception of mass. But then you put this second building next to it with the other stair tower 33 and that whole perception goes away and it’s just mass then all of a sudden. And that’s the one, it 34 seems like the one thing that I keep hearing from the whole neighborhood is that they don’t want. So 35 it’s almost a matter of we’re defeating the purpose of all the work we’ve done here by looking at the 36 building next door to it, which isn’t helping this one any. 37 38 Same thing when you look at the fourth story the person standing on the balcony as you said looks to 39 their what would it be? South and all you see is a big, blank wall. And I mean so why bother having a 40 nice balcony up there that even wraps around as you said all the view is out to the east. It’s the two 41 buildings seem to be fighting each other and again, like I said it’s… we’re not really reviewing both 42 buildings at the same time, but let’s face it they’re at one point they’re going to be both whether we 43 address that now or in two months or whatever when the other one comes up. 44 45 So as far as the building itself I think it’s gone a long ways to address the concerns that both the Board 46 and I think a lot of the neighbors had and I think that’s a definite plus. The landscaping I agree I like 47 the raised planter better, but I think we all agree that that’s probably not going to fly. Also agree that 48 City of Palo Alto Page 12 the planter in front of the building probably should be a little larger because something that small just 1 isn’t going to grow anything. And having like I said if I could pretend I haven’t seen the building next 2 door to it it’s come a long way and I think you’re going in the right direction and it’s approvable. All 3 I’m saying is just that if that building is going to be presented like that I’m going to have a real problem 4 with the second building. That’s just sort of a head’s up then. And I think that’s it for me. 5 6 Chair Malone Prichard: Randy. 7 8 Board Member Popp: Great. Well, I’m really appreciate of all the comments that others have made 9 here today and at the hearings that I wasn’t present for in the past. Respectfully to my colleague Mr. 10 Gooyer we’re not looking at the other building today. And when Mr. Kleiman first came in with an 11 application for this site he showed us a building that was wildly different than what we’re looking at 12 today. Wildly different. And while I appreciate having the context of the packet that we’re seeing for 13 the building next door it’s not what I’m considering today because that building will have to stand on 14 its own and it’ll have to respond to the context that it’s built within. And whatever we approve for this 15 site will be part of that. And so I’m not concerned about that today. 16 17 What I’m concerned about today is the character of this building on this block in 2013. And what I like 18 here is the clarity of the concept. What I like here is that there’s an idea which is being expressed and 19 it’s different than most of the other projects that we see in that way. Tell me a story, evoke some 20 emotion, force me to stop and think for a minute. I really appreciate that. And so for me this is a 21 handsome and exciting project. It really enhances the varied character of this block and is reflective of 22 Palo Alto and the progress and the technology and the design that is so much a part of this community. 23 Great materials, great application of those materials. 24 25 I really appreciate what Lee says about not creating false history. I think that that’s a very important 26 comment to make here. I’ll respond to Alex’s comments just for a moment and say that I really do 27 think that you need to prepare the right types of documents here in advance so that we are able to fully 28 understand. Somewhere between the information that you’re providing and the information that the 29 neighbors have produced in terms of what the heights are and what this context all looks like and all of 30 those things is accuracy and we’re going to need the accuracy to see that so I’ll be appreciative of 31 having that when it’s time. 32 33 And Mr. Hannah’s comments I think are very important to hear. That we have a tremendous parking 34 challenge in Palo Alto and an applicant who is willing to come forward with the most costly solution 35 and very challenging in terms of construction not just for cost, but also the duration that it adds to the 36 project is something we really need to encourage. I too have a very challenging parking situation at my 37 office. We have tandem parking. We move cars back and forth all day long and we do that because 38 there is no parking on the street. There just aren’t other options and so we park in a complex way. And 39 I think that that’s likely what will happen here as well because I don’t see the parking problems 40 disappearing. There aren’t spaces on the street and you’re going to have to use those stackers. And I 41 think that we need to encourage that. 42 43 I think that the concrete color is really important to address. And I appreciate that you’re willing to do 44 some mock ups of that. I think that the comment that I would make is definitely maybe a little warmer 45 perhaps, but certainly not lighter. I don’t think going much lighter particularly in something that’s 46 going to have this much exposure [interrupted by earthquake alarm] sunlight. Something that’s out in 47 the sunlight as this will be needs to be really visualized in its context. And so we’ll look forward to 48 City of Palo Alto Page 13 having that. It’s not unusual for us to get called out to a project site while it’s in construction and we’ll, 1 whoever’s on the subcommittee at the time will take care of that for you. 2 3 But I don’t have much else to say in terms of the application itself. I wanted to just point out again in 4 the comments that I’m reading in the site specific comments Item 2 has a comment that looks like it 5 was sort of a personalized comment for parking assessment purposes. “I do not believe there can be a 6 reduction or modification of the assessment formula.” I’m not sure who wrote this or how it was 7 written, but just wordsmithing there a little bit too… I’m looking at the site specific comments under 8 Public Works Engineering, Page 3 of 17, Comment 2. The last line says, “I do not believe there can be 9 a reduction,” and I think we want to alter that language so that it’s more appropriate. It’s clear 10 somebody was just making comments and it was incorporated here and we just need to correct that. 11 But for me I think I’m prepared to move this project forward. Thank you. 12 13 Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you for making this major change. I know you didn’t want to do this, 14 but I think it was the right move pulling the upper floor back. It’s made a great improvement in the 15 massing and the relationship to the neighborhood to no longer have the feeling of the four-story mass. 16 17 Thank you also for brining in the contextual information about the proposed project next door. I do 18 want to make it clear that we [interrupted by earthquake alarm]. I practiced that in elementary school; I 19 think I’m good at it. I think they’re done. So we are reviewing the project as presented. It’s not being 20 based upon any other approvals that may or may not be coming. So the project next door may or may 21 not happen. We don’t know, we don’t know exactly what it will look like. But I feel comfortable 22 moving this project forward on its own merits. 23 24 So just had one question for staff, in looking through the findings it looked as if you did incorporate the 25 comments I made either last hearing or at a previous hearing. 26 27 Ms. French: Yes I did. 28 29 Chair Malone Prichard: Yes. Thank you. So I’m perfectly happy to move this project to the next level. 30 Yes, you have a follow-up? 31 32 Mr. Hayes: It would, we’re actually we, I convinced Public Works to meet with me on Monday to 33 discuss the planter raised versus… but they were initially opposed to the raised planter, but I showed 34 them some context and design standards from Portland and Chicago and some other places. And so 35 they said well, we’ll talk to you about it, we’re not committing. So is everyone, I mean it would be 36 helpful to get kind of a read. Is everyone pretty consistently agreed that the raised planter is the more 37 preferable choice? I think it would be helpful in my discussions with them to get that reading. 38 39 Chair Malone Prichard: So I would say that when we make a Motion let’s include a recommendation in 40 that Motion. 41 42 Board Member Lew: Can I ask the Board? Are there other raised planters downtown? Where are 43 those? 44 45 Vice-Chair Lippert: I had done a raised planter at the corner of Waverley and Homer. There’s a low, a 46 building that Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) used to occupy. It’s a single story and we had 47 used the semi-raised planter inboard of the sidewalk ok? But it was still in the public right of way and 48 City of Palo Alto Page 14 that’s because it boarders onto a handicapped ramp and so to sort of finish that off and make the ramp 1 look like it wasn’t just a ramp we had done plantings in it to make that transition. 2 3 Chair Malone Prichard: And there are some which I think are actually not very successful on Forest 4 Avenue just a couple of blocks up. And the reason I think they are not successful is they are so wide 5 that they take you if you’re walking along the sidewalk you have to detour quite a long distance to walk 6 along the sidewalk inboard of the planter, which it would not be the case here. 7 8 Board Member Lew: That was the only one that I could think of and I hate those. The one on Forest. 9 10 MOTION 11 12 Chair Malone Prichard: So I would move that we recommend approval of the project with the 13 following conditions: that the concrete sample be reviewed by members of the subcommittee during 14 construction on site; and that the Board recommends that the raised planter be included. However, if it 15 is not included then we would want to see the at grade planter. 16 17 SECOND 18 19 Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second. 20 21 VOTE 22 23 Chair Malone Prichard: All in favor? Aye. And none opposed? One opposed? 24 25 Board Member Lew: Me. 26 27 Chair Malone Prichard: One opposed. Thank you. We’ll take a two minute break before our next item. 28 29 MOTION PASSED (4-1, Board Member Lew opposed) 30 31 32 ADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations to 33 access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn more about the City’s compliance 34 with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), please contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at 650.329.2550 (voice) 35 or by e-mailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. 36 37 Posting of agenda. This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section 38 54956.Recordings. A videotape of the proceedings can be obtained/reviewed by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 39 329-2571. 40 41 Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Architectural Review Board after 42 distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Planning and Community 43 Environment Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor, Palo Alto, CA. 94301 during normal 44 business hours. 45 46 47 ATTACHMENT H Page 1 of 1 ZONING COMPLIANCE TABLE 636 Waverley Street [13PLN-00262] CD-C ZONE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STANDARD PROPOSED PROJECT CONFORMS Lot Size None 5,278 sf Yes Minimum Building Setback Front Yard None Required None Yes Rear Yard 10’ for residential portion 10’-1” Yes Interior Side Yards None Required 6” Yes Maximum Site Coverage (building footprint) None Required 4,752 sf (90%) Yes Maximum Height 50’ 50’ Yes Daylight Plane Same as abutting residential zones Not Applicable Yes Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 2.0:1 = 10,556 sf Residential: 5,478 sf Commercial: 4,800 sf 1.9:1 Yes Landscape Open Space 20% 1,055 sf > 1,055 sf Yes Usable Open Space 200 sf/living unit > 200 sf/unit Yes Parking Requirement (within the Downtown Parking Assessment District) 23 spaces 1 space/250 sf commercial area 2 spaces/living unit 20 spaces Yes* Bicycle Parking 4 spaces 1 space/commercial 2,500 sf = 2 1 space/living unit = 2 Long Term: 4 Short Term: 2 Yes *Parking summary: Required spaces before adjustments 23 spaces Shared Parking Facilities Reduction 11% ** -2.52 Required spaces after adjustments 20 spaces ** Allowed adjustment based upon TJKM Parking Evaluation, 09/18/2013 9400 Council Members Only Page 1