Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2000-09-18 City Council (23)
City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:SEPTEMBER 18, 2000 CMR:366:00 SUBJECT:2275 EL CAMINO REAL: APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT’S APPROVAL, AFTER REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD, OF AN APPLICATION BY MOYER AND ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS, ON BEHALF OF JIM BAER, TO ALLOW THE REMODEL AND EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING TO HOUSE THE FIRST REPUBLIC BANK. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES PARKING, LANDSCAPING, AND OTHER RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. ZONE DISTRICT: CC(2). FILE NUMBERS 99-ARB-139 AND 99-EIA-28o RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval of the proposed project and the associated Negative Declaration. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located on the northern corner of E1 Camino Real and Cambridge Avenue, with the rear of the lot fronting on Sedro Lane. The site is located in the CC(2) Community Commercial Combining District, and is currently developed with an 8,282-square-foot, one- story commercial building. The project proposes the demolition of 768 square feet of the existing building and the addition of 3,522 square feet on the first and second floors. The total building area upon completion of the project would be 11,036 square feet (2,754 net new square feet). The building’s sole tenant is proposed to be the First Republic Bank. CMR:366:00 Page 1 of 7 There is no parking currently on the site and the property owner pays into the California Avenue Parking Assessment District in an amount equal to the required parking for the existing building (31 parking spaces). Because the property owner pays into the parking assessment district, the applicant is only required to provide nine off-street parking spaces for the new building area proposed (PAMC Chapter 18.83). As originally proposed, the project included a parking lot with eight spaces (including one van-accessible space), eight Class I bicycle lockers, and one Class III bicycle rack. The bicycle lockers were provided in lieu of one required automobile parking space, as allowed by Section 18.83.120(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). The project also included a request for a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) to allow a 2.5-foot reduction in the width of a required perimeter landscaped strip along Sedro Lane, in order to accommodate the van-accessible parking space. On July 20, 2000, the Architectural Board of Review (ARB) required as a condition of approval that the project include at least 310 square feet of on-site employee amenities, which would reduce the parking required for the new portion of the building by one space (as allowed by PAMC Section 18.83.120(b)). The ARB also required conversion of the resulting unused space into landscaping, which would allow the project to meet the PAMC requirements for perimeter landscaping. As a result of these conditions, the project no longer requires a DEE. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed project has been reviewed by the ARB at four meetings (January 6, 2000, May 4, 2000, June 1, 2000, and July 20, 2000). The project description has remained substantially unchanged throughout the ARB review process. January 6, 2000, May 4, 2000, and June 1, 2000 ARB Meetings At its meetings of January 6, May 4, and June 1, 2000, the ARB reviewed the proposed project. Among the Board’s concerns were the overall style, massing, and character of the building, the roofline and fenestration, the lack of design attention paid to the sides and rear of the building, the inappropriateness of the proposed LED signage, the inappropriate comer location of the Automatic Teller Machine (ATM), parking lot ingress and egress, the need for additional landscaping, and the fact that the project could have been designed to avoid the requested DEE for parking lot landscaping. Public testimony regarding the project was also taken at each meeting. The concerns expressed by the public included the location and amount of parking, the traffic generated by the project, the design and excessive scale and massing of the building, the inappropriateness of the LED signage board, and the location of the ATM. The speakers also asked that Board deny the proposed DEE for parking lot landscaping. CMR:366:00 Page 2 of 7 At each of the meetings, the ARB unanimously voted to continue the project for additional design development. A detailed summary of the ARB discussion and public testimony is included in the ARB Staff Report dated July 20, 2000 (Attachment A). Verbatim minutes from these meetings are also attached to this report (Attachments B, C, and D). July 20, 2000 ARB Meeting The most recent review of the project took place at the ARB meeting of July 20, 2000. The applicant presented a revised plan that addressed the ARB’s concerns and included the following project modifications: Stepped, square-end facades replaced the gable ends and mansard roof elements, reducing the height of the building from 35 feet to 31 feet; The ATM was relocated from the comer of E1 Camino Real and Cambridge Avenue to the Cambridge Avenue frontage; The building detailing was simplified overall; and The side and rear elevations were made more cohesive with the front fagade. Two members of the public also spoke at the hearing. The first speaker expressed concerns regarding the location of the ATM next to a red striped curb, the scale and overall appearance of the building, the inadequacy of the proposed parking, and the lack of justification for a DEE for the parking lot landscaping. The second speaker was disappointed that Jeri Fink State Farm Insurance will no longer be a project tenant and was concerned about the erosion of local services. While the speaker was pleased that building height was reduced and that the design had improved, the massing was still not acceptable. The speaker also agreed that the ATM should not be located along Cambridge Avenue, and that the building should be reduced in size to avoid a DEE. The ARB was generally in favor of the revised project, citing significant improvement from the original plan. However, some ARB members remained concerned about the layout of the parking area and could not support the DEE to allow reduced perimeter landscaping. Ultimately, the applicant agreed to an ARB condition that required the project to include at least 310 square feet of on-site employee amenities, which would reduce the required parking for the project by one parking space. The ARB recommended an additional condition to convert the resulting unused space into perimeter landscaping, which would allow the project to meet the PAMC requirements. The ARB also recommended a requirement that the revised parking lot configuration and perimeter landscaping return to staff for final approval. At the conclusion of the meeting, the ARB recommended 5-0 that the Director of Planning and Community Environment approve the project with the conditions contained in the July CMR:366:00 Page 3 of 7 20, 2000 staff report and enumerated at the meeting. The Director of Planning and Community Environment approved the project on July 21, 2000 with the conditions recommended by the ARB. Verbatim minutes from the July 20, 2000 ARB meeting are attached to this report (Attachment E). DISCUSSION On August 2, 2000, an appeal of the project approval was filed by Joy Ogawa (Attachment F). The appellant’s areas of concern are summarized below and responded to individually by staff. The numbering of the concerns and responses corresponds to the organization of the appellant’s letter. Errors in ARB Findings A.1. Appellant Concern: The proposed project is incompatible with goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan promoting pedestrian friendly design. Specifically, the proposed ATM abutting the Cambridge Avenue sidewalk would cause lines of customers to form on the sidewalk, which will interfere with pedestrian circulation. A. 1. Staff Response: The ARB findings for project approval include the statement that the proposed project is compatible with applicable elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan in that the site is designated Regional Community Commercial and the proposed land use is consistent with that designation. The convenience of an ATM would benefit area pedestrians. The sidewalk adjacent to the proposed ATM is 9’-11" wide and, therefore, the use of the ATM would not constitute a significant impediment to sidewalk use. A.2. Appellant Concern: Parking for the site is inadequate, and is therefore in conflict with policies of the Comprehensive Plan regarding parking in the Califomia Avenue Business District. A.2. Staff Response: The subject property is located in the California Avenue parking assessment district. Currently, the property owner pays an assessment equivalent to the parking requirement for the existing 8,282-square-foot building. The applicant is only required to provide off-street parking for the new building area proposed, which equals 2,754 square feet. At a rate of one required parking space for every 310 square feet of new building area, nine parking spaces are required for the proposed project. As recommended by the ARB, the project includes a seven space CMR:366:00 Page 4 of 7 parking lot with eight bicycle lockers in lieu of one required parking space, and at least 310 square feet of employee amenities in lieu of one required parking space. Based on the applicant’s continued participation in the parking assessment district and the provision of off-street parking in the amount required by the PAMC, the parking provided is sufficient to address the demands of the proposed use and will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. A.3. Appellant Concern." The proposed project conflicts with a goal of the Comprehensive Plan that calls for a high level of safety on Palo Alto streets. Specifically, the location of the ATM adjacent to a red curbed area will tempt motorists to stop illegally in the red zone to use the ATM. A. 3. Staff Response: On and off-street parking are both available in the vicinity of the ATM. On-street spaces are available on both sides of Cambridge Avenue and along the building frontage on E1 Camino Real. Off-street parking spaces are available behind the building and in the public parking garage across from the project site on Cambridge Avenue. Due to the availability of nearby parking spaces, parking in the red zone is not anticipated to occur. B. Appellant Concern." The scale and height of the building are not compatible with the immediate environment and do not promote harmonious transitions in scale and character between different designated land uses. B. Staff Response: The proposed building has a two story element. The second story portion of the building is sited closest to E1 Camino Real at the front of the lot. While the second story portion of the building is proposed to be 31 feet in height, this is well within the 37 foot height limit in the CC(2) zoning district. There are two buildings immediately adjacent to the project site, both of which have two story elements. The commercial building located immediately to the north of the site on El Camino Real is a two story building of approximately 21 feet in height. The other building closest to the project site is a church that is located across Sedro Lane to the rear of the proposed building. The church also has a two story element facing the project site. There are no residences immediately adjacent to the project site. The proposed building steps down to one story at the rear of the lot in order to provide a transition in scale and minimize visual impacts of the building on the existing neighborhood. Both the one and two story portions of the building include parapets to screen rooftop mechanical equipment. Staff believes that the scale and massing of CMR:366:00 Page 5 of 7 the building is appropriate to the site and provides a visual transition between the E1 Camino Real corridor and the existing residences to the northeast. C. Appellant Concern: Access to the property and circulation thereon are not safe due to the location of the ATM. C Staff Response: Please see the staff responses to appellant concerns A. 1 and A.3 (above) II.Inadequate Environmental Review Appellant Concern: The Environmental Impact Assessment does not adequately address the traffic congestion impacts of the project on the intersection of E1 Camino Real and Cambridge Avenue. Staff Response: The Initial Study and Negative Declaration prepared for the project adequately assess the project’s potential to have traffic impacts on the intersection of E1 Camino Real and Cambridge Avenue. Transportation Division staff has reviewed this project and determined that it will not result in a significant traffic impact because the project does not exceed the thresholds of significance established by the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Agency and the City of Palo Alto. The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Comprehensive Plan Update also included an analysis of potential traffic impacts resulting from the potential future development of this site. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is subject to environmental review under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project (99-EIA-28) and was made available for public comment from December 17, 1999 through January 6, 2000. The assessment concludes that all potentially significant impacts of the project have been reduced to a less than significant level. The key issues addressed in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration are the mitigation measures that would be necessary if archaeological resources were discovered during construction activities. The applicant has agreed to comply with all required mitigation measures (see Attachment A). ATTACHMENTS A. Architectural Board of Review Staff Report dated July 20, 2000 (including Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration) B.Excerpts of the ARB minutes of January 6, 2000 C.Excerpts of the ARB minutes of May 4, 2000 CMR:366:00 Page 6 of 7 Do E. F. G. H. Excerpts of the ARB minutes of June 1, 2000 Excerpts of the ARB minutes of July 20, 2000 Appellant’s Letter and Supporting Materials, dated August 2, 2000 Architectural Review Board Findings for Approval Plans (Council Members only) PREPARED BY: Rachel Adcox, Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: EDWARD GAWF~ Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:EMIL~~" SON Assistant City Manager CMR:366:00 Page 7 of 7 ,,[ Attachment A Architectural Review Board Staff Report 3 Agenda Date: To: July 20, 2000 Architectural Review Board ~rom:Rachel Adcox, Planner Department: Planning and Community Environment Subject:2275 El Camino Real [99-ARB-139, 99-EIA-28, 99-DEE-13]: Request by Moyer Associates Architects, on behalf of James Baed Premier Properties, for major Architectural Review Board review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment to allow the remodel of the existing one-story 8,282 square foot commercial building including demolition of 768 square feet and construction of a 3,522 square foot second story addition for a total of 11,036 square feet, and parking, landscaping, and related site improvements. The project includes a request for Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) to allow a 2.5 foot perimeter landscape strip for approximately forty feet of the parking lot frontage in order to accommodate the required van- accessible parking space. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and circulated for this project in accordance with CEQA guidelines. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the ARB review the revised proposaI for comComaance witk the ARB’s previous comments. If the ARB finds that the revised project design sufficiently addresses the ARB’s concerns, the ARB may recommend approval of the proposed project based upon the findings in Attachments A and B and subject to the suggested Conditions of Approval set forth in Attachment C. 2275 El Camino Real Page 1 1~ PROJECT DESCRIPTION Existing Conditions The project site is located on the northern corner of El Camino Real and Cambridge Avenue. The relatively flat and irregularly shaped property consists of three contiguous parcels totaling approximately 11,783 square feet (.27 acres). All three parcels are owned by Premier Properties. The property.has frontage on El Camino Real, Cambridge Avenue, and Sedro Lane. The project site is currently developed with an 8,282 square foot, one story commercial building. There is no parking currently on the site. The site is in the California Avenue Parking Assessment District and the property owner pays into the district in an amount equivalent to the required parking for the existing building (31 parking spaces). Surrounding land uses include commercial uses to the northwest, an eating and drinking establishment with take-out service to the south, commercial uses beyond E1 Camino Real to the west, and a religious institution across Sedro Lane to the northeast. The buildings adjacent to the site along E1 Camino Real are predominantly one and two story buildings constructed in the 1960’s with flat, sheet metal roofs. Proposed Project The proposed project includes the demolition of 768 square feet of the existing 8,282 square foot building, remodel of the remaining ground floor building area, and the addition of 3,522 square feet on the first and second floors. The total building area upon completion of the project will be 11,036 square feet. Proposed building tenants include the First Republic Bank (occupying the E1 Camino Real frontage and the second floor) and State Farm Insurance (occupying the first floor fronting Cambridge Avenue). The project includes the provision of an eight (8) space parking lot at the rear of the building, with access off of Sedro Lane. The parking area includes a van-accessible parking space, eight (8) Class I bicycle lockers, and one Class III bike rack. The bicycle lockers are provided in lieu of one required automobile parking space, as allowed by Section 18.83.120(a) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Proposed site landscaping includes built-in planters along the E1 Camino Real and Cambridge Avenue building facades and perimeter plantings along the two exposed sides of the parking area. Three existing street trees along E1 Camino Real and two existing street trees along Cambridge Avenue are proposed to be retained. This proposal has been reviewed at three previous ARB meetingsl with the most recent review taking place on June 1, 2000. At that meeting, the board voted to continue the project for further design revision, offering the following comments: 1) The proposal does not include significant changes to reflect the ARB’s comments; 2) Massing, rather than style, is the major concern- 2275 El Camino Real Page 2 especially the roofline; 3) The fenestration needs to carry over to the Cambridge Avenue side of the building; 4) The ATM on the comer is not appropriate; 5) The project could have been designed to avoid a DEE; 6) Efforts have not been made to address environmental issues; 7) The side and rear of the building need more attention; 8) The building design needs to change more dramatically overall; 9) The proposed paving is not an enhancement, and; 10) The project needs increased plant mass to buffer the building. The current proposal i~corporates the following changes, in response to the ARB’s comments: 1)Stepped square-end facades have replaced the gable ends and mansard roof elements. This has reduced the height of the building from 35 feet to approximately 31 feet; 2)The sunscreening o~ both floors is now flat, ratherthan sloped; 3)The ATM has been relocated closer to the parking area on Cambridge Avenue; 4)The entry expression at the comer has been softened, retaining the bent glass and metal canopy; 5) The building detailing has been simplified; and 6) The side and rear elevations have been made more cohesive with the front facade. A more detailed description of the revised project is included in the applicant’s letter dated June 29, 2000 (Attachment D). Photographs, materials samples and rendered plans and elevations will be presented at the meeting. BACKGROUND As stated above, the proposed project has been reviewed by the ARB at three previous meetings (January 6, 2000, May 4, 2000, and June 1, 2000). The project description (building size and footprint, site plan, and building orientation) have remained substantially unchanged throughout these reviews. January 6, 2900 ~ Meeting At it’smeeting of January 6, 2000, the ARB reviewed the originally proposed project and recommended continuance (5-0) for additional design development. The board particularly stated that: 1) The proposed LED signage is not appropriate to the character of the building; 2) The entire building should be integrated in the architecture and use of materials (from front to back) and not in a faux style; 3) A sun and weather protection canopy is needed at the front entry; 4) Exterior building lighting isneeded for nighttime illumination; and 5) Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be used during construction activities. Two members of the public provided testimony and expressed concern about the location and amount of parking, the traffic impacts that project will generate, the design of the building (particularly that the large amount of glass will allow excessive light spillage), the excessive 2275 El Camino Real Page 3 The applicant has requested approval of a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) to allow a 2.5 foot perimeter planter landscaped strip for a portion of the parking lot that fronts Sedro Lane. This is necessary to accommodate the required van-accessible parking space. DEEs are allowed by Section 18.91 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to provide relief from the strict site development and parking provisions of the Code when such exceptions will enhance the design of the development. Staff believes that DEE findings can be made if the ARB chooses to approve the project (DEE findings for approval are included as Attachment B). The proposed wall signs meet the requirements of the Sign Ordinance with regards to size, location and placement. The signs proposed along E1 Camino Real are also consistent with the ¯ criteria set forth in the E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines. While the plans indicate that the signs will be flush mounted to the building and externally illuminated, staff approval of the sign mounting and illumination is required as a condition of project approval. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The Comprehensive Plan objectives, policies and programs that are relevant to this project are listed below. Land Use and Community Design Element Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Business & Economics Element Policy B-25: Strengthen the commercial viability of businesses along E1 Camino Real. Encourage the development of pedestrian-oriented neighborhood retail and office centers along the E1 Camino Real. The scale and size of the proposed project is appropriate to the California Avenue area, and supports the transition from the larger scale development of the Downtown area to residential neighborhood development. The site planning and design of the building are compatible with the scale of surrounding development, and the proposed land uses will support the commercial viability of E1 Camino Real businesses and enhance the pedestrian experience along E1 Camino Real. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the relevant policies of the Comprehensive Plan. 2275 El Camino Real Page6 PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of the ARB review of this project was provided by publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of general circulation. This project was continued from the June 1, 2000 ARB meeting to this date, and therefore did not require additional mailed noticing. However, property owners and utility customers within 300 feet of the project site were mailed a notice card for the Jtme 1, 2000 meeting. Courtesy cards for the June 1, 2000 meeting were also mailed to individuals who provided public testimony at the January. 6, 2000 and May 4, 2000 ARB meetings. TIMELINE Action: Application’ Received: Application Incomplete (if applicable): Resubmittal Received (if applicable): Resubmittal Complete (if applicable): Application Complete: Revised Submittal: Applicant Submitted Time Extension: Action Time Limit: Date: 10/14/99 11/08/99 11/12/99 11/18/99 11/18/99 3/16/00 4/27/00 8/14/00 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT This project is subject to environmental review under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project (99-EIA-28) and was made available for public review and comment from December 17, 1999 through January 6, 2000. The assessment concludes that all potentially significant impacts of the project can be reduced to a less than significant level. The key issues addressed in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration are the mitigation measures that would be necessary if archaeological resources were discovered during construction activities. The applicant has agreed to comply with all required mitigation measures. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Findings for Approval/Architectural Review Board Standards for Review Attachment B: Findings for Approval of the Design Enhancement Exception Attachment C: Suggested Condffions of Approval Attachment D: Applicant’s Letter dated June 29, 2000 Attachment E: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (99-EIA-28) Attachment F: (ARB members only) Plan set 2275 El Camino Real Page 7 ~5 COURTESY COPIES Applicant: Moyer Associates Architects, c!o Michael Moyer, 430 Sherman Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Owner: Premier Properties c/o James Baer, 172 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Interested Parties: Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Pria Graves, 2310 Yale Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Prepared by: Manager Review: Rachel Adcox, Planner Phillip Woods, Acting Planning Manager Filing Index: s:plargpladiv/arb/reports/2275 ECR 7-20-00.do0 2275 Ei Camino Real Page 8 ATTACHMENT A FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STANDARDS FOR REVIEW 2275 Et Camino Real / 99-AKB-139, 99-EIA-28, 99-DEE-13 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, furthers the goals and purposes of the ARB Ordinance as it complies with the Standards for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 16.48 of the PANIC. (1)The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the city’s Comprehensive Plan in that the site is designated Regional Community Commercial and the proposed uses are allowed by this land use designation; (2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that it represents an improvement to the comer and the scale and massing reflect that of the surrounding development; (3) The design is appropriate to the function of a commercial office building; (5) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses in that it scales back to avoid incompatibility with nearby residential buildings; (6) The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and offthe site in ~at it is well defined and articulated and incorporates the appropriate use of materials; (10) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles in that the comer building entrance is recessed for safe and convenient pedestrian acdess, and vehicular and bicycle access are provided in a logical manner at the rear of the building; (11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project in that the existing street trees will be retained in their present location; (12) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function of the building and are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions; (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 in that it supplements the existing street trees, provides visual relief, and screens visible parking areas; 2275 El Camino Real Page 9 17 (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 and to reduce consumption of Water in its installation and maintenance; (15) The design is energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy design elements including, but not limited to: (A) Exterior energy design elements~ (B) Internal lighting service and climatic control systems, and (C) Building siting and landscape elements. ARB standards 4, 7, 8, and 9 do not apply to the project. 2275 El Camino Real Page !0 ATTACHMENT B FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTION 2275 E1 Camino Real / 99-ARB-139, 99-EIA-28, 99-DEE-13 i) 2) 3) The exterior walls of the existing first level is not proposed to be altered in the building remodel and expansion which would otherwise allow for additional space in the parking lot at the rear of the property. This represents a special and extraordinary condition that is not applicable to other surrounding properties. The granting of the exception would enhance the site in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished through the strict interpretation of the minimum requirements of Title 18 and the standard for review set forth in Chapter 16.48 in that van accessible parking would be provided and is a necessary parking component. The exception is related to a site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvement in the site vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience in that the 2.5 foot deep landscape perimeter would not be detrimental at the rear of the site which faces a 20-foot wide lane, Sedro Lane. 2275 El Carnino Real Page 11 ’~ 9 ATTACHMENT C SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2275 E1 Camino Real/99-A1LB-139, 99-EIA-28, 99-DEE-13 Planning Division conditions: 1.1 The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial conformance with plans dated June 29, 2000, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. These conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted with the Building Permit application: 1.2 The ARB approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown on building permit drawings for building, fences, utilitarian enclosures, and other landscape features. 1.3 Details of sign installation and illumination for all signs shall be submitted for review and approval by Planning Staff prior to issuance of a building permit. 1.4 Specifications of the light fixtures on the south elevation shall be submitted for review and approval by the ARB. The light fixtures must be shielded and down-lit so that the light source is not visible. Planning Arborist conditions: 2.1 The City of Palo Alto’s Standard Tree Protection Measures shall be printed on the plans including Detail #505, Tree Protection During Construction. 2.2 The existing street trees in the public right-of-way along E1 Camino Real and Cambridge Avenue shall have cut-outs enlarged to the same dimensions and install one irrigation bubbler mounted on flexible tubing in the tree well for each tree. 2.3 The Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of written verification that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting, and irrigation and are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. 2.4 The location of all tree protection fencing shall be clearly shown on submitted plans for building permit. ’ 2.5 The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained. Any modifications to these requirements must be approved, in writing, by the City Planning Arborist. 2275 El Camino Real Page 12 b) Tree Fencing. Trees situated in a small tree well or sidewalk planter pit shall be wrapped with 2-inches of orange plastic fencing from the ground to the first branch with 2-inch thick wooden slats bound securely with additional’ orange plastic fencing (which shall not be allowed to dig into the bark). During installation of the plastic fencing, caution shall be used to avoid damaging any bi:anches. Major scaffold limbs may also require plastic fencing as directed by the City Planning A.rborist. Warning Sign. A "Warning" sign shall be prominently displayed on each tree protection fence. The sign shall be a minimum of 12-inches square and shall state: "DO NOT REMOVE WITHOUT PERMISSION OF CITY INSPECTOR OR CITY ARBORXST" - - This fence shall not be removed without prior authorization. Violators are subject to fine pursuant Section 8.101110 of the PAMC." c) d) Tree Pruning. Any necessary pruning work on trees to be retained on site, including street trees, shall be performed in accordance with the following standards. Future pruning performed by any maintenance contractor, tree service, applicant or property owner shall be in accordance with the following standards: Pruning shall be done in a manner that preserves the tree’s structure and health, pursuant to the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture (WC-ISA) GuideIines; the Standard Practices for Tree Care Operations, ANSI A300-1995; ANSI Z133-1994 and Chapter 8.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles, or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. e)The ground around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated, and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. Transportation Planning Division conditions: 3.1 A ninth bicycle space shall be shown on the plans which is a Class III bicycle rack. The Class III rack would serve the public and should be located near a punic entrance to the building if space is available. The bicycle parking facilities must be selected from the approved Transportation Planning Division lists and the make and model shall be shown on the plans. 2275 Et Camino Real Page 13 Building Inspection conditions: 4.1 To reduce dust levels, it shall be required that exposed earth surfaces be watered as necessary. Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across anypublic or private property shall be removed immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances originating from the contractor’s operations, either inside or outside of the right-of-way shall be controlled at the contractor’s expense. 4.2 All construction activities shall be subject to the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 oft he PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sign be posted and that construction times be limited as follows: 8:00AM to 8:00PM, Monday - Friday. 9:00AM to 6:00PM, Saturday 10:00AM to 6:00PM, Sunday and Holidays 4.3 The existing building must be seismically upgraded per PAMC Section 16.04.140. PuNic Works Engineering conditions: 5.1 Prior to submittal of final ARB submittal, the applicant shall meet with Pubhc Works Engineering (PWE) to verify the basic design parameters affecting grading, drainage and surface water filtration. The applicant shall be required to submit a conceptual grading and drainage plan for PWE approval. In order to address potential storm water quality impacts, the plan must identify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be incorporated into the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be required for the project. The SWPPP shall include both temporary BMG’s to be implemented during construction and permanent BMPs to be incorporated into the project to protect storm water quality.. The PWE approved conceptual grading and drainage plan shall be incorporated into the building permit plans. 5.2 Existing storm drain main lines in the area are unable to convey the peak runoff from the project site. The applicant shall provide storm water detention on-site to lessen the project’s impact on city storm drains. The applicant’s engineer shall provide storm drain flow and detention calculations. 5.3 5.4 The developer/applicant shall apply for a certificate of compliance to merge Parcels 5, 6, and 7 into one parcel prior to issuance of a building permit. The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspect.ion Division. 2275 El Camino Real Page 14 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 The property owner shall obtain an encroachment permit or temporary lease from Public Works Engineering for a structure, awning, or other features constructed in the public right-of-way, easement, Or on property in which the City holds an interest. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit or temporary lease from Public Works Engineering for the proposed construction which vail impact the use of the sidewalk, street or alley or on property in which the City holds an interest. A construction logistics plan shall be submitted with the Building Permit. This plan shall include construction parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. A truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the attached route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. Prior to issuance of a demolition, grading or building permit, the applicant shall obtain a Permit for Construction in a Public Street from Public Works Engineering for construction proposed in the City right-of-way. A portion of the proposed work is witldn the State of California right-of-way. A permit shall be obtained from the applicable state agency. Evidence of permit approval shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 5.10 5.11 No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. The developer shalI require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMPs) for stormwater pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMPs with respect to the developer’s construction activities on private property; and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMPs with respect to the developer’s construction activities in public property. It is unlawful to discharge .any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (Federal Clean Water Act) 5.12 All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other propertTy" under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments, 5.13 Prior to finalization, all sidewalks bordering the project shall be repaired and/or removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works approved standards. 2275 El Camino Real Page 15 5.14 The property owner shall provide a shared trash/recycling facility agreement and easement on 2265 E1 Camino Real to be shared with the building tenants at 2275 E1 Camino Real. A copy of the fully executed private covenant easement must be reviewed by Public Works Engineering and recorded with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office prior to issuance of a building permit. These requirements are included as conditions of project approval. 5.15 Any changes to these plans, other than those provided in this review, shall be reviewed by the Public Works Engineering Division. 5.16 The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works Engineering for pedestrian protection on the public sidewalk during construction. 5.I7 The Contract shall contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (650) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the punic right-of-way. 5.18 The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to finalization of this permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off. 5.19 A curb ramp for the disabled shall be required at the comer of E1 Camino Real and Cambridge Avenue. Conditions related to trash/recycling: 6.1 Prior to issuance of a building permit the property owner shall record an easement on the 2265 E1 Camino Real and 2275 E1 Camino Real parcels which indicates that garbage facilities will be located on 2265 E1 Camino Real and shared with the 2275 E1 Camino Real development. Utilities Engineering Electrical conditions: 7.1 The location of the proposed padmount transformer shall remain accessible to utility personnel for maintenance at all times. 7.2 The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for the transformer pad and associated duct iine installed in private property at 2275 E1 Camino Real. The applicant’s engineer shall obtain, prepare and record with the County of Santa Clara, and provide the Engineering Division with copies of the public utilities easement across this parcel as is necessary to serve the applicant. 7.3 Any work in the E1 Camino Real public right of way requires a Street Opening Permit from CalTrans. 2275 El Carnino Real Page 16 7.4 The City’s underground service (MH-1450) needs a three-way switch to be installed on a pad. ’ Utilities Engineering Water, Gas & Wastewater conditions: 8. i All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto Utility Standards for Water, Gas & Wastewater. 8.2 The applicant shall submit improvement plans for all utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the punic right of way including meters, back_flow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer cleanouts, and any other required utilities. 8.3 Each unit or parcel shall have its own water, gas meters and sewer lateral connection. 8.4 The applicant shall submit a completed Water-Gas-Wastewater Service Connection Application - Load Sheet for City of Palo Atto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in G.P.M., gas in B.T.U.P.H, and sewer in G.P.D). 8.5 The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply. 8.6 The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been discormected and removed. 8.7 The approved relocation and abandonment of water and sewer facilities including services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the applicant or developer. 8.8 The applicant’s contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the utility improvement plans have been approved by the Water, Gas and Wastewater Engineering Division and all utilities conditions are met. 8.9 The applicant shall pay the connection fees associated for the installation of the new services to be installed by the City of Palo AIto Utilities Department. 2275 El Carnino Real Page17 ATTACHMENT D APPLICANT’S LETTER DATED ,]UNE 29, 2000 2275 El Camino P,.eal / 99-ARB-139, 99-EIA-28, 99-DEE-13 Moyer Associates Architects 430 Shermaz~ Ave., PBlo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 326-3293, (650] 326-0155 29, 2000 Lorraine Weiss Design mad Development Review 2984 Clay Street, #1, San Francisco, CA 94115 Re: 2275 E1 Camino Real, Palo Alto Dear Ms. Weiss and Members of the Architectural Review Board: Please f_md attached our latest revised submittal drawings for the subject project. We will bring the new model, photo~aphs, materials, mad color samples for use as exhibits to the next meeting. We are looking forward to our next session with the Board. We have done our best to integrate the views and comments oft_he Board with the requirements of the program. The resuh is, in appearance, a significantly different building from its pr.edece.4s0rs. It is a viable design solution and we are hopeful that the board will takea positive approach to its review. ,. .., , ;; .! ,.,":: .’. ’.. The E1 Camin6 and Cambridge ’f~ickdes 0f’the building a~e" £hang~das follows: ’ ’ : A. Steisped squkre2’end facades have replaced the gable.ends reducing .the over.all.height of thebuilding to reader thirty-0ne feet, significantly Iower than the thirty-five" allowed by zoning (A3.1, A3.2). ’Please note that the mans~d and gable elements above the insurance office space and Sedro ba~ entry have also been eliminated; B.The sun-screenlng at both floors is now flat rather ban sloped (A3.1, A4.1); C.The ATM has been relocated further down Cambridge (A3.1); D.The entry expression at the Cambridge/El Camino comer has been softened (A3.1). We have retained the curv~g bent glass and metal entry canopy; E.The overall building detailing has been simplified (A3.1, A3.2, A4.1, A4.2); F.The composition of the elevations has been improved and fully integrated on the three exposed sides of the building (A3.1, A3.2). Elements Nat have been retai~ed and/or enhanced, include the following: A. The planters in the arcade along E1 Camino a~d on Cambridge have been retained (A1, A.2.1, A3.1, L1-L3); B.The access, parking, and landscape changes at the Sedro Lane entrance to the building h/ire been retained (A1, A_2.1, .L1-L3): A Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) is stillnecessm-y;’. ’ " ¯ ¯ : ’ ’~ ". ’ ’ ’ C..The color and finishes pale~e remain:s tm~hauged except for ~ dimination of the mission style roofing tile. We now have buLk-up roofs throughout; .D. Signage continues to befront-lit (A311, A3.2, LT1); " E.Civil, l~dscaping, and exterior lighting is essentially u~changed from pre;cious submittals. We are looking forwsrd to ~ .c positive comments on the mlterations Sincerely, MEYER ASSOCIATES AI~CHITECTS A California Corporation .~’vc made to the building. ¢ By: Michael D. Meyer co: Jim Baer tb~ Moyer Associates Architects. 430 Sherman Ave.,. Palo Alto, CA 94306. (650) 326-3293 ATTACHMENT E INITIAL STUDY / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (99-EIA-28) 2275 E1 Camino Real 99-ARB-13 9, 99-EIA-28,,99-DEE-13 = 10. ENVIRONMENTAL ECKLIST FORM City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Project Title:2275 EL CAMINO REAL Lead Agency Name and Address:City of Palo Alto - Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Contact Person and Phone Number: Project Location: Lorraine Weiss, Contract Planner 6501329-2441 .;. 2275 El Camino Real Application Number(s):99-ARB-139; 99-EIA-28; 99-DEE-13 Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: General P’lan Designation: Mr. Michael Moyer, Architect Moyer Associates Architects 430 Sherman Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Regional Community Commercial Zoning:CC(2) - Community Commercial Combining District Description of the Project: Request approval of an Architectural Review Board permit to remodel the existing one.stoW 8,282 square foot commercial building including demolition of 768 square feet and construction of a 3,522 square foot second story addition for a total of 1 t,036 squ~re feet, and parking, landscaping, and related site improvements; Tl~e project includes a request for Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) to allow a 2.5 foot perimeter landscape strip one half of the parking lot frontage for the required van-accessible parking space. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The subject site is located along El Camino Real at the corner of Cambridge Avenue. The relatively flat and irregularly shaped .property consists of three contiguous parcels (Parcels 5, 6, and 7) totaling approximately 11,783 square feet or .27 acres. All three parcels are owned by Premier Properties. The property has 89.68 feet of frontage on El Camino Real to the southwe.st, 137.16 feet of frontage on Cambridge Avenue to the southeast, and 124.34 feet of frontage on Sedro Lane to the north .at the rear of the property. Presently, there is no parking on-site. The proposed development includes parking for the new addition and is provided at the rear of the parcel with access from one rear driveway’fronting Sedro Lane. A public utilities easement is recorded .on part of Parcel 7 where the parking lot is proposed. Parcels 5 and 6 are currently developed with an existing 8,282 square foot one-story commercial building. S:~PLAN~PLADIV~.IA~2275EICarninoRea/ Surrounding land uses immediately adjacent to the subject site include a variety of commercial uses to the northwest, an eating and drinking establishment with take-out service to the south, a major arterial (El Camino Real) to the west and commercial businesses beyond, an eating and drinking establishment with take-out service to the south, and a religious institution to the’ northeast across Sedro Lane to the rear of the site. The exist!ng buildings along El Camino Real neighboring the subject site to the north are one and two-story buildings constructed in the 1960’s with fiat sheet metal roofs. 11.Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approva!, or participation agreement). State of California- Caltrans: Encroachment Permit(s) ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below Wo~ld be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one Impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages, Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazard~ & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/W.ater Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/’Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory.Findings of. Significance None DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect oh the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been’ made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ’ ! find that the proposed project MAY have ~ significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant Unless .mitigated.’.’ impact on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been X adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached~ sheets. ’An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially.significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier.EIR or.... NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been’avoided br mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Project Planner Director of PlannIKg &~ommunity Environment Date Date EVALUATION OF .ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC’~S: 1)A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rapture zone). A’"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as genePal standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening analysis). All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. . 3)Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is. potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant, if there.are one or more "Potentially Significant impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. ,,Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." .The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 © (3) (D). in this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify andstate where they are available for review. 35. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the al~ove checklist Were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicabte legal standards, and statewhether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures . _. Incorpor.ated,"..describe the mitigation-measures .which were .incorporated or-refined from -the.earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Lead agencies are encouragedto incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside . document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7)Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be atta.ched, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8)This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, use~l to evaluate each question; and b) the mit.igation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance AESTHETICS. Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect on a Sceni~ ~,ista? but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) d) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1, 2e, 3, 8 "-1,’2b’, 2e, 2g, 2h, 21 1, 2b, 2e 4,8 X X II,AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: 1)Convert Prime Farmland, unique Farmland, or " Farmland of Statewide .Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? . 2)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Wiiliamson Act contract? 3)involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 1, 2a, 21 21, 3 X X X Ill. a) b) 4) AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ’ Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non.attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? , 2b, 3,8 X s 37 iV. 2) 3) V= 2) 3) Expose Sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 3 BIOLOGICAL. RESOUR.CES...~Nould.the project: ............................. X Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the Ca]ifornia Department of Fish and Game or U,S, Fish.and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identif~.d in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? ¯ Have a substantial adverse effect on fec~erally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or. wildlife species or with established native resident oP migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with’ any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? CULTURAL RESOURCES. Wou~d the project: 1, 21, 8 1,8 1, 2d, 4, 15 Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064,5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to t 5064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic 1, 2b, 2g, 2h, 8 1,2b, 2h, 8 ~,2b, X X X X X X feature? ¯2h, 8 4)Disturb anyhuman remains, ir~cluding those interred 1, 2b, .. X outside of form. al cemeteries? 2h, 8 Vl.GEOLOGY AND S’OILS. Would the project: adverse effects, including’ the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist.Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State’ Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii)Seismic-related ground failure, includin~ liquefaction? . . iv) .Landslides? . b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoit? c) d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that woult] become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off.site .landslide, lateral spreadihg, subsidence, Ilque~action or collapse? Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table I-B of the Uniform Building Code (t994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Have soils incapable of adeqbateiy ~upporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 1, 2S, 3,8 1, 2p, 2s, 2U, 3,, 5, 8, 1,8 1, 2p, 2S, 3 1,8 X X Vii. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project? a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, ~r disposal of hazardous materials? 39 b) c) d) e) Create a s!gnificant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or.waste within one-quart.e~r mile of an existing or proposedschool? .-- - Be located on a ~ite which is i~ncluded on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the. project area? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, .~ would the project result in a safety hazard for,people residing or working the project area? g) impair implementation of Or physically interfere with an adopted emergency ’response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized a~reas or where, residences are intermixed with wil~llands? ~ - VIII, HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the prc a) c) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater’table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to-a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have be’en granted)? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or nla . n/a 1, 2r, 3 ’I, 2r ect: 1, 2d ’1, 2d, 2m t, 2d, 2q X X X X X X x × e) off-site? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the altePation of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff manner which would result in flooding on- or site? Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of POlluted runoff? Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) h) I) Place housing within a 100.year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? . Place within a lO0-year flood hazard area structures which would Impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) c) XQ Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy; or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 1, 2d, 2q 1,2 1, 2d, 2q, 3, 8, 17 I, 2d,2q, 3, 8 1, 2d, 2q, 3 I, 2a, 3 1, 2a, 2b, 2e, 3, 4, 8, 18 1,2d, 3 X X X X X X b) Result in the loss of availability of a 10cally-important 2, 2d,X mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local 3 general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?J XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: Xa) b) c) d) e) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicab!e standards of other agbficies? Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne n6ise levels? A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?, For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not’been adopted, would the projedt expose people re.siding or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in .the project area to excessive noise levels? Xll. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: 2d, 20, 3, 8 1, 2d, 20, 3, 8 ’1, 2d, 20, 3, 8 1, 2d, 2q, 3, 8 nla n/a X a) b) c) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure}? Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,. necessitating the construction, of replacemen.thousing elsewhere? Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of repl.acement housing elsewhere? nla n/a XIII.PUBLIC SERVICES. ,a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause 10 X X X X X significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XIV.RECREATION ¯ ’1,2, 4,2 4,2 1,2 X .X X X Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b)Does the project include recreational facilities or requi~e the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC, Wouid the project: n/a X a) b) c) d) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard establishedlby the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an. increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 2j, 2k, 2W, 3, 8, 13 4, 2d X X X X 43 f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?. g)Conflict with adopted policies, p.la9:s~ or programs supporting alternative transportat~bn (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? " 3 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the" applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b)Require or result in the construction of new water or’ wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ~:)Require or result~ in the construction .of new storm ’ water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities; the construction of which could cause . significant environmental effects? " . d) Have sufficient water supplies availableto serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the" project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? ’ f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? I g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes andregulations related to solid waste? 1,2 "t, 14 ’ 2, 14 1, 2,14 2 2, 14 X X X X X X X X XVll.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. , t6 XDoes the project have the potentiai to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a. rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California. history or prehistory? 12 .l-b)Does the project have impacts that are individually, limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on h~man beings, either directly or indirectly? 16 16 x SOURCE REFERENCES~ Site visit. Planner’s knowledge of the site and project. .’ 1998-2010 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan a. Land Use & Circulation Map ..... b. Land Use & Community Design Element . c. Transportation Element d. Natural Environment Element e, Map L4: Community Design Features f. Map L-5: ’City Structure, Neighborhoods, Centers, Districts g. Map L-7:Cultural Resources h. Map L-8;Archaeological Resources Areas i. Map L-9:Williamson Act Properties in Palo Alto (t997) \ j. Map T-8:Circulation Designati’ons k. Map T-9:. Key Intersections & Commercial Growth Monitoring Areas 1. Map N-l:Natural Resource Areas m. Map N-2:Watershed & Groundwater Recharge Areas n. Map N-3:Noise Exposure Contours o. Map N-4:Future Noise Contours p. Map N-5:GeotechnicaiHazards q. Map N-6:Flood Hazards/Critical Facilities r. Map.N-7~Fire Hazards/Critical Facilities s. Map N-8:Additional Earthquake Hazards/Critical Facilities t. Map N-9:Hazardous Materials Facilities u. Map N-10: Ground Shaking Potential v. Map’r-7: Existing & Projected Traffic Volumes 3. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Existing Setting Summary Memorandum 1994 4. Paio Alto Municipal Code, Title 18-Zoning Ordinance , 5. Required compliance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Standards for Seismic Safety and Windload 6. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map 7. Uniform Building Code 8. Information submitted by the applicant 9..City of Palo Alto Fire Hazardous Materials Division, written comments on project 10, FEMA Flood Map, Community Panel Map #060348 0005D, dated 9/6/89 11. City of Palo Alto Police Department, written comments on project t2. City of Palo Alto Fire Department, written comments on project " 13. City of Palo Alto Transportation Division, written comments on project t4. City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Division, written comments on project 15. City of Pa[o Alto Planning Arborist, written comments on project ~6. Answers substantiated through the responses provided in items I-X’VI of this environmental checklist. 45 17. FE~i’ FIc;od Map, Community Panel Map #060348 0005X, dated June 1999 18. City ,~,~ Pal o Alto Municipal Code, Title 16, Chapter 16,48 (Architectural Review) ATTACHMENTS: A, Site Location Map EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: Aesthetics The proposed remodeled building with a second stoW will add height, mass, additional light and glare to what presently exists on site, though will not have an adverse impact on surrounding uses. The height of ~he subject building is 35 feet. The proposed materials and colors consist of terra cotta veneer facades in sandstone color, light burnt umber painted window trims with light blue tinted glazing, light sandstone painted stucco on rear elevation, mission tile roof, bronze gutters, downspouts, and trim; tile wall accents and frieze, bronze lighting, and individual bronze letters for slgnage. The redevelopment of the site may result in a negligible increase in light and glare generated from the additional lighting ’of the site and glazing on the building, With the City’s standard conditions of approval, the light and g!are impacts of the project will not be significant,. A detailed lighting plan which is sensitive to existing adjacent land uses will be required as a condition of project approval. The conditions of approval will require the shielding of lighting such that the light does not exten~l beyond the site, the lighting be dire’ctionai, and that the source of light is not directly visible. The project is subject to final review by the Architectural Review Board, which will ensure a design that is ae.sthetically pleasing and compatible with its surroundings. Mitigation Measures: None required. il. Agriculture Resources The site is not located in a Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance area, as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The site is not zoned as an agricultural use, nor is the site regulated by the Williamson Act. Mitigation Measures: None required. Air Quality The remodeled and expanded commercial building would generate more vehicle trips than the existing commercial building, although this increase is not conside.red a significant impact because it does not exceed thresholds established by the Santa Clara County C.ongestion Management Agency (CMA) and the City of Palo Alto. The project would result in temporary dust emissions during grading and construction activities, The’ standard conditions of project approval would reduce these air quality impacts to less than significant levels, The standard conditions of approval will require that the following dust control measures be employed at the site to reduce dust emissions to acceptable levels during construction: 1) Exposed earth surfaces be watered frequently, during the late morning and at the end of the day, with frequency of watering increasing on windy days; 2) Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately; 3) Overfilling of trucks by the contractor is prohibited; and 4) Trucks shall be covered during the transportation of demolished materials from the site. The proposed commercial building, therefore, will not have a significant effect on air quality. Mitigation Measures: None required. IV. Biological Resources No endangered, threatened, or rare animals, insects and plant species have been identified at this site, The project has been reviewed by the City Planning Arb0rist, and Planning Staff. There are no existing trees on site. The Preliminary landscape plan prepared for the project does not prppose any exotic species of plants which would impact native plants or animal species. Three new Evergreen Pear trees are proposed to be planted on site in the perimeter of the parking lot..The tree and plant species proposed Would be compatible.with the site conditions. The addition of three trees wi!i result in a increase in the number of trees on site, A final landscape plan and irrigation plan with final plant lists including plant species, sizes, quantities, and locations are required for submittal as a condition of project appro~’al. The landscape architect will be required to inspect all.trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation have been installed at~d are functioning as specified in the approved plans." the three existing street trees along El Camino Real and two trees along Cambridge Avenue f~onting the site are required to be protected during demolition, grading, and construction activities. Mitigation Measures: ’None. V. Cultural Resources The Comprehensive Plan indicates’t~at the.project site is located within an Archaeological Resource Area of ’moderate sensivity’ and not within a Williamson Act property, The proposed building modifications could create additional impacts to cultural deposits. However, if additional grading or trenching does uncovbr additiona! cultural deposits on this site the following mit.igation measure will apply: "qitigation Measures: If during grading and construction activities, ’any archaeological or human remains are .ncountered, construction she’ll cease and a qualified archaeologist shall v!sit the site to address the find. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office shall be notified to provide proper direction on how to proceed, if any Native American resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease immediately until a Native American descendant, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission Of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning. VI. Geology and Soils Demolition of 768 squ~re feet, and constructior~ of *a 3,522 square foot addition and related’site improvements will increase the amount of landscaping and decrease th.e amount of impervious surface area without significant changes to the site.topography. "the subject site is level and proposed parking is at grade and will not require substantial excavation or grading. Site soil modifications are not expected to result in significant adverse environmental impacts. The City’s required standard con~litions of approval ensure that potential impacts on erosion and soil will not be significant, Project conditions of approval will require the applicant to submit a final grading and drainage plan subject to review by the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading and building permits.. The entire state of California is in a seismically active area and the site located in a strong Seismic risk area, subject to very Strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Seismic ground failure, inc!uding liquefaction and subsidence of the land are possible, but not likely at the site. No known faults cross the project site, therefore fault rupture at the site is very unlikely, but theoretically possible. All new construction will be subject to the provisions of the most current Uniform Building Code (UBC), portions of.which are directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss of life ant property in the event of an earthquake. Mitigation Measures: None required. VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The suSiect property does not presently contain any above’or below-ground storage tanks that result in the releas. ~ hazardous substances during demolition, grading or construction activities. ’Proposed building, pavement, ,...~’ landscaping materials necessary for development of the project would not involve hazardous substances. Activities that handle hazardous’ materials are found throughout the City, The proposed new commercial building will not involve the use, storage or handling of hazardous materials or waste other than that already associated with typical copy service uses, Mitigation Measures: None required. VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality With the City’s required conditions of approval, the water impacts of the project will not be significant and by project .completion. there will be not be significant additional runbff from the site, due to the decrease in the amount of impervious surface area compared with the existing site. The standard conditions of project approval will require that a drainage plan be submitted which includes drainage patterns on the site and from adjacent properties. The contractor will be required to incorporate best management practices (BMPs) for storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program.., The site is in Flood Zone X which is not a special flood hazard zone, It is an area of moderate flooding, outside the 100 year flood zone but inside the 500 year flood zone or floodingto a depth less than 1 foot in the 100 year flood event, Mitigation Measures: None required,"~ ¯" IX, Land Use and Planhing The General Plan designation for this site is Regional Community Commercial which allows for general business of~es and financial institutions’as proposed. These land uses fall within the uses noted in this land use category. The =. .s is located along E! Camino Real in an area with a mix of compatible land uses. The Zoning designation is CC(2) - Community Commercial Combining" District which allows offices and financial institution uses, The project includes a request for Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) to allow a 2,5 foot perimeter landscape strip for the required van-accessible parking space. The DEE findings can be made to substantiate the ~pproval of the 2.5 foot deep perimeter landscape strip on half of the parking lot frontage in order to include the required van accessible parking space, inthat: The exterior walls of the existing first level is not proposed to be altered in the building remodel and’ e~pansion which would otherwise allow for additional space in the parking lot at the rear of the property, This represents a special and extraordinary condition that is not applicable to other surrounding properties, The granting of the exception Would enhance the site in a manner which would not ,otherwise be accsmplished through the strict interpretation of the minimum requirements of Title t8 and the standard for review set forth in Chapter t6,48 in that van accessible parking would be provided and is a necessary parking component. The exception is related to a site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvemenl in the site vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience in that th~ 2.5 foot deep landscape perimeter would not be detrimental at the rear of the site which faces a 20-foot wide lane Sedro Lane, Mitigation Measures: None requ.ired, X. Mineral Resources he proposed commercial building remodel and addition will utilize more energy resources than the existing building on the site. However, the additional amount of energy is not expected to be more than normally associated with commercial uses in the area and therefore would be a less than significant impact. Mitigation M~asures: None.required. Noise The proposed building remodel and expansion will result in temporary increases in local ambient noise levels. Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment associated with demolition, excavation, grading and noise of constructing the building. Such noise will be short term in duration and w.o.uld be mitigated by standard City conditions of approval, which limits the I~ours of construction, and requires that the applicant to Comply with the requirements of the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC, Once completed~ long-term noise associated with the building remodel and expansion and parking on site would be within the acceptable noise limits and no impacts are anticipated. With the City’s required standard conditions of approval, the project’s noise impacts wlll not be significant. Mitigation Measures: None requJ~ed. XII. Population and Housing The project site currently is occupied by a commercial office building, and will-continue to be a commercial building; therefore, the project would not displace housing. The project is not expected to serve a substantially larger population than currently utilizes the present building which has the same use as is proposed~" Mitigation Measures: None required. ¯ ,i11. Public Services Fire Th’-"~ ~ite is presently served by the Pal~ Alto Fire Department. The proposed project would not impact present Fire District service to the site or area. The project would as a c~ndition of project approval be required to provide any fire safety equipment and proper site access as required by the Fire Department. Police The site is located within the jurisdiction of the Polo Alto Police Department, The present use in the new building on the project site would not by itself result in the need for additional police officers, equipment, or facilities, Schools No direct demand for school services would result from the project as the proposal does not generate an increase 5f population and residents to Polo Alto, Parks No direct demand for additional parks would result from the project as the proposal does not generate an increase of population and residents to Polo Alto. Other Public Facilities The project would not result in impacts to other public facilities because the project replaces an existing facility and would result in the redevelopment of a site. Mitigation Measures: None required. .N. Recreation 49 No direct demand for additional recreational facilities would result from the project as the proposal does not generate an increase of population and residents to Palo Alto. Mitigation Measures: None required. XV. Transportation/Traffic The subject property is located in an area surrounded by commercial office, eating and drinking establishments, and retail uses. The property fronts El Camino Real, a major arterial, and Cambridge Avenue, a local street. Vehicular.access to the site will be provided by a two-way driveway located along Sedro Lane to the rear of the site. Circulatio’n: Demolition and construction activities could disrupt pedestrian and vehicular circulation near the subject site. With the City’s required standard conditions of approval, construction impacts should not be significant. The conditions will require a construction |ogistics plan which addresses at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provisions of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. Contractor worker parking and storage of equipment or materials must conform w~th plans approved by the Transportation Division and Public Works Department. The commercial building remodel will not result in a significant traffic impact. The project is not expected to result in a significant impact on traffic congestion because it does not exceed thresholds established by the Santa Clara county Congestion Management Agency (CMA) and the City of Paio Alto. According to the Transportation Division, no further traffic analysis of the proposed project is required because the development of the site Was evaluated in the City-wide Land Use and Transportation Study. Parking:.Automobile: Currently, there is no parking on site. Currently, the property owner pays into the California Avenue Parking Assessment District for 31 parking spaces or 8,282 square feet of building area for the existing building. ~r~e applicant is required to provide parking for the difference between the new and old building area (11,036 square t minus 8,282 square feet = 2,754 square feet) as the existing square footage is exempt because of the annual payment into the assessment district. Thus, at a parking rate of I space for every 3t0 square feet of building area, 9 parking spaces are required for the proposed building modifications. The redevelopment of the site is proposed with 8 automobile parking spaces and 9 bicycle lockers. Eight of the bicycle lockers are proposed in lieu of one of the required automobile spaces which is acceptable. The design of the parking lot must be modified to incorporate the following: 1) uniclass stalls, 17.5 feet long; 2) a van- accessible handicap stall; 3) bicycle lockers which are not stacked and a minimum of five feet between lockers for proper access; and 4) a Class ill rack to substitute .one locker to.serve the public which should be located near a public entrance if space avails). These requirements will be made a condition of project approv~al. Bicycle: The Off-Street Parking Ordinance requires the provision of bicycle parking for the new development. Based on the number of required parking spaces, t bicycle space must be provided. As mentioned previously, nine bicycle lockers are provided of which 8 are provided in lieu of one automobile parking space. The design, placement and specification of the bicycle parking must be revised as noted above and reviewed for approval by the Transportation Division. Mitigation Measures: None required, XVI. Utilities and Service Systems The proposed project would not significantly increase the demand on existing utilities and service systems or use resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. The proposed development’s drainage would tie into the existing drainag~ system provided to the site. The proposal requires that a padmount transformer be installed on site in a location which is accessible at all timeu to maintenance and service. The location, design, and placement of the padmount transformer’ must be approved by the tilities Engineering Electrical Department and the Architectural Review Board. Mitigation Measures: None required, XVlI, Mandatory Findings of Significance The project proposes the development of a new building, reconfigured parking at grade, new landscape, and related site improvements on an in-fill site that is presently developed. The new development would not have an impact on fish or wildlife habitat, nor would it impact cultural and historic resources. The site would invol~;e redevelopment of the site including demolition of 768 square feet, building remodel, and construction of 3,522 square feet for general business office and financial institution uses and are appropriately planned for this use. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan adequately assessed cumulative impacts from build-out in the planning area. There is nothing in the nature of the proposed development and.property improvements that would have a substantial adverse effect on human beings. 51 .Project:’ 2275’E1 Camino R~al .....~, ,,.,~,,.,,~,,,~ u~,-’!8503292154.;1~12:319 1;39; ~ #637;P~ge ~./2 WE, THE {JNDERSK~NED. HEREBY ATTEST THAT W~. HAVE REVIEWED THt~ MITIGATED NEGATIVE rJFCLARAT~ON DA~D ~ i~~ _:_. , PREPARED EOR ~E ~ROPOSEO REDEVELO~ENT C~FONNIA, AND AGREE TO tMPLEMNNT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN. 53 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED , PREPARED FOR THE~ PROPOSED REDEVELOPME,, , OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS CALIFORNIA, AND AGREE TO MPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES CONTAINED HEREIN. ,.PALO ALTO, Applicant’s Signature Date ATTACHMENT F PLAN SET 2275 E1 Ca.mino P,.eal/99-AR.B-139, 99-EIA-28, 99-DEE-13 Plan set (for ARB members andproject file only) 2275 El Camino Real Page 18 Attachment B ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING January 6, 2000 2275 El Camino Real [99-ARB-139, 99-EIA-28, 99-DEE-13]: Request by Moyer Associates Architects on behalf of James Baer/Premier Properties for continuance of a major Architectural Review Board review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment to allow the remodel of the existing one-story 8,282-square-foot commercial building, including demolition of 768 square feet and construction of a 3,522-square-foot second-story addition, for a total of 11,036 square feet, and parking, landscaping and related site improvements. The project includes a request for a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) to allow a 2.5-foot perimeter landscape strip for approximately forty feet of the parking lot frontage for the required van-accessible parking space. Zone District: CC(2), Community Commercial Combining District. Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration. Chairman Peterson: Would the applicant like to make a presentation? This is a major item, so you have ten minutes. Chip Jessup: My name is Chip Jessup, and I am working on the project with Michael Moyer Associates. What we have brought in the way of exhibits are this finishes board and examples of the old telephone building, and examples of the decorative tile that we intend to be using as a colored exhibit, also a rendering of the building itself. What I would like to do first is to put in a plug for our client. We feel fortunate, and the city should feel fortunate, as well, that we have a client who is very concerned about the city and the development of the city, and he encourages the use of high quality, substantial materials, and he encourages us to use them in what we consider to be an elegant manner. We have enjoyed working on the project, and we hope that members of the board share our enthusiasm. As I mentioned earlier, we have taken our cues from the old telephone building, and in doing so, we have done a number of things. We have made an effort to emphasize the E1 Camino- Cambridge fagades through the use of traditional elements of terra cotta tiles and finishes of a limestone base, and we are using tile roofs and bronze finish details. What we have as bookends at each end of this building are stair towers that mimic, but on a slightly smaller scale, the corner. What we have done is to try and tie these together with more contemporary elements, and we have used them with decorative tiles and friezes at the cornices. In addition, what we have, since our primary client or primary tenant is a bank, we have signage at the soffit level or first-floor attic level. These signs are indicated on the sample board in bronze, and they are essentially back lit from inside the building. The rear of the building, which is accessed off of Cedro Lane, is where we have added parking. This building originally had no Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 1/6/2000 parking, and for the additional square footage, we have provided eight parking spaces and associated bicycle parking. The rear entrance to the bank is also accessible from Cedro Lane. The exterior portion of the building, this portion off Cedro Lane, is stucco. We have existing concrete masonry walls that are going to remain, and the finishes will be of a color to match the exterior finishes on the E1 Camino and Cambridge sides. Another thing that we have done which we hope is observable is that as you progress into the block on Cambridge, we have stepped down the building, reducing the scale as you move into the Cambridge side. In addition, it is our understanding that the balance of the western portion of the block has the same owner and is to be developed in the relatively near future. It is also our understanding that what happens with that will be reflected in and be related to what we have done, or are proposing to do here. This is a brief overview, and I can answer any questions you may have. This is a synopsis of what we are doing. We have decorative friezes, as I mentioned, in various locations in the building, and this is the design we are proposing. The color of the building is very similar to this, and you would have that, as well, in this terra cotta sample. The glazing is a light blue, so these are elements that we believe will all be tied together, and the decorative tile will match. Mr. Moyer: I am Michael Moyer of Moyer and Associates Architects. I am also here to be available to answer any questions you might have, again wanting to emphasize that in our experience, how unusual it is to have a developer come to us and say, I insist and demand that you use very expensive materials on this building. So it has been fun to work with the terra cotta detailing and create what we think is a little jewel. We welcome your questions. Chairman Peterson: Are there any questions? Mr. Bellomo: How far along are you in the design process? Are you into construction documents or are you into the city? Mr. Jessup: Yes, we are into construction documents, and we have actually submitted to the city. Mr. Bellomo: What other designs did you explore? Mr. Jessup: Jim Baer wanted strongly to use the strength of the telephone building on Bryant Street as his key. So we keyed off that, as a general direction, using from very early thinking, the material concepts are terra cotta, incorporating discussions with the bank about their concern for a strong entry statement at the corner, so the design evolved from both strong client input, user input in terms of the bank location, and square footage requirements for their use. Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 1/6/2000 Mr. Bellomo: Let me restate my question. What other types of massing, roof lines did you explore? Do you have any sketches or any other -- Mr. Jessup: No, we do not. Mr. Bellomo: Regarding the mechanical system that would sit on the flat portion between the two bookends and this tower element in front, how tall would that be, and how tall is the parapet? I am assuming that you basically see a box, another roof projecting in this area here? Mr. Jessup: Right. What you will see is a parapet wall that is four feet high. The mechanical units that are up there would be approximately 42 inches. Mr. Bellomo: This is 42 inches? Mr. Jessup: No, the roof screen sits approximately here and the screen itself is four feet offthe level of the roof. The mechanical equipment itself is approximately 42 inches tall. Mr.Bellomo: So from a view from across the E1 Camino, you will be able to see -- Mr.Jessup: You will see the top of that. Mr.Bellomo: Is what you have drawn here -- the dimensions of that box? Mr. Jessup: Yes. It is approximate. It will be approximately that size. On the lower roof, because of the mechanical requirements that we discovered for the bank and for the State Farm Insurance, the screen will have to be put forward. Mr. Bellomo: So you have another element. (Yes) And this element is approximately 21 feet by 18 feet. (Yes) And how is that screened? With the roof screen itself?. Mr. Jessup: Yes, the roof screen itself is a cement fiber board with a cap which actually reflects the caps of the parapet Mr. Bellomo: Could you take us for a walk around the landscape plan? Mr. Jessup: Okay. We have set the building back approximately three feet from its original location, and we have planter boxes set in the recess for the window wall in the front on E1 Camino. There are three existing street trees which will remain. We have two street trees on the Cambridge side which will remain, and off the parking area in back, we have low landscaping and two additional street trees. One of the conditions that was listed by the Transportation Department, I guess, on the landscape is that they feel that our request for a Design Enhancement Exception reduces the depth of the landscape strip to be too narrow to put a tree on the side Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 1/6/2000 where it now is, and suggested that we put two trees on the opposite side. That seems to be fine with us. Mr. Bellomo: How do you envision pedestrian access from the rear parking lot, basically through the parking lot? Mr. Jessup: Visitors to the bank will enter through the rear. Mr. Bellomo: Did you have some concern about the accessible parking, the rear end of the car interfering with that entry? Mr. Jessup: Yes, we have had some concern about that. The landscaping plan that you have has actually been modified. One of the requirements of the Transportation. Department was to provide a van-accessible space, which was why we moved into the DEE. The accessible side or passenger side has actually been flipped. Mr. Bellomo: And where is the recycled trash area? Mr. Jessup: The recycled trash area will be dedicated in this area. There is an easement which I know the owner will be providing which addresses that. Mr. Bellomo: My last question for you is that this development towards this side is under consideration for redevelopment, and that this design might key into that? Mr. Jessup: We would assume that there will be a relationship between the two. We have not had formal conversations about that. Mr. Alfonso: I have several questions. Unfortunately, you do not have a site plan in front of you, but can you just describe once again the need for a DEE? What is the genesis of the request? Mr. Jessup: During the initial review by staff, we were notified that there needed to be a van- accessible space. There is on the site very limited distance between the back side of the building and Cedro Lane, because of the intent not to remove an:. ~f the existing walls at the back of the building. In order to get the parking in place and in order to get the number of parking spaces we needed in order to provide a van-accessible space, we had to reduce our options, and what seemed to be the most likely option was to reduce the landscape strip on that side. That is along Cedro Lane. Mr. Alfonso: How much was it reduced? Mr. Jessup: It was reduced to two-and-a-half feet. Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 1/6/2000 Mr. Alfonso: From five feet? Mr. Jessup: Yes. I should add that there is very little landscaping, if any, to speak of on Cedro Lane today, so it is our opinion that what we are doing here, even with a DEE, is an enhancement of what is there. Mr. Alfonso: You show here on your plan an accessible parking space and a five-foot six-inch planting strip. Are you saying that you need to have an additional one? Mr. Jessup: No, we need one van-accessible space. What is shown on the plan that you have in front of you is what is described as a handicap parking space. That is normally 14 feet. Mr. Alfonso: Can you describe, in general, what your landscape concept is for this project and what is happening on all the perimeters of the building? Mr. Jessup: I can, but it might make more sense to have Michael do that, since he has been involved longer. Mr. Moyer: The sidewalk on E1 Camino Real is currently very narrow. So we have an opportunity, since we are literally tearing down the whole front of the structure to pull the entire building back away from E1 Camino Real, creating a broader sidewalk statement for pedestrian use, in so doing we would pull back additionally to create an opportunity for landscape planning. It will be in planter boxes along the E1 Camino Real frontage. The other primary landscaping area is in the rear parking lot. Along Cambridge, there is a deep planting strip that separates Cambridge from the interior parking area, and as you just discussed, the two trees and planting that is adjacent to Cedro. Mr. Alfonso: How is this exterior lighted throughout the building? Mr. Moyer: The exterior lighting? (Yes) There is a lighting plan that is in your packet. We have lighting that is shown on the exterior elevations that is lanterns, that is down lights for visual access, and there are’decorative lights to enhance the character and be consistent with the quality of the design of the architecture. There is some required lighting at the bank ATM that meets the state requirements for lighting. It is also a down-lit condition, creating enough lighting to satisfy safety requirements. There is a pole lamp over the rear parking area, giving the normal lighting requirements for the rear parking lot. That is a very general overview. Mr. Alfonso: Describe once again all of the various pedestrian entries to this project. Mr, Moyer: There are two primary and one secondary entrance. The primary entrance at the Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 1/6/2000 comer of Cambri, and E1 Camino and the entrance off the rear parking are the two primary pedestrian entries, acre also is more of an exiting condition along El Camino Real at the ., so there are three exits and entrances into the building. Mr. Alfonso: Who is intended to primarily park in the back of the building? Is there a program as to who is intended to park in back of the building? Will it be customer parking or employee parking? Mr. Moyer: It will be bank customer parking. There is one other tenant, Allstate (State Farm?), which is along Cambridge which will take advantage of the parking structure across the street. Mr. Alfonso: So ifI were coming to the bank to do business, I would drive along Cedro Lane, park in the back, walk through the rear end of the building and into the bank itself. Or do the same if I wanted to go to the insurance agent. I would park in the back and somehow get in there, or do I have to come back around Cambridge? Mr. Moyer: There is a number of stalls that are grandfathered to the site, so from a zoning standpoint, the new parking is really associated with the bank addition. In fact, that parking, although it is not totally clear to me, I think will be dedicated to bank parking, not to Allstate parking. So Allstate parking would come from the parking lot across the street as its primary parking environment. Mr. Alfonso: So as a patron of this insurance office, I would have to know to park off-site, not on this site, as there would be no way for me to get in from the back. Is that correct? Mr. Moyer: There is no way to get into Allstate from the back of the building. Its only entrance is off of Cambridge. Mr.Jessup: There is an emergency exit. Mr.Alfonso: It looks like there is just a single swinging door adjacent to a planting strip. Mr.Moyer: It is an egress condition and not intended to be public access to Allstate. Mr. Alfonso: Do you know at this time if there will be the standard 9-5 operating hours in this building? Mr. Moyer: I do not know specifically the bank hours, but my assumption is the same as yours. Mr. Alfonso: Also, what do you know at this time, if at all, what the window coverings will be? That is, by default of your elevation. Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 1/6/2000 Mr. Moyer: The tenant improvements for the interior of the bank space are being handled by an architect. It is our understanding that there are no intended window coverings on the interior. The glass is tinted to reduce heat gain and interior activity, as well as noise. So currently, it is our understanding that there will be no interior drapery system. Mr. Alfonso: What about the signage? Is there any idea at this point as to whether there will be signage along the interior of the glass? Mr. Moyer: All of the signage is in your packets for both the bank and Allstate. In terms of interior signage, we have told the bank that we are discouraging any interior signage. We frankly do not have direct control over that, Is your concern over what is happening inside the building? Mr. Alfonso: My concern is what the overall appearance will be from the exterior, given that there is so much glazing as a part of your elevation. That was the genesis of the question. Mr. Moyer: We have worked very carefully with creating the signage bands that go along E1 Camino Real. There is an interior sign that is on either side of the primary bank signage that is in a black box that has lights that tell the time and the date. This is behind the glass. As Chip mentioned, there is lighting that is behind the bronze letters that identify the bank itself. These are inside the building in a box that lights that sign from the rear through the transparent glass. It is an indirect lighting source from behind. Mr. Alfonso: What about at the entry points, particularly your main entry. Are there any proposals at all for any sort of canopy for pedestrians coming in through there? Or was that not part of what was considered? Mr. Moyer: The front entrance is only recessed about three feet from the window wall that is above. Other than that, there is no physical canopy. Mr. Alfonso: There is an offset between the top glazing and the bottom glazing as rendered down three feet? Mr. Moyer: Correct. Mr. Maran: How would you evaluate the impact of this building on the community? What is it going to do to whatever exists, and what is going to be the new use of the building? More people coming into the neighborhood, or fewer people, more cars? How do you evaluate that? Mr. Moyer: I think the timing certainly will be different in terms of its use. The primary facility that is currently occupying the site, in terms of high demand, is principally some lunch activity, Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 1/6/2000 63 but a lot of evening, and on the weekend, late evening activity. The bank, of course, will be operating during normal business hours, and there will be a shift in terms of high demand more towards the daytime hours rather than the evening hours. Our hope and thought is that this building would be a welcome change to the kind of jungle that is there right now. It is an opportunity to really clean up that comer and make it a real contribution to the neighborhood. Our hope is that it will encourage similar types of development along that strip, which is very spotty and in need of upgrading. Mr. Maran: What is the total number of employees that will be working in that building when it is done? Mr. Moyer: I do not know the numbers. I would have to look into our file to determine that. We do not have G.I. drawings for the bank. We did have some estimates that were used to determine lighting loads and heating loads, but I do not recall what those were, at the moment. Mr. Maran: These are probably more questions for the tenant than for the developer, so forgive me, but perhaps you can answer them. What would you say would be the normal flow? Is this a foot traffic bank, or is more of an office type bank? Mr. Moyer: I think it is the latter. I do not believe there will be high foot traffic access to the bank. The bank, as a user, is very concerned about the presentation of a strong entry statement at the corner. However, I think that in fact, there will not be high pedestrian use for access into the bank. Mr. Maran: And the State Farm Insurance is already there and stays pretty much as it is in terms of occupancy load? Mr. Moyer: It is, of course, changing its location from the comer down the street on Cambridge. Mr. Lippert: I am going to take the millenium approach with regard to my questions. My concerns all stem from the longevity of this building as a bank. During the late 1980s and 1990s, there was some difficulty in terms of the banking industry, and we saw a shrinking and consolidation. Has any thought been given to uses of this building beyond its being a bank? What I thinking specifically is that bank architecture has a tendency to be very rigid in terms of the flexibility of the interior. Is there going to be a vault, for instance, inside this bank? Where will that be? How will that impact the building? Mr. Mover: There is a very long-term lease involved with the bank. Also to address what I think is your concern, the interior has a minimum number of columns, structurally, and a very open floor plan both on the upper level and the lower level. So any future division or rearrangement of space would be relatively easy to accommodate with the structure that is being proposed. Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 1/6/2000 8 Mr. Lippert: Is there going to be a vault in the banki? Mr. Moyer: No, there is no vault. Mr. Lippert: With regard to the LED signage and clock proposed for the bank, in some ways, the design approach that you have taken on the bank is a very traditional approach in terms of the style, but the clocks are somewhat in contrast, or the LED signage is in contrast to that. Have you given any other thoughts to that signage or even the clock with regard to a different approach? Mr. Moyer: A lot of the direction was taken from the user as to what their needs and requirements were and the statement that they want to make. The incorporation of their ideas was critical, from their perspective. Our concem was to not have these hanging out from the building. So we collected them, put them in a linear statement along that front signage, and then pulled them back behind the glass rather than in front of the glass to really subdue them, so the architecture would read, with the glazing statement, and the LED signage would be behind that, very subtle and subdued. It would still accomplish the objectives of the owner. We have given that a lot of serious thought. We are concerned about it and are quite comfortable with our solution. Mr. Lippert: I have a question for staff. What is the city view on this? Are there any ordinances with regard to LED signage in terms of its really being a moving, internally illuminated sign? Male staff member: My understanding is that we have treated them as signage and the square footage toward the sign area allowance. I do not believe that we have constituted it to be a moving or flashing sign. Steven Turner, who does a lot of our signs, has indicated to me that that is how we treated those. I may have to investigate this further, as it is the first time I have dealt with a time and temperature sign on a building. Certainly, for the time being, it looks like we would treat that as a part of the signage and include that as part of the viable sign area. I will speak to the attorney about flashing and movement and whether that is a problem or not. Mr. Lippert: You have indicated that for the entry portion, that would be a clock sign. Any thoughts as to how the LEDs might be used on the E1 Camino Real side of the building? Mr.Moyer: That is where they currently are, on the E1 Camino side of the building. Mr.Lippert: You have an LED clock also above the entryway? Mr.Moyer: Yes, at the entry itself. Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 1/6/2000 Mr. Lippert: So they wou!d be used for time and temperature, specifically? Mr. Moyer: Time, temperature, date, and I think one shows the current interest rate given on savings accounts Mr. Lippert: But could they be programmed for virtually anything, like stock quotes? Mr. Moyer: I suppose they could be programmed for virtually anything. We took the beacon off the roof. There was a fair amount of work done with the bank to reduce the amount of signage to what we have presented to you. From our perspective, we have worked hard in terms of limiting the amount of signage that would be here. We do ,not really have control over what would be presented on the LED signs. Mr. Lippert: One last question regarding the signage above the front door. I believe you are showing some spotlights on the First Republic Bank sign above the main entrance. Mr. Moyer: Those are simply lights to illuminate the sign aimed back at the building. Mr. Lippert: Did you look at doing something with the halo signage there? Mr. Moyer: The gentleman who is in charge of doing all of the signage and physical design is present. Perhaps he could answer the question. Jeff Jenning.s: I work with Ad Art, and we actually handle all of the First Republic Bank signage in Northern California and all of their other branches outside the state. I think that in the first proposal we did make, we were going to use a sealed letter which had a depth of about a half inch that was going to be surface-mounted to the glass. I think initially in the band behind here, there would be some type of fluorescent fixture, no exposed lighting or anything, but the impact would be a halo lighting effect. So during the day, the letter style would be in that metal tone, and I believe it was a polished brass or sort of a bronze type material. Then at nighttime, you would just get the silhouette of the eagles and the copy above the doorway. (Inaudible comment) Mr. Jennings: Yes, that is right. I believe that as it stands right now, that would be the same type of material, but not illuminated, and then the only thing is the goose neck fixture that shines back. I do not know if the architecture of the building allows for the back of that panel to be open or to be glass. They would definitely be willing to do that. That is their desired look. That is their intended look. Mr. Moyer: I think it was the architecture that really dictated the character of that signage. Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 1/6/2000 10 Having the goose necks there I felt strengthened the entryway, and having the letters lit from the face to give more light directly on the letters themselves we just felt was more appropriate for that condition at the corner. Mr. Lippert: Regarding the rooftop, can you just describe the profile of the rooftop? Mr. Moyer: It is a mission tile roof system, similar to what you see on many of the Stanford buildings. Mr. Jennings: May I add one comment? The reason why we actually did go with the LED signage here, as well, was because all of the locations do have time and temperature units, as well as flats. Those are the two key components for all of their locations. What we would use the LED for would be time, temperature, interest rates, and also Dow Jones/NASDAQ increases, decreases. Typically, what they do to eliminate the fear of that emanation or flashing or whatever you might call it, we adhere to the CalTrans requirements of four seconds on, one second off. That is state law. You will never have anything that appears to be blinking or scrolling or flashing or animated. That is pretty much how we have always done it at all of the other locations. Male staff member: Mr. Chairman, I would like to interject, ifI may, that it would be prudent for us to take a look at the time/temperature and the movement and make a determination on that. Regardless of what you want to do with the rest of the project, I would like to converse with the city attorney on this particular issue and see how we would address this signage and lighting issue. Chairman Peterson: I will start on signage. Has all of the exterior signage, including the LED, been counted in the area for signage? Male staff member: I cannot recall whether or not the LED signage has actually been calculated in there. I think that Miss Weiss may have just calculated the signage as shown, the conventional signage, as opposed to the LED. So we may have to do a recalculation on that. Chairman Peterson: So is that one of the things you want to look at? Male staff member: Chairman Peterson: just the image. I do Yes, we would like to take a look at that. I guess there is a question on the LED whether you count the whole box, or not know how that is done. Chairman Peterson: Let me ask a question of the signage designer. What is the size and depth of that LED box? The real question is whether it is flush so that it is not a box protruding out. Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 1/6/2000 11 Mr. Jennings: Yes, it will be recessed into the building. So nothing will sit out on the face of the building. You have a little recessed area back here behind the mullions. The cabinet actually will sit within the building, depending on how we actually build it, and the attachments from above, probably 8-t0 inches. So the visible opening for both of these, heightwise, will be very similar to the height of the copy, about two feet. Then it will span about a seven-foot width. The LEDs are green. They use green because that is their corporate color. Typically all of their other signage at their other locations is green and white. So the green LED recessed into the building will be subtle, and you do have the ability to adjust the brightness, as well. So it is something that can be modified. Chairman Peterson: Let me understand the location and placement of the LED on E1 Camino. Is that behind glass or is it recessed into that panel that has the First Republic Bank on it? Mr. Moyer: The floor line of the second floor is contained within the horizontal band that is expressed. The bank signage is at that line, as is the LED signage. We actually pulled the floor back. It is twelve inches away from the glass which then contains the box with the LED that was referenced behind the glass. Chairman Peterson: Regarding the back panel for the signage that has First Republic Bank, it is opaque. Is that correct? Mr. Moyer: No, it is not. It is actually translucent glass that has lighting from behind within the building that is in a light box, but is behind that signage, so it is lit from behind. Chairman Peterson: And that will be the panel into which the LED is also placed. Mr. Moyer: The LEDs are on either side. There is a band to the right and a band to the left that will contain the LEDs. Chairman Peterson: I see. In both of those. So that is not really represented here, but that is going to be in that panel area. (Yes) I have another questions. On the rear of the building, essentially what is existing now? Is that a stucco finish? Mr. Moyer: Right now, it is a concrete block wall, but we are putting stucco over the surface of it. Chairman Peterson: Why are not the tile materials used on those surfaces, which is a leading question. Mr. Moyer: We had originally proposed having the tile on the lower floor, incorporating stucco on other surfaces above. In the redesign considerations with Jim Baer, he wanted to carry the terra cotta all the way up to the top of the parapet wall on the Cambridge and E1 Camino fagades. Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 1/6/2000 12 Upon wrapping around the Cambridge end of the building, we had the oppommity to make the transition into the stucco material, which is very plain and simple. We just thought it was appropriate. It also allowed us to emphasize the entry at the rear, and have it stand out against this very low, long wall. So we introduced some of the terra cotta at the entry from the parking lot area. Chairman Peterson: One last leading question. That has to do with the character of this building and how you see that relating to the general character of the Mayfield area down there. Do you feel that this relates? If so, how? If not, what does it relate to? Mr. Moyer: It is drawing strongly from the Stanford vocabulary, which is not quite kitty-comer, but just down the street. Using a more traditional statement was part of the impetus for the design, rather than going to something that was starkly contemporary. We were trying not to reflect the character of the building that is on the corner of California and E1 Camino Real, although it is also a glazed facade on that building. We wanted something that had more of a traditional statement to it and warmer, an opportunity to give more scale which this style of architecture does present. Male staff member: We did find the calculations for the signage in the signs that they were calculated from. Apparently, the conventional signage was calculated, so that is the square footage that you see in the staff report. The LEDs were not calculated, so they would be beyond what is shown, as proposed, in your staff report. Mr. Alfonso: I have a question as to whether there are any operable windows in this project. Mr. Moyer: No. Chairman Peterson: I have two cards from members of the public who would like to address us. Joy Ogawa, 2305 Veale Street, Palo Alto: I have brought some visual aids. I have written out what I am going to say, but in a more comprehensive statement, which I will pass out to you. That is just in case I run out of time. So I am actually one block away from 2275 E1 Camino Real. I can see the present ’building at 2275 E1 Camino Real from my living room and kitchen windows. I am a pedestrian and I walk by that building all the time. When I drive, I go through that intersection at E1 Camino and Cambridge, so I have an interest in this project. My concerns follow to three areas. One is parking and the inadequacy of the parking for the size and use of this building. I also have some design issues, partly because of the traffic concerns that have to do a lot with the size and design of the parking and the location of the building, and where the parking is in relation to the building. The project is providing eight parking spaces for a 9,500-square-foot bank and a 1,500-square- Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 1/6/2000 13 foot insurance office. I disagree with the finding that nine spaces is what is required by the ordinance. Be that as it may, assuming that that is the right number, the minimum required, I really think that nine is inadequate for a building of this size and with the kind of use that is proposed. The rea.son I have come to this conclusion is that the CalFed building just down the block at E1 Camino and California Avenue, I do not know the exact size of the CalFed building, but just by walking off the outside dimensions, I guessed that it was about 5,000 square feet or less. That CalFed building has 13 parking spaces, including one handicap parking space. So 13 parking spaces is more than 50% more than the eight for this 9,500-square-foot bank. That CalFed parking lot is very often filled. There is a full-time parking lot attendant at that CalFed parking lot, because the parking (timer interrupts) The inadequacy of parking, the design issues, were one big concern in just looking briefly at the plans. Way too much glass. I think that amount of glass is off-putting and pedestrian-unfriendly. I really do not want that much glass facing my window. Part of my concerns about traffic and parking, the inadequacy of the amount of parking, which relates to the size of the addition, the DEE seems to me to be required only because the addition is of a size that requires a minimum of that many parking spaces. If they would just scale back the addition, they would not have to ask for the DEE. So I would ask that the DEE not be approved. So I hope you have time to review my written statement and go over my concerns, which go beyond what I have spoken to here. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, Palo Alto: I live a little farther away than Joy does, but am still well within pedestrian distance of this building. I do have occasion frequently to walk by it. I also am representing, to some extent, concerns of the neighborhood at large with respect to the future of the building. I echo Joy’s concerns about traffic and parking. That intersection is already extremely congested, particularly during the evening commute hour. Traffic, at this point, is backed up from Page Mill all the way back to Stanford Avenue in the evening. So I am very concerned about adding any additional congestion, particularly at that intersection. The location of the ATM causes me great concern. One of the things we have seen at the Wells Fargo Bank across the street from CalFed is that people attempting to use the ATM tend to have less regard for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other uncaged victims than other drivers do. They will park almost anywhere. I have seen people park on the sidewalk at Wells Fargo. I have seen people drive down the sidewalk at Wells Fargo in order to facilitate their use of the ATM. There is currently an investigation of a police officer who parked, blocking the entrance and sidewalk there because of his desire to quickly get to the ATM. So I am very concerned about putting an ATM where there is inadequate parking access. I also want to raise the noise question once again. There is a church across Cedro Lane from this building, and I am concerned about the air-handling equipment, the mechanical systems on top of the building perhaps not being adequately screened from the side of the church, as well as from other adjacent neighbors. Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 1/6/2000 14 We do appreciate the high quality of materials being used. I think that is a real key. It certainly is possible to improve the look of the building over what is there, but I also have concerns about the scale and massing of the building and the amount of glass. It is a much larger building than what is there today, and as Joy said, two stories of glass is not friendly, nor is it particularly Mediterranean in feel. I have a concem about lighting. Again I would like that as you work with the interior architects, that you look at some sort of motion sensors attached to the lighting, again, particularly if there is not going to be any kind of drapery to close in the lighting at night. Joy can see the building from her house, and we have an ever increasing amount of ambient lighting generated by the commercial buildings in that area. We would like to control that. The flashing signs provide no utility to the neighborhood as far as I can see. It seems to be contrary to the idea that this is mostly an office bank, not a walk-in bank. I cannot see why you would need a flashing sign to attract somebody that already knows that that is where they are going. So I do not see the utility of these flashing signs basically projecting advertising into our neighborhood. I finally want to raise a question about the construction process. As I mentioned, this is an extraordinarily busy intersection, and I do have a concern about where the construction vehicles are going to be parked and how the construction is going to be staged, particularly since it is the front part of the building that is primarily being rebuilt, not the back. So I really have a serious concern about both the noise and the congestion that will be generated from that, and that needs to be carefully controlled and managed. Thank you. Chairman Peterson: Seeing no one else from the public who wishes to address us, we will return to the board for comments. First, it might be helpful for Ray or the applicant to briefly review the parking situation and what justifies the numbers and the history of this. Male staff member: The staff report does indicate that they would have a need for their addition to provide nine parking spaces. They are substituting additional bike parking to take the place of one of those spaces, so they are providing the AD need per the code. The rest of the parking required for the building is provided by the California Parking Assessment District, a pedestrian district where multiple tasks are take by one trip. So having the city parking available has been determined to be adequate for this site and the provision of parking to the site for where it exists, and they are providing on-site for what they need for the addition, per the code. Chairman Peterson: And they pay into that district, I assume? (Yes) Mr. Bellomo: I want to thank the applicant for his presentation and the neighbors for their input. I do not have many questions about the design, because it seemed very set at this point. I have Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 1/6/2000 15 deferred until now to talk about the design. First of all, I want to say what I do like about the design. I appreciate the level and the quality of the materials being placed on the building. That is more than commendable, so I really think that is something that should be worked with and continue to be worked with. I would also like to say that at our last meeting, we had a project close by, an office, a mixed use preliminary design review. It was very helpful to have a preliminary design review to just talk about the design, the issues, so we are here, but I highly encourage a preliminary review on a major remodel like this on an important comer of E1 Camino. The design, in my opinion, is creating a context. There were some spoken words of Stanford vocabulary. Stanford, in my opinion, has now gone into real innovation, and not imitation. I really commend the Stanford effort to go beyond and into this century. I do not see that happening here. I really do see a building placed here, a forced statement here. I would like to have the time to really look at options, using the materials, but looking at massing, looking at how to work with this site in a creative, gentle, soft manner that is really creative, that introduces high levels of materials. I do not think the roof lines work. I do not think the entry works. The glazing can work. The glazing portion of the project is actually my favorite part of it, but I do not think the end pieces, the church beyond with that context and that massing, it almost seemed like there was some relationship to the church roof line to this building, and apparently there was not, but I assumed it when I went out to the site. I think the rear entry needs some work, a canopy, a pedestrian kind of walkway that really is a major pedestrian entry from that parking lot. I really think that needs to be looked at. Regarding landscaping at E1 Camino, I would encourage that to also be integrated, or at least the irrigation and the drainage at those planters to be carefully studied. The mechanical systems, in my opinion, need to be shown on a massing model. They need to be integrated into the architecture versus boxes that are placed on top. They do create a roof line element, and I think they should be addressed as such, because they are viewed from different vantage points. Regarding signage, I certainly could not support interest rate signage. Possibly in a downtown use, but on E1 Camino Real, I do not see that it is appropriate. In conclusion, I am just one on this board, but certainly in keeping with the materials and utilizing them in design, I would certainly like go see a restudy of the overall design. Mr. Alfonso: I find this building to be kind of a composition of styles and attitudes, and I draw upon a little bit of what Joe has mentioned already. As you wrap around this building along E1 Camino and Cambridge and then the rear street, there seems to be a difference in attitude as the building goes around, and with that, a lesser quality of material as it certainly goes to the rear of the building. I also think there is also a stylistic change as you wrap around the building, both of which are really underlying a sense of lack of cohesiveness about what is happening throughout Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 1/6/2000 16 this project in its entirely. There are parts of this project that I think are quite inventive and interesting. Those are the parts where the use of materials, the use of signage and the use of recall of historical elements in Palo Ako are well integrated. I refer specifically to the areas that are glazed where we have elements of the terra cotta, where we have the use of bronze, and we have the integrated signage in an inventive way. That portion of the building, the character of the architecture and the character of the signage, are consistent in that there is a sense of innovation about it all. Then we move into the entry of the building where we have a much more literal, historical replication of a building form, yet the use of LED signage. I find that character to be inconsistent and inappropriate for the use in this type of building. Furthermore, I am not of the belief that we need more information. It would really be quite pleasant to just have a building that quietly says, a bank. If I wanted to get interest rates or any other information, I would probably have a thousand ways of doing it, most of which are just a lot of noise. We do not feel that we need that on this comer. Then certainly, as you come around Cambridge and we come around Cedro Lane, there is kind of a large void of the building as perceived along here which illustrates the back of the project, most of which is sort of the back , as opposed to rendition in some articulated way as is done along E1 Camino and other parts. I feel that as I wrap around the building, I can uncover attitudes about what is important and what is not important. Clearly you are showing that E1 Camino and Cambridge are important, and that which is in the back is not important. A pedestrian arriving at the bank from the back would have this experience, which is very different from one in the front, yet my understanding is that the front is not to be used very much. It is more of a stage set, in a way. The other thing I would comment on is the specific historical element that is being utilized here. If one were to use historical elements as they are being used here, I think it would be appropriate to have operable windows. I think it would be appropriate to have a real balcony, as opposed to the faux decorative element, a sort of a grillwork. I think it would be appropriate to incorporate those elements as entry features, therefore, even down scaling the sense of that comer element which, to me, feels rather narrow and tall. Proportionally, it does not feel correct to me at this point. It seems like more than simply a recess on the first floor is needed in order to achieve a greater sense of harmony With the scale of that entry piece. In my opinion, this building has a long way to go before it can feel right on this site. It is setting a precedent that I am fearful isnot going in the right direction, particularly in the context of this district in the area. Also, I wonder what is to come along the remaining portion of that E1 Camino. Part. I am not opposed to a two-story building here. I think the width of E1 Camino can certainly stand this kind of massing, but I am mostly opposed to the juxta position of attitudes and stylistic replications. I am much more encouraged by the sense of innovation. I think it is fine to have wonderfully precious materials, but it is more about how you use them and Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 1/6/2000 17 how you craft a" -w way of using them that is going to make this project much more successful, in my opinion. Mr. Maran: I want to address a couple of points that are a little less about the design of the building and more about the use. I have a slightly different opinion on what should happen on a building like this at night and about the signage. I think it is kind of lively, and I do not think there is much functional value to showing interest rates, but I would still like to see it on E1 Camino. I am opposed to shutting down all of the buildings on E1 Camino at night and having them be very dark. For that matter, during the day, too. I am glad that this bank is not located on California Avenue and is off the main strip. My sense is that in banking, we are going to be doing a lot less walk-up banking and a lot more on-line banking. Banks really are becoming offices rather than retail type establishments. For that matter, I would like to see the project address parking more in terms of how it contributes or how it --what the public parking that exists, as I understand it, on two parking structures on Cambridge Avenue, as well as some open public parking on Cambridge Avenue and how it either contributes to the overloading or takes away from the overloading. I would like to see this project address that issue also. From the standpoint of the materials that go into this building, it seems very attractive, and they seem to be good quality materials, although what I would also like to see addressed in the materials and in the design is the issue of sustainable products, which also gets to the issue of the energy consumption of the building and whether the glass is Low-E glass, reducing the resources that the building is going to use, and that also relates to how many people are going to be using the building and how often the doors will be open versus just a closed office space. You said that there are no operable windows, so we assume there is going to be some very tightly controlled Title 24 requirements on this building. But sustainable is also a very important part of quality materials from my standpoint, and especially the future of this industry as we start to run out of resources. I hope that those roof tiles are recycled roof tiles. There are some available, so I would like to see that issue addressed in the design, also. Mr. Lippert: I would first like to say that I think this is a very rich design. I really appreciate the use of materials. In familiarizing myself with other Republic Bank branches, I do not think the quality level reaches this quality level here. You have done a really tremendous job in terms of the styling and the quality and character. I do not share the concerns of my colleagues with regard to the styling of the building. It is a handsome and attractive building. I think it is very appropriate, and I really appreciate it. I do, however, have some concerns. My main concern is in regard to signage. The signage in this case (and I go not only into.the city ordinance regarding signage but also the E1 Camino Real Design Guidelines), they specifically address as guidelines a reduction in the size and amount of Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 1/6/2000 18 signage along E1 CaminoReal, as well as the use of signage as attention-getting devices. What I see here, with regard to the LED sign and particularly the clock element and the use of time, temperature and possibly stock quotes, the dynamic nature of the LED sign, that would be used an attention-getting device. My support of this building and the quality of materials, as well as the architectural character, in some ways are diminished by the LED signs. They would, in some ways, be more attention- getting than the architecture. So I do not know if I could approve the use of such a dynamic element with regard the signage program for this building. With regard to the other signs, I am very much in support of those. I think you have done a credible job. I do also have some concerns with regard to the back side of the building. I do not think it is as well articulated. It could use some work in terms of elevating all sides of the building to the same quality level. Lastly, with regard to the ATM machine, I have some concerns with regard to the location of the ATM and how that element might be articulated. I would encourage finding an alternative location for that, perhaps some sort of internal vestibule site for the ATM machine or locating that on a different side of the building, or perhaps in the back of the building. Mr. Alfonso: I do have one other comment I wish to make having to do with the glazed portion along E1 Camino. I have a sneaking suspicion that that glazed portion on E1 Camino will be mostly closed by the office user, due to the exposure. It is a western exposure that is going to be quite a heat load on that side of the building, particularly in the summer months. I think the design needs to address that in some significant way, whether it is that significant element along that fagade that is added or if significant landscaping could be provided along the streetscape so that the problem is mitigated. It is going to be a big problem unless it is dealt with in some significant way. Chairman Peterson: I have some comments on three or four specific items. The first is on the signage. I agree with my colleagues that the purpose of signage in Palo Alto is for identification of the building. It is not for advertising or getting attention. I think the LEDs, if used for anything other than time, are not appropriate for signage here. I think there is a major issue of the character of LEDs, particularly with this kind of building, and it seems to be fighting exactly the opposite to the character of this building. So I would not be support of those LEDs as they are shown. As my colleagues have, I commend you for the quality of materials. They are terrific, and I think the historical details and the character of that is very nice, very appropriate. I think it is essential that it cover the entire building and that there is not a false front and a leftover back. That character has to carry all the way through. Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 1/6/2000 19 I also agree that the most successful parts of this building are those that are less stylistic and not attempting to be some imitative style or some faux front, that they still integrate the quality of materials and the character, but that they do it in a way that is appropriate for our time. By that, I am not saying that this has to be a mugren building, but it needs to have a sense of integration. Joe’s characterization of what Stanford is doing, which is innovation, not imitation, is really very good. I think those parts of this building that do that are the most successful. I am well aware of the impact of both the user and your client, so what I am interested in doing is encouraging them to allow you to do what you might do more naturally if you did not have as much pressure as you are probably getting from those two people. There are two other areas that are important. One of them is the functional area. That is both sun protection and weather protection for people coming to this. This does face south-southwest, and it is going to be hotter than blazes. That is all there is to it. It needs to be addressed, or the consequences will be as Frank has said. There are going to be drapes and blinds pulled all the time, and that will be the character of the building. That is not reflected in the rendering you have done, which looks very, very nice. I also think it will be rather harsh and abrupt not to have some sort of weather protection at the entries. Some sort of canopy would be of great benefit to people coming here. There are two other things that the members of the public mentioned, and one is the amount of light that comes out of here at night. It is an issue, and as Drew says, it is nice for the building to look alive, so I would not want to see no lights at all, but they certainly ought to be diminished so that the light coming out of there would be soft. Also, the incorporation of best construction methods, which I believe is required by the city anyway, but I assume that would be addressed. My own sense is, not having an opportunity to look at this in a preliminary way, that we are really treating this as a preliminary review, although we do need to vote on this. My own view is that it ought to be continued for some additional design study and return to us. I would like to hear what my colleagues have to say or if someone wishes to frame a motion. Mr. Alfonso: Do you want to frame that as a motion? MOTION: Chairman Peterson: I move that this project be continued for some additional design. study and return to us at a date certain. SECO~ ID: By Mr. Alfonso. Chairman Peterson: Does the applicant need any clarification? We will not do a rebuttal right now. Mr. Moyer: Hearing the commentary from the board, at least hearing the criticism, I think it probably is appropriate that we come back with commentary and our sincere attempts to address Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 1/6/2000 2O the issues that you have all raised. Chairman Peterson: That is what we would hope for, that you would have an opportunity to address the issues and come with your reaction to them. Motion passes unanimously on a vote of 5-0. End of item. Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 1/6/2000 21 77 Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 1/6/2000 Attachment C ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING May 4, 2000 2275 E1 Camino Real [99-ARB-139, 99-EIA-28, 99-DEE-13]: Request by Moyer Associates Architects on behalf of James Baer/Premier Properties for continuance of a major Architectural Review Board review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment to allow the remodel of the existing one-story 8,282-square-foot commercial building, including demolition of 768 square feet and construction of a 3,522-square-foot second-story addition, for a total of 11,036 square feet, and parking, landscaping and related site improvements. The project includes a request for a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) to allow a 2.5-foot perimeter landscape strip for approximately forty feet of the parking lot frontage for the required van-accessible parking space. Zone District: CC(2), Community Commercial Combining District. Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration. Vice-Chair Alfonso: Do we have a staff recommendation on this? Ms. French: Yes, I will make this brief. On January 6, the Architectural Review Board reviewed the same project, and continued the item for further design review. The bulk of the comments that the ARB made collectively had to do with the scale, bulk, mass and architectural style of the proposed building. The applicant has responded with a revised project, although the project largely does not include revisions that relate to the scale, bulk and mass of the building. For the most part, the revisions are cosmetic, plus some architectural detailing. I would like the board to respond to the applicant revisions. I do want to note that the project has a time line that would be terminated by May 14th, however, the applicant has responded with a letter requesting an extension which would allow them to continue on to July 13th. The applicant is here to present the project. Vice-Chair Alfonso: Fine. Would the applicant like to do so? Mr. Moyer: I am Michael Moyer, architect for the project. First of all, I want to say thank you to the board for the time you have given us. We have met individually, and we appreciate that support a lot. As a quick overview of the pertinent issues that we have identified, the environment of this region is composed of many small shops both on E1 Camino and on Cambridge. Part of what we have done with the expression of the building is to express the smaller elements which are the "bookends" to this building that show part of the reflection of the character that exists along E1 Camino and Cambridge. As we turn down Cambridge, the commercial buildings go to a one-story expression, so we have opted to step the building down as we turn the comer to help reflect that character of a reduction into the lower scale of Cambridge and to not compete with the adjacent church that is directly behind this project. Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 5/4/2000 79 This church, as well as the Ananda Church down the street, both have an expression of verticality that we have also reduced as part of the expression of the building. In looking at buildings in the environment that are the most supportive from an architectural standpoint, the Ananda Church to me stands out as one that really reflects human scale and charm and character. Other prominent buildings include the bank on the corner of California and E1 Camino, as well as the bicycle shop directly across the street from this project. There is a stucco material that is the predominant material expressed in those buildings. One of the modifications that has taken place since we last saw you is the introduction of stucco and the upper band, maintaining the rich limestone at the pedestrian level, but recalling and reducing not only the stucco but the mission tile expression on the roof, being responsive to the environment in which we are located. The from entry has a canopy for weather protection, and also at the rear of the building, the entry has been recessed substantially, allowing for protection of the . The building materials are consistent around the few exposed sides of the building in that we have taken the stucco expression and wrapped it around on the rear, side and front, introducing the limestone as surrounds around the windows and the rear entry statement. Another change that took place is at the rear itself which shows in this model to carry the same form of expression around to the rear entry statement as expressed around the other two sides of the building. The electronic LED signage that existed in the previous application no longer exists. That has all been eliminated, per your request. There were also some issues and concern for sun infiltration into the western fagade on E1 Camino Real. We have addressed that in a number of ways. One is that the user of this building has written a letter stating that they fully intend to use a shading system which Will be automatic, such that when sun control is desired, shades will be lowered all at the same rate and height to whatever position the shades are placed to maintain architectural integrity and character from the exterior of the building. We have also added two more street trees on E1 Camino, so we really have an arcade-like expression along the sidewalk. These two street trees are placed on the property side of the sidewalk. Because we have stepped the building back substantially from E1 Camino to create a larger pedestrian area, we have room for the planting of these trees that will also add a shading coefficient to the glass exposure along E1 Camino Real. Can I address any questions? Mr. Bellomo: I have a couple of questions for you. Regarding the rear parking lot, I have a question regarding lighting, recycled trash areas, and an overview of the accessible parking and how you envision that band protecting the building and if you are proposing bollards. Just how do you foresee the access in and out of this building in relationship to cars? Mr. Moyer: I would like to turn this over to Chip Jessup, who is an architect at Moyer and Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 5/4/2000 2 Associates to address your questions. Mr. Jessup: Access to the parking lot offof Cedro Lane is tight. What we have done is to make available a van-accessible handicap parking stall. We are proposing bollards at that rear entry to protect the building from the van access. We would like to put the nine-foot access on the building side of the parking area, but that does not really work with the loading and unloading from anyone coming in a van. Mr. Bellomo: You show an exit door from the State Farm Insurance area. Is that their main point of entry, do you believe? Mr. Jessup: To be direct, let’s say it is. Mr. Bellomo: Because it looks like you might have some conflict with an accessible van or car pulling in and a door opening. It seems that it is so tight against that wall line. I know you are tight, but I am worried about the actual functionality of it. Mr. Jessup: There is an access path from the State Farm space. What we have at this space is that there is a landing, a way out. Mr. Bellomo: I am just talking about that wall line and how, in fact, do you protect the building. Mr. Jessup: We are intending to put bollards along here. There will be a requirement, and they will have to back carefully. There is no other alternative. Mr. Bellomo: If you place the bollards there, does that reduce the size of the accessible parking space? Mr..Jessup: No, we can do that. Mr. Bellomo: It will not encroach on that space? Mr. Jessup: No. Mr. Bellomo: Generally, what is the lighting plan for the back parking lot? Mr. Jessup: There are street lights at the back that are canopied and will be directing light down. There is one primary light fixture there. Mr. Bellomo: So you are not introducing any parking lot lighting? Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 5/4/2000 3 Mr. Jessup: No. Mr. Bellomo: There were comments made at the last meeting regarding the massing of the building about roof lines, etc. Were there any studies made? You are really coming back with a roof line plan mass that is exactly the same, with the exception of the mechanical area. Would you go over those changes in massing that have changed. Mr. Jessup: The massing changes really consist of the relocation, the more central location for the roof screens and the approach to the building in the rear. The front sections really have not changed significantly. We have added the entry canopy, although it does not really affect massing, but it does make a change to the appearance of that entry. At the rear entry off of Cedro, we originally had a more square or rectilinear entryway, and we have changed that to more mimic what we have at what I will describe as the bookends in the rest of the building. Mr. Moyer: IfI may, Joe, in terms of the basic mass of the building, it has not changed. We feel very comfortable with the expression of massing within the context of the environment and the design of the building. What we did do, however, was to address each specific item that was raised in our session with the ARB at our last meeting. We feel that we have taken each of those items and addressed them. As Chip mentioned, the primary massing change was to engage the mechanical system into the rear elevation of the building so that we have actually engaged it into the structure, and it becomes a part thereof. The other massing change is at the rear entry, which previously was a flat-topped expression. It has now taken the same architectural form that is predominant around the building, tying it in so that we do have a strong architectural tie around to the rear. Mr. Bellomo: You have eliminated the electronic signage, and right now, you are showing a First Republic signage. How is that applied, and what is the substrate of that? Mr. Moyer: It is unglazing, and the lighting is in front of it rather than behind it as previously. I might mention, too, that in the parking area, there is a single pole light. I was not sure if that was what you were addressing earlier with your question. There is a single, 12- foot-high pole light that gives low level lighting into the parking area. Mr.Bellomo: And that will remain? Mr.Moyer: It is a new pole. Mr.Bellomo: And the stucco that you are thinking of, is it painted? Mr.Moyer: Yes. Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 5/4/2000 4 Mr. Bellomo: And as far as control joints within that screed line, you are showing none on the elevation, and there are proposed to be? Mr. Moyer: The stucco band on the two street fagades, certainly on E1 Camino, is narrow enough that we do not need to have the expression of stucco joints. The rear elevation does show the breakup of expansion joints, Mr. Bellomo: And the planters are the same as the cast stone planters, the same as proposed previously? Mr. Moyer: They are the same, however, we have added one more planter at the from. Vice-Chair Alfonso: I have some questions regarding the building massing. I am interested in finding out, when you began this process and when you determined to place the second-floor massing, I am interested in finding out where else in this large amount of area was it considered to put the second story? Mr. Moyer: The area allows for two times the proper area to be developed. (Mr. Moyer is very unclear.) Very early on, one of the initial steps was to address overall massing, and the conclusion with the developer was to integrate one times the area of the lot. So we significantly addressed massing in the very early steps in considering the overall building size and square footage. In looking at the E1 Camino strip, there are are two- and three-story buildings along E1 Camino, whereas on Cambridge, it is primarily a one-story expression. It suggested, therefore, to bring the massing forward along E1 Camino to allow for the transition to take place as you enter onto the Cambridge shopping area. We also then looked at ways of opening up the throat along Cambridge, and that introduced the idea of stepping back that comer and creating a bookend expression that allowed us to open up the comer of Cambridge, have a vertical statement of mass reflecting the Ananda Church and the church behind, having a container at the left end of the E1 Camino facade with a small tower expression, again emphasizing some verticality, and then having a quieter between, using the glass structure to connect between the two bookends. That is the design fagade that was turned around along the Cambridge side as it steps down. Am I addressing your question? Vice-Chair Alfonso: The essence of my question has to do with the placement of the second- story area, but I am wondering about the comer, the two-story height that was determined for the comer, and if there were another alternative for that comer. Was there ever any consideration for addressing that comer in a different way? Mr. Moyer: There were some studies done. The church that is behind the building we felt we wanted to maintain as a free expression. To push a two-story mass to the rear did not support Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 5/412000 that premise. It was one of the reasons also for bringing the mass forward. We wanted to have the at the back, rather than at the front, and therefore, another reason for bringing the mass forward. Even though there is a lot of grandfathered parking that goes with this property, we still wanted to introduce the parking at the rear. That was another reason for pulling the mass forward. Regarding the comer itself, you certainly could do this with a negative corner, and I am sure there are other expressions that would be successful, but we have opted to go ahead and express this as a vertical statement of strength. Equally opposite of it is an opening four into the Cambridge area to make it more inviting from a pedestrian standpoint. One of the interesting things about this area is that there is a very strong group pattern that exists in the layout of the streets. It is bisected by E1 Camino Real, a very broad street that separates pedestrian access visually into the Cambridge and California Avenue shopping areas. Creating a statement of tower and opening up that corner would help give more identity, and we feel it would pull the pedestrian more into the shopping area than possible with a one-story treatment. I personally am very pleased with the expression of the two-story element at the comer. I think it accomplishes its job very well. Vice-Chair Alfonso: Why was it decided to use the Ananda Church as a source of inspiration for parts of this project as opposed to the various other buildings that are right around this site and closer to it, such as the comer of California and E1 Camino, such as the mass of the parking structure right across the street from Cambridge, such as any other buildings nearby of that height and scale? Mr. Moyer: As we walked around E1 Camino and Cambridge, there really is a pot pourri of old buildings of some very good architectural character. The place that seemed to have some expression the three-story office building at the comer of E1 Camino, there is a strong expression, but we opted not to draw from that in terms of character. The bank across the street, the San Francisco Federal Bank is another statement of strength, and this is a personal opinion, but I think one of the nicest buildings is, in fact, the Ananda Church building. It is a very traditional statement, and it is very human. The scale is very pleasant. It is a very vital type of structure. One of the things we like about the results of what we have is that it is a very comfortable human scale building. The introduction of the limestone, being a very tactile material, is the kind of building that when you walk by, you are going to want to touch it because of the material expression that is there. We feel it is very inviting from that perspective. So we tried to draw from what we felt were the strengths in that area, and in fact, there really are very few. As I mentioned, we did pick up the idea of the number of individual buildings that are expressed along E1 Camino Real. We tried to express that, as well, in this structure. Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 5/4/2000 6 Vice-Chair Alfonso: Having said that, why was it decided to do mainly a two-story glass building? Mr. Moyer: The vertical expressions and the towers? Vice-Chair Alfonso: You have just referred to the tactile qualities, about materials, about character of architecture, scale, etc., yet the vast amount of elevation that is presented here is a two-story glass structure. I am wondering how those connections were made. Mr. Moyer: I feel that I have done what I can to try to address that from my thinking. Pushing the building mass back toward the rear I felt was an intrusion upon the church that exists behind the building. It seemed appropriate to have a vertical expression at the corner, striving for verticality. So it was natural, then to consider the book ending, and the lower expression of the glass connecting between was too strong for the bookend statements. That is how it was arrived at. Vice-Chair Alfonso: Going to the rear, for the moment, and the parking lot, can you de scribe for me, or perhaps staff can describe the issue with respect to the extra parking space. According to what I read, you really need to have nine parking spaces here, yet you are providing eight. Can you explain the logic behind that? Ms. French: Yes, although nine parking spaces are required, the code allows the replacement of one of the spaces when you need to have an accessible handicap space. In this instance, they are providing an accessible space, so they are allowed to subtract the other regular space that would be required for the parking. Vice-Chair Alfonso: Can you talk about how this building, besides the interior controls, responds to the exposure in terms of energy efficiency and comfort for the interior? Mr. Moyer: The glazing system is dual glaze, which addresses both sound, light and energy issues. We are talking about using a recyclable insulation system in the roof in terms of energy, and also the reuse of reasonable materials. Mr. Jessup: Also, the glass in the building is laminated, so it is an insulated glass. I do not remember what the coefficient of energy is, but it is relatively high. We intend to utilize the street trees as shading devices. Mr. Moyer: We did take a serious look at using awnings along the E1 Camino fagade as an additional shading device. We felt that it worked against the character of the building in doing so, and sought out other solutions. We concluded with the introduction of new trees to add shading. The consent of the user using the internal shade system we thought would also achieve Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 5/4/2000 the light reduction issue in an architecturally compatible fashion. So we opted not to go with an awning system along El Camino. Vice-Chair Alfonso: Is this green metal the mullion for the store front system? Mr. Moyer: Yes, thai ~ right. Vice-Chair Alfonso: And this darker color appears where? Mr. Jessup: That is actually incorrect. The brown is the window mullion. Mr. Moyer: I think the green is reflecting the accent colors that are in the accent tiles. There are numerous accent tiles on the building. I was just recalling that glazing color that is within those tiles. Vice-Chair Alfonso: And this is the cast concrete material that is being used around the windows? Mr. Jessup: That is correct. This is the field for the accent tiles around the windows. The limestone is being used to wrap the windows. Mr. Moyer: In the accent tiles, there is a pattern design we felt was appropriate. That is the color and tone of the accent tile body itself. Within that, there is a pattern that reflects the green glazing system. Vice-Chair Alfonso: Were there any considerations for fritted glass of any type or patterns of fritted materials that would also help with the exposure ? You only have clear glass throughout. Mr. Jessup: We had discussed using fritted glass in what I will describe as the attic spaces of the first floor. But we have chosen not to do so at this point. We wanted to express the transparency of the glass, so what we have done, particularly at the attic spaces, is that we have created a box behind. Vice-Chair Alfonso: Can you describe the entry canopy structure as you have rendered it along that corner? Mr. Moyer: Yes, the entry canopy at the comer of Cambridge and E1 Camino is a metal structure. The frame and ribs are of steel, and the interior component is a glazed enclosure between that metal frame. It is glass. Vice-Chair Alfonso: So the metal is curbed, but the glass is not? Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 5/4/2000 8 Mr. Jessup: No, it is bent glass. Mr. Moyer: And of course, it is suspended from the structure above. Vice-Chair Alfonso: What are the trees that you have chosen to use along E1 Camino? Mr. Jessup: We have not chosen different trees. We are using the city street trees that are used on the building side of the sidewalk. Vice-Chair Alfonso: What are they? London plane trees? Mr. Jessup: I believe so. Vice-Chair Alfonso: What is being proposed along those raised planters in the front, and why are you using raised planters as opposed to in-ground planters? Mr. Moyer: I do not recall the specific plant material in those planters, but we opted for raised planters in terms of street level planters because of the amount of debris that accumulates along E1 Camino Real. We wanted to avoid having paper and street debris blowing into our planter area. We felt it would do a much better job of appearance and maintenance by having the raised planter elements. Vice-Chair Alfonso: So why could it not be one long, continuous raised planter? Mr. Moyer: It could be, but we opted to express the grid of the with individual planters, rather than a long, broad, continuous element. wall system Vice-Chair Alfonso: Are there flags being proposed to put on this building? Mr. Moyer: Yes, there are flags at the entry. It is a user requirement to have the American flag and the California flag expressed at the entry. Vice-Chair Alfonso: Let us talk a little bit about the use now. This building is likely to be there much longer than the First Republic Bank may choose to lease it. What, if any thought, has been given to its transformable use? Clearly, it could be office space, but in terms of the character that is being rendered here, has any thought been given to that? Mr. Moyer: In general, my feeling, and this was reinforced as recently as yesterday standing at the corner, is that what we have created is a really lovely jewel of an addition to this area of E1 Camino. The type of use that could be obtained in this building I feel is multiple. In my Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 5/4/2000 estimation, it does not have a strong statement Of a single user type. It could certainly be used as office space in the future, if and when the bank decides to move on. Vice-Chair Alfonso: Let us talk a little bit about the materials along the eave gutters. It is shown here in your details that it could either be foam or precast. Which one is it? Mr. Jessup: At this point, it has not been specifically decided w~:~.,ther it is to be precast or foam. We have the two options, and we are interested in evaluating bo~ of them. The caps are bronze. Both of the caps at the gate ends are bronze. The gutter itself and the lip will be bronze. The other roof caps are also bronze. We have done that, and we have expressed that throughout. Vice-Chair Alfonso: This is a loaded question, but would you like to see foam on this building? (hesitation and laughter here) You do not ,have to answer that. Also, are there any improvements being made to the sidewalk paving along the perimeter of the site? Mr. Jessup: Yes, the sidewalk paving is being replaced on both the E1 Camino and Cambridge sides. Vice-Chair Alfonso: Is it the material a colored concrete sidewalk? (Yes) With scoring, or is it actually individual pavers? Mr. Jessup: !t is primarily scored. It is being done according to the city standards. The colored concrete is also according to city standards. Vice-Chair Alfonso: So will there will be a color difference between this area and the adjacent sidewalk where it ties in? Mr. Jessup: Yes. Vice-Chair Alfonso: And what will those colors be? Mr. Jessup: I would have to take a look at that. Vice-Chair Alfonso: Do you have a sample of those colors? Mr. Mover: No, we do not. The city standard is roadside brown for the accent sidewalk colors. That was given directly to the landscape architecture by Public Works. Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 5/4/2000 10 Vice-Chair Alfonso: Is Lynn Wintherbotham present? (He was not) Regarding the ecostone paver detail shown on this section, is that only occurring in the parking area? Nowhere else? He has four stalls, and he is using -- Mr. Jessup: Yes. Vice-Chair Alfonso: I presume it is water-permeable? Mr. Jessup: That is correct. Vice-Chair Alfonso: Can you talk about how this parking lot is being drained? Mr. Jessup: It is being drained to the street in accordance with our discussions between the city, the landscape and the city staff. Vice-Chair Alfonso: How is that being done? Mr. Jessup: It is to a drain that goes through the sidewalk into Cambridge. Vice-Chair Alfonso: That completes the questions. Mr. Moyer: Just to conclude, and this may be apparent, but I just want to say that we really are proud of this building. We feel that it is truly going to be a significant architectural contribution to the California Avenue area. We have come to seek your support and approval today. Ms. French: I would like to make a correction to the question that you had asked me regarding the parking in the rear parking lot. The one parking space that is not included in the 9-space requirement is not due to handicap access. Rather it is due to the provision of bicycle racks. When they provide those bicycle parking facilities, they are allowed to reduce the number of parking spaces. Vice-Chair Alfonso: We Will now go to the public hearing. I have one card from Pria Graves. Pria Graves: I live at #2130, about two blocks from this project. First of all, I want to say that I am really pleased with the direction that this is moving. I feel that this is a lot better than it was when we saw it in January. I am particularly pleased with the changes in the signage, the removal of the LED flashy thing. I think it is a huge step in the right direction. I am pleased with the addition of the street trees along the E1 Camino facade, although the plan actually indicates that they are red maple, not London plane. I do still have a concern about the ability of deciduous trees along there to create sufficient shading to avoid a heat problem within that Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 5/4/2000 11 building. I know how hot that area gets, so I would suggest that you might perhaps recommend an evergreen tree of some nature along there rather than a deciduous tree to provide some winter protection as well. The sun is actually lower in the winter afternoons, and would beat in there and heat up that building. I am also pleased with the change in location of the mechanical systems. 2-1aving those not visible from the E1 Camino fagade is a big help. On to the things I am still concerned about, I am still concerned about the massing, particularly the amount of glass along the E1 Camino fagade. One of the buildings in that block that was not mentioned as being a source of inspiration and perhaps should have been is the building that Common Ground is in farther down on the same block. It is is a lovely little stucco building with a tower top to it. The current scale of that block is very much human, with most of its being finger storage. It is a very approachable block. I am a little bit concerned about the somewhat monumental scale, still, the monumental massing on the comer that still exists in the current plans. I am still concerned about the location of the ATM, and particularly where people are going to park. That leads me to the overall parking issue. I am still concerned that the staff report persists in saying there is no parking on the site cur~,~’~atly. There is parking there, and whether it is striped or not striped does not change the fact that there is paved parking with concrete bumper things for cars to stop against, so there is currently off-street parking on that site. In fact, I think there is more than will be there, once this project is complete. I personally applaud the substitution of bicycle lockers for parking places. Being a bicyclist myself, I wish to encourage others to do the same, but I do have a concern about customers arriving in that building and where they are going to park, particularly the ATM users who are going to want to park near the building, near the ATM, and that comer is already furiously congested, so I think that is going to continue to be a problem. I am also concerned about the drainage comment that exists in the staff report. It talks about the fact that the street drains in that location are not able to handle the runoff, and that on-site retention needs to be provided. I know for a fact that we do have a flooding problem in that area of E1 Camino, not during normal, moderate rainfall but during in instances of heavy rainfall. We actually had flooding in several of the stores along El Camino in the next block during the 1998 incident. We did not get noticed, because everyone was busy worrying about the much bigger flood down near Hwy. 101, but several stores along there actually flooded with runoff from Stanford University where it comes into the city culverts at El Camino and Stanford Avenue. My concern is that any additional development, any changes in that area that increase the runoff, have the potential for adding to this problem. We not only have businesses that tend to have slightly deeper pockets and more insurance, but we also have residences nearby. If that water starts backing up, as it does, up into College Terrace, it would have a real potential for some problems. So I have a concern that that is not yet addressed, and I do not quite see how that is going to be addressed in this plan. So I would ask you to the staff recommendation that we are not quite there. We are moving in the fight direction, and I am pleased, but we are not quite there yet. Thanks. Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 5/4/2000 12 Joy Ogawa, 2305 Street, Palo Alto: I guess I agree with what Pria said. I am glad that the LED sign is gone. I still have the same objection to the inadequacy of the parking and the related traffic problems that I talked about at the last hearing. Also with regard to the ATM, I agree with Pria that it would create a bad traffic problem at that intersection. I recall that the ARB actually expressed that same concern about relocating the ATM at the last hearing. As far as the glass is concerned, I do not understand why, if there are going to be blinds covering the windows most of the time because the sun is really shining on them most of the day, I do not understand why there needs to be so much glass if it is going to be covered with blinds all the time. At the last ARB hearing, I believe that the ARB requested the applicant make some attempt to direct the traffic to park in the public parking structure. I do not see that that has been addressed. Finally, with regard to the DEE, I have the same objection to the DEE, which is that it seems to me that it is really accommodating the additional size of the second-story addition, so it really is not a design enhancement but a size enhancement. So I just think it is bad policy to allow additional square footage beyond which can fully comply with the terms of the ordinance. Thank you. Vice-Chair Alfonso: I will now bring this item back to the board for comments. Mr. Maran: I am generally in support of this project. What I feel is missing from the presentation has to do more with the use of the building. I think we have established that it is not a retail banking use. It is more of a private and office type banking, which means it is not going to have a lot of walk-in use. It seems that the community concerns have more to do with parking, which would relate to the odd hour use of the building. So I would hope that in future presentations, we would see more of that issue addressed. In terms of the structure and the type of building that it is, it is not a building that really meets my personal taste, but on the other hand, it is along E1 Camino, it is a commercial district, so to me, it is an appropriate site to place a two-story building, a large building, a glass building that combines different forms of architecture. The glass is more contemporary, and the towers seem to be more of a nod to what some people would call the old Palo Alto style, which I think the Ananda Church addresses a little more accurately. In general, I am in support of the project, and I appreciate that the applicants have gone through a lot of effort to meet the concerns of the ARB and of the community. By the way, I did meet with this applicant in their office to review the project. I also appreciate that they have started to address my concerns around environmental issues, recycled materials, energy consumption, other items like that. Although I do not think this is a Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 5/4/2000 13 large step forward, starting to address it is progress. For that reason, I am in support of the project. Mr. Bellomo: I also want to state for the record that I met with the applicant at my office. I appreciate looking at the application. I know this is the second time through, and I appreciate the work that has been performed. I also appreciate the Ananda Church photo that was brought in and the context in which this building is placed. At the initial hearing on this project, I was troubled a bit with the massing, the busyness of the building. I want to be as respectful as possible with this. I believe that you have put forth great effort, really adding a lot of detail, as you say, creating a jewel, but I do not believe that this building, as it is massed, placed and put together, works for me. I cannot support the project, and I will give you a bit of my reasoning behind that. We look at a lot of projects on E1 Camino, and one thing that really helps preliminary hearings is a chance to engage in some discussion around a design. One thing that I felt with this application is that the design was set. That is perfectly acceptable, but I believe that for your benefit, it would have been helpful to get engaged in some feedback. Maybe this is a problem with the process. I know we discussed at the last meeting how to encourage the engagement, if there is something, because you obviously went through a high level of detail and a feeling that this is an approvable solution, the right solution, and here I am saying that I do not believe it actually works. I would like to see some different approaches to the massing, some different, subtle changes, a more inventive approach to a glass wall on a southwest side, and how, in fact, the fenestration could be handled in possibly a more inventive way. So in a way, use us to explore more design issues, design direction. I know it is frustrating that I am not supportive of something that you think is the right solution for this comer. Part of rne feels that it is really troublesome, because I know you went through the effort and you want an approval, that it is right, it is the right design, but I have to sit here, and not to give a lot of examples, I would like to see more studies around how, in fact, that comer could be handled to reduce these bookend towers. I think the presentation makes it more clear to me that they are spilling out and they could be handled. These high roof lines, these steep comers could handled in a different way. I am troubled with these cornerstones, these comer bookend roof lines. I said that the last time, and I still say it. Whether you take the tile off and put in a metal roof, softening the edge, I think a nub is a good example of a pure, simple approach. If we want to talk about California vernacular, it is pure. It is a simple solution. This is just too busy, in my opinion. I feel that there could be a very strong, more ofa contemporary feel, just a study, and I am not sure how to really give you those directions without looking at some different siting, different massing directions. That would have been very helpful. Having said that, I will go through my other concerns. One is the parking lot and how to handle Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 5/4/2000 14 the actual accessible parking as it is positioned along that building line, and how possibly you can better ease the movement and egress of that handicap-accessible space, how you soften that comer, and how to reduce the impact of the egress, the exit egress spilling out into that line of car traffic. As far as the DEE is concerned, maybe that is something that could have been looked at, too, playing with that area and looking at perhaps how to juxta position that landscaped area into the reduction of the building mass, possibly. The ATM, I believe, might be a problematic area. That would also be a welcome look at what are the other options as far as placement. I am not sure, in fact, why the placement is there and whether a car traveling down El Camino would actually see it and the try to find a space. The flags are something I am not really in support of, having the American flag and the California flag hanging there. I find that to be a little inappropriate. I do like the fact the fact that the mechanical systems were looked at and screened appropriately. Drainage off those planters on E1 Camino is something that is addressed so that, in fact, the drainage from those planters does not impact for safety issues. That completes my comments. Vice-Chair Alfonso: I received a phone call from the applicant, and I spoke with him from my office. I was not able to meet with them. At that time, I expressed some of my concerns. Maybe it was Mr. Jessup that I spoke with. I think that there is a fundamental design tension with this project. There are two ways that I can see this. One is as a stone building that has a very large glass intervention. Or a glass building that has a kind of stone veneer at the entry points. They could be called bookends; they could be called veneers; they could be called whatever. The issue that I have is that there seems to be a tension here that does not seem to me to be appropriate for this comer because of the nature of these materials and the nature of that particular environment. Whether it is an aesthetic consideration or an environmental consideration, both are inappropriate for this location. I think that to take bits and pieces from adjacent architectural legacies and apply them in this fashion is not a strong design intent, in my opinion. Furthermore, to have the materials used and how they are placed I do not think is responding well to the orientation of this site. Certainly, plant materials along the El Camino corridor is a good way of using passive means, but it is really a small bandaid to a greater, fundamental problem, which is, how should that building have been oriented with those materials. Perhaps those materials should have been facing the rear, with less of that facing the front. There is this question which I think is the fundamental issue that is underlying the problem with the massing. I do not view massing in this case so much as an element of strength, meaning, do we have this comer, two- story element that gives an element of strength and power, etc., that historically has always been an issue with architecture. I do not see that here. A two-story building is not going to give a lot Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 5/4/2000 15 of strength on this broad street. I think it is more a question of how you comfortably reorient the second story so that it makes sense with material changes. For example, if the long bar of the second glass portion on E1 Camino were recessed and the lower portion would change to stone so that the building had a rusticated base that was unified along, yet created some of this glazing as a lighter, upper material that you are wanting to use. Incorporating the raised planter as part of the building itself, I think, is an interesting way of addressing some of the concerns that the applicant raised regarding litter, etc., but much more integrated into the building itself, given the depth that you have there. There is, I think, a strong desire amongst the many applicants that we see to make a connection between a current or new building to what is perceived to be the Palo Alto legacy, the Spanish revival forms. Whether it is the Ananda Church or whether it is older buildings at Stanford, or whether it is a Birge Clark, there seems to be this consistent tendency. I think that certain buildings do that better than others. For example, I think the building on the corner of Ramona and University, though a new building, addresses some of the basic massing of that time in the indoor-outdoor use much better than this does, relative to the Ananda Church. I think that what is strong about the Ananda Church is its use of materials in an appropriate way. It is heavy for sun protection, and the long, arcaded corridors are shaded. There are canopies above you in many locations. You have a greater distance for perceiving those heights than you do here. So those parameters, I think, are important to translate, not the imagery of the materials, but the fundamental goals of how those buildings work. I applaud the use of bicycle parking in the back of this project to be able to make it a more desirable means of transport. And I think that the general landscaping that is being proposed for this site is good, and certainly the perimeter drainage at the rear. If you choose to continue along this path, I would be very disappointed if you chose to use foam trim on any part of this building. When you have the kind of materials that you are talking about -- bronze, limestone, etc. -- that to introduce foam elements I think would be unfortunate. The choice of street tree species along E1 Camino clearly has to be a much more aggressive, shade-giving device. I would think that an evergreen, broad canopy species would be more appropriate than a deciduous one. I currently am not in support of this project, but I would be in support of a continuance so that the applicant can readdress more significantly the earlier concerns that were addressed in the previous hearing. I think your intent was to do that, and I believe that was true, though that is not what I see on the drawings. ! sense that that needs to be taken in a much more aggressive approach. It is unfortunate that you did not have the benefit of having talked to us very early on in the process and that you went to this extent of detail. That is a conversation that needed to Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 5/4/2000 16 have happened at another time. So those are my comments. I thank you for coming back to us again, and I look forward to seeing it with further progress. MOTION: Male ARB Member: I would make a motion to continue this item to a date certain. Is a date certain required? (Dates and requirements were discussed) Mr. Moyer: May I ask, if the project is continued versus if it is denied, what are our options in terms of going to council for approval? Ms. French: If the project is continued, your option is to come back, since there has been no action taken. If the project is recommended by the ARB for denial, it would go to the planning director for action. If that action is denial, it would go to the City Council if you were to submit an-- Mr. Moyer: So if it is continued, we do not have the option of going directly to the City Council? Ms. French: No, because there has not been a recommendation formalized by the ARB. That needs to happen first. Mr. Moyer: And the timing to go before the council, if it is denied? Ms. French: You would have a month. You would submit an application, and we have 30 days to get you on an agenda. Mr. Moyer: Our preference would be to have a continuance with the ARB as soon as possible. MOTION: Male ARB Member: I make a motion to continue the project for further design review on a date certain of June 1. SECOND: By Vice Chair Alfonso. Vice-Chair Alfonso: Is the applicant clear on the comments and the direction that the ARB has made toward this project? (Response was made away from the microphone.) Vice-Chair Alfonso: That passes on a vote of 2-1, with one opposed. (Names not stated) Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 5/4/2000 17 End of item. Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 5/4/2000 18 Attachment D ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING June 1, 2000 2275 El Camin0 Real [99-ARB-139, 99-EIA-28, 99-DEE-13]: Request by Moyer Associates Architects on behalf of James Baer/Premier Properties for continuance of a major Architectural Review Board review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment to allow the remodel of the existing one-story 8,282-square-foot commercial building, including demolition of 768 square feet and construction of a 3,522-square-foot second-story addition, for a total of 11,036 square feet, and parking, landscaping and related site improvements. The project includes a request for a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) to allow a 2.5-foot perimeter landscape strip for approximately forty feet of the parking lot frontage for the required van-accessible parking space. Zone District: CC(2), Community Corranercial Combining District. Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration. Vice-Chair Alfonso: Do we have a staff recommendation on this? Ms. French: Yes, staff is recommending that the ARB recommend to the Director of Planning and Community Environment a denial of the revised project based on the ARB standards, findings and denial of the design enhancement exceptions based on denial of the overall project. On May 4th, the ARB reviewed a revision of the project and recommended continuance based on earlier comments that the ARB had made. In addition to that, they made several additional comments which I would like to note here, including that they should restudy the fundamental design regarding the building orientation, the tension between the use of building materials and applied function of each of the materials proposed in the building design massing. They were to restudy the ingress and egress issues of the accessible parking space and overall circulation in the parking lot and to provide additional street trees as an aggressive way to shade the western elevation facing E1 Camino Real. In the proposed revisions, the overall design does not change the overall scope of the project nor the floor plans nor the square footage of the building. All of the building materials and colors remain the same. The use of the materials has changed slightly. The applicant will present the actual design changes. Vice-Chair Alfonso: Would the applicant please make a presentation. Chip Jessup: My name is Chip Jessup, and I represent Moyer Associates on behalf of Jim Baer and Premier Properties for this particular project. We have had a number of conversations and discussions about the scope and scale of this project and its appropriateness for its location. What I would like to do is to talk specifically today about the proposed changes we have made to the building, and as an outgrowth of that, address issues of mass, address issues of scope, etc. In Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 6/1/2000 1 97 particular, what we have done, to be~.in with, is to eliminate the two-story curtain wall elements on both the E1 Camino and Cambridge facades of the building. On the Et Camino side, we have created a band that connects the towers. We have done the same thing on the Cambridge side as well. It has lowered the mass, and I feel we have mitigated the apparent narrowness of the towers and the bookends. We have created an arcade which does a number of things. It creates a more pedestrian scale. What it also does is to provide us with sun shading and screening for the first floor windows. What it has also done is to pull the sign band out to the fagade of the building. There are no longer any rear-lit signs. They are front-mounted or front-lit from below. The individual planter boxes have been eliminated in favor of a raised, continuous planter on both E1 Camino and Cambridge. In addition to that, by pulling the arcade forward, we have brought a roof structure that is also reflective of the tile roof elsewhere on the building and in the neighborhood. We did take into account your concerns about the sun shading for that west face of the building. We have added a sun trellis at the second floor, which does provide additional shading for that second floor. We also have a letter from the bank, as you know, which addresses the issue of coordinated interior shadi.~ ~ devices. On the Cambridge fagade, what we have done is to add a mansard element above the insurance company space. It culminates in a gable end form which is reflective of the towers and the Cedro entrance to the bank. The question of parking and the question of access to the building we feel has been addressed by flipping the van-accessible space. We have the same requisite number of parking spaces req’,~red. What we hay.,, clone is to relocate the emergency exit from the insurance company office, which was only an emergency exit all along. The entrance into the insurance company is from Cambridge. We have located a window into the insurance company in lieu of the doorway that was there originally. To accommodate the arcade along E1 Camino, we have eliminated the two trees that we had against the building as a sun shade. We felt that the arcade, with a 28-inch recess, does a better job for the lower level, as well as the trellis on the second floor. One of the concerns that you all had was the size and mass of this building at that important corner. It is sort of a gateway to this commercial district. We had been told that the development of the rest of the block will be two-story, to take place in the very near future. These issues of mass and size, I feel, will be come moot at that point. The materials and finishes are appropriate to buildings in the neighborhood. We have the use of stucco which is also used on the bicycle shop and on the churches, and there is a tile building a block away. There was another concern raised in a conversation I had with Mr. Bellomo yesterday about the comer and the traffic signals. The engineers have worked it out with Public Works, relocating the risers for the traffic signals, putting them underground. We feel that that is not a significant issue at this point. Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board- 6/1/2000 I would now welcome any questions or comments, anything I can try and shed some light on. I obviously take issue with the staff report. I feel that we have done a significant job of changing our building in response to your concerns. We feel it is a good building and is appropriate for its location. It does a good job of announcing the entrance to this area. It is an eclectic neighborhood. We have residences nearby; we have other commercial buildings. Part of this strip is very plain, and we think we have done a nice job of changing this. Vice-Chair Alfonso: Thank you. We will have some questions. Mr. Lippert: First of all, I would state for the record that I was contacted by the applicant prior to the last meeting when I was not present. So I did meet with the applicant on site and reviewed the project with them. I have a couple of questions for staff. On the first finding for denial, which is, The design is consistent and compatible, is that correct? There is not a "not" missing in there? Ms. French: It is correct. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and consistent with the E1 Camino Guidelines. Mr. Lippert: Why would that be a finding for denial? It sounds more positive, as though it would be a finding for approval. Ms. French: You are right, it is positive. You do not have to state an approval for each finding. You just state approval or denial for whatever actually applies to the project. Mr. Lippert: Can you clarify that little bit more? Ms. Grote: There are 16 different findings that are potentially applicable to each project that you review. When a denial is recommended or when you are recommending denial to the director, you do not have to make every finding in the negative. You can make some in the negative and some in the positive. If any are negative, that, in effect, would deny the project. In other words, if it is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, which this project is, you need to state that. It does not necessarily mean that all of the rest of the findings can be made. In this particular case, Nos. 2, 5, 6, 12 and 13 cannot be made. That is enough to recommend a denial, should you choose to do that. Mr. Lippert: Okay. With regard to the building, does this violate in any way the E1 Camino Guidelines restrictions on height? Ms. French: No, it does not. Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 6/1/2000 3 Mr. Lippert: So with regard to the massing on the front part of the building, how could it be in violation of guidelines that allow it to be as tall as it is? Ms. French: What I am trying to say is that the project is not in violation with the guidelines, but it is not consistent with the ARB comments in the previous meetings. Mr. Lippert: So in other words, the findings for denial are based on the comments from the previous hearing. Ms. French: That is correct. Ms. Grote: And how those comments related to specific standards, those standards, again, being Nos. 2, 5, 6, 12 and 13. Those comments were directly related ~ those standards. Mr. Lippert: Could it not be that those comments be incorporated into conditions for approval of the project, thereby changing those findings for denial into approval7 Ms. French: If the board said it is their desire to do that and are very specific in making conditions today, we could do that. I would have to ask the board to be very specific and address each finding and each condition that you want. Mr. Lippert: I realize that that would be very difficult to do, especially when one of them happens to be massing. What is the time line in terms of the project? Is this it? Ms. French: No, the applicant had requested an extension on April 27th, and that extension actually grants them time, legally, until August 14th. However, you would have to address the project and make a motion on the project by the first meeting in August. Mr. Lippert: So we have time to review the project today, sending the applicant away, and they can again make significant changes. Vice-Chair Alfonso: I have some questions. With respect to the comer element, what else was looked at in order to improve some of the proportions at that comer element? You have a two- story curtain still in there. Mr. Moyer: Yes, we do still have a curtain there. What we have looked at is a turret. We have looked at a one-story entrance to the bank which meant basically stepping back the entrance because of the atrium space behind the front doors. Those are possibilities. We are loathe to do that, because we think that this is an appropriate way for the bank to make a statement for themselves on this comer. It is an appropriate way to recess the comer. It is a Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 6/1/2000 4 recessed comer today, and it happens to be a one-story building. So we have looked at at least four different alternatives for that comer, and we keep coming back to this as being the most appropriate expression for the bank. Vice-Chair Alfonso: Is there some reason why we never saw these other alternatives to have a discussion about them? Or were they just some that you did not even want to consider? Mr. Moyer: No, I cannot answer that as a yes or a no. Just like everyone else, we have looked at lots of different ways of approaching this building. In judging them against each other, we determined that this is the most appropriate approach. I do not have them with me, so there is really no way to bring them to you. Vice-Chair Alfonso: Is there any attempt to have plant material on the second-story trellis along E1 Camino? Mr. Moyer: No, there has not been. We the insertion of planter boxes at the second floor. I am not sure how we would do that at this point, but it is not something we had considered. Vice-Chair Alfonso: Has the lighting changed at all on the building as a result of these ch,anges? Mr. Moyer: It has changed only to the extem that the fixtures are exterior to the building, the up from lighting of the signage. Vice-Chair Alfonso: Let me see if I have imerpreted the drawings correctly. The first-floor change was made along E1 Camino. The actual columns, if you will, are not engaged in the building wall, bm they are sort of separate from it? Mr. Moyer: That is correct. They are pulled forward and are essentially flush with the towers at each end, and they support this what I describe as a sign band or soffit. Vice-Chair Alfonso: So in effect, there is still somewhat of a curtain wall behind them, although there is this new layer of material. Mr. Moyer: It is not cominuous. It is defined windows from the top of the planter to the ceiling line. Vice-Chair Alfonso: So as I look at the elevation drawing as shown on your sheets A3.1, what I would actually be seeing is a space from that colonnaded elemem to the glass itself (yes) all the way through. I could hide the column. Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 6/1/2000 _Mr. Moyer: That is correct. Yes, you could hide the column. And I believe you have a section drawing, as well, which shows that. Vice-Chair Alfonso: Okay. I understand now. Could you go over once again the situation with the parking? You have stated that you have accommodated the handicap parking space? Mr. Moyer: Correct. We have eight parking spaces, and one of them is van-accessible. There is a required eight-foot adjacent loading and unloading space. What we had previously was the van parking up against the building with the loading and unloading between that one space and an adjacent space. What we have done is that we have taken the van-accessible space and moved it to the opposite side of the parking area so that the loading and unloading is against the building. There are three parking spaces as you face out from the bt~ilding toward Cedro Lane. There are three parking spaces to the right of the entryway, and five spaces on the left. Unfortunately, in order to get the eight spaces, we still need the Design Enhancement Exception. Vice-Chair Alfonso: The trees that were being proposed along E1 Camino are being replaced by this colonnaded element? Mr. Moyer: Yes. I might add that we have considered the idea of taking those two trees and try to add two street trees in line with the existing street trees, but we have not discussed that with the city as to whether it would even be a possibility. Vice-Chair Alfonso: Since there are no further questions, I will open the hearing to members Of the public. Joy Ogawa, 2305 Veale Street, Palo Alto: I agree with the members of the ARB who have commented in past hearings that the scale of the building is too massive for this location. I believe that the current Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan supports that position. Policy L-28 of the Comprehensive Plan states, "Maintain the existing scale, character and function of the California business district as a shopping service and office center in function and scale between downtown and smaller neighborhood business areas." Policy L-30 says, "Improve the transition between the California, Cambridge and single-family residential neighborhood of Evergreen Park. Avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between the two areas." I believe that the mass of the proposed building will be out of scale with the existing building and the surrounding structures, and will make for a more abrupt change in scale and density with the Evergreen Park neighborhood. Therefore, the proposed project is not in accord with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has just pointed out that he believes that the rest of the block will soon become two-story, but I believe that that will be subject to ARB review, so I think it is kind of premature to make that assumption. Another change that I believe was requested of the Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 6/1/2000 applicant by the ARB was to relocate the ATM away from the comer of E1 Camino and Cambridge. The applicant app .arently has not made any attempts to do that. I also recall that the applicant has been asked by the ARB to attempt to direct customer parking to the city parking structure, since the proposed tenants will be depending on that structure for the bulk of its customer parking. The applicant apparently has made no attempt to do this, either. With respect to the Design Enhancement Exception, when the ARB first reviewed this application on January 6th, the board asked the applicant to explain what the DEE was for. The applicants basically said that they had already completed the design of the building when they found out that they were required to provide a van-accessible parking space. They could not figure out a way to accommodate that van-accessible except by decreasing a required, five-foot-deep perimeter landscape strip down to two-and-a-half feet, a decrease of 50% along half of the parking lot. When the applicant came back to the ARB with a redesign on May 4th, they made a number of changes in the design, but they did not make any changes in the parking lot that would eliminate the need for the DEE. The applicant could have scaled back the second-story addition by 310 square feet, thereby reducing the on-site parking requirement by one parking space, which would then allow for a full five-foot perimeter landscape strip as required by the ordinance. This might also have allowed for a redesign of the parking area and might have improved vehicle flow, but the applicant chose not to do this, even though several members of the ARB had previously indicated that the scale of the building was too massive. I decided to look up the section of the Palo Alto Municipal Code that provides for the Design Enhancement Exception. What I found makes me even more certain that granting this DEE not only would be poor policy but would also be contrary to the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Section 18.91.010 of the code says that the ARB will recommend minor exceptions to the site development, parking and loading requirements applicable under the title when such exceptions will enhance the appearance and design of the development which is subject to architectural review." Section 18.91.020 limits the scope of the Design Enhancement Exception process. It states, "No exceptions shall be granted under this section which would increase floor area, decrease the number of required parking spaces, decrease the amount of on-site landscaping or decrease the required open space." The DEE that is being requested for this project will increase floor area of the second-story addition more than would otherwise be allowed by the proposed on-site parking. This DEE would decrease the amount of on-site landscaping. Both of these are conditions for which Section 18.91.020 of the code says~ no exceptions shall be granted. Even if the exception requested by this DEE were not a clearly prohibited exception, I have not seen any convincing evidence that the requested exception enhances the appearance and design of this project. So I do not think the DEE should be granted. Please do not approve this project the way it is, and thank you for your attention. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Street, Palo Alto: First, I would like to say that I am delighted that we have lost that enormous glass curtain wall. I think that is a big improvement. I still do have a concern about how that is actually going to look. Having the trellis in the same plane, it appears Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 6/1/2000 as the arcade feature. I think that is going to make it look a little bizarre. Trellis features of that nature are not usually located above tile arcades in that style of architecture. I think the appearance of the building would be vastly improved if that second story, with its trellis, were stepped back say five feet or so. That would also solve the parking problem, as Joy pointed out. Second, I would personally would like to see the window detailing that exists in the face of the column elements carried across to the other Windows. There is some very nice detailing there, and I think it would help to unify the fagade of the building. Finally, the ATM issue. I am the one who keeps raising that. People tend to get out of their cars, leaving them wherever they can conveniently to get to the ATM. I watch this all the time at the Wells Fargo Bank at El Camino and California. People will park on the sidewalk; people will park in the street and just hop out of their cars and leave them running, regardless of traffic. So I am very concerned about having the ATM right at the corner. A far better location for it would be along E1 Camino at the other pillar of the building with, perhaps, a 10-minute spot or two 10-minute spots marked off in front of that pillar. I think that would serve the community much better. Finally, I would like to reiterate the massing issue. This is at the edge of a neighborhood. This is not in the middle of a commercial district. College Terrace and Evergreen Park are both very residential in nature, and I feel very badly that we are being told that of course, the rest of the block is going to become two story, therefore, it is okay for this to be two story. That is not a done deal, and I am not sure that that is not the right approach for what is essentially the gateway to a residential neighborhood. Thank you so much. Vice-Chair Alfonso: Seeing no other speakers, I will return this item to the board for comments. Mr. Bellomo: I want to state for the record that I was contacted by Chip Jessup and Jim Baer yesterday. I did speak with both of them on the phone at some length. I have had a concern since January 6th with the massing of the building. It is not so much the size as it has been for me. It is the roof line massing. I tried to state that clearly at the initial meeting. I have no questions for this applicant today, because there have been so many questions asked, and there have not really been any significant design changes that would reflect some of the comments regarding massing. I could approve this project, cosmetically. At the initial meeting, I said that it had felt a bit imitative, not innovative, and I was concerned about that. But I could just barely support the overall ground floor massing, fenestration, colonnade on this building. Where my concern has lain is in the overall massing and the awkwardness of it, in my opinion. To date, we have not seen just some design alternatives on the massing, which Frank brought up. Not necessarily regarding style. I think what I have heard from the board is that style is not their concern. Just to clarify, my initial point with this project was that it was brought in in a working drawing package. The design was done, and I have felt that it has continued to Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 6/1/2000 be considered that this is a gem, but there have been concerns from this board, or at least from me, regarding the massing. That has not been taken into consideration. In my viewpoint, if there had been a look taken at the massing, i.e., the roof lines, i.e. the tile on these small, bookend roofs, which I have also stated I find to be inappropriate on such small roofs, I have felt that the tile does not work on these roofs. With some work, this could be an approvable project, but it seems to keep coming back to us in the same form. There have been some improvements on the fenestration on E1 Camino, which I feel should be carried over in a consistent manner onto Cambridge. That really has been my concern. It is not about style. It is about really making some significant change to the roof lines. I struggled with this corner entry. I thought it would have been intriguing to see some alternative approaches to that entry at the corner. I also believe that the ATM at that position is not appropriate. It basically will be hard to get to. Also we were hoping to see some alternative approaches to that. I do think that the changes in the parking lot, changing that van-accessible zone and making that an entry and loosening up the parking lot was a good one. I feel that this project could have been designed without a DEE. I think that is true. I am not so sure why that was a great issue. I do not really think it is needed for this building, but if it is about square footage, I am open to hearing other comments. In conclusion, this has been the toughest project that I have had to speak to in my two-and-a-half years, only because it came to us in such a fully designed fashion. There was no room for full discussion. This is the right building, according to the applicant, and I appreciate that, but I must state that I still would like to see some fundamental changes to the massing. Not having to actually put a piece of flimsy over this myself, I would like to see some of those alternatives. Mr. Maran: I believe I voted in favor of this project the last time it came before us, and I still essentially in favor of it. I am sorry to see that the environmental issues have not been incorporated into the project. There seems to have been some attempt and some examination, but other than that, I find it to be similar to our last look at it. Mr. Lippert: I agree with the comments made by Joe. This is probably one of the toughest projects we have had to review in a long time. I am also in support of the project, and have been in support of the project since the beginning, although I did have some minor concerns. Most of my concerns have been addressed. In reviewing the findings for denial, som~ of them I find to be valid, and the majority of them I am in agreement with. However, I do not see a way for this board or myself to, shall I say, hold your hand and guide you and tell you what to do. I do not want to design the building for you. I think that it is important that if you want this project approved, you have to incorporate the feelings of the board into your design, and come back with some alternatives to what you have proposed here. I do not think it is going to harm the building in any way. There are ways of incorporating our comments into your design. I am in agreement on one important point with Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 6/1/2000 regard to the massing of the building. I spoke to that in our field meeting. Massing is a concern, although my concern for massing is not at the corner nor front of the building, but around the side of the building as it transitions down to the neighborhood, and what you see from the back of the building. So I think these are appropriate findings in terms of helping you to come back to us with an even stronger solution. Vice-Chair Alfonso: Thank you, Lee. I will second the comments with regard to the difficulty of this project. I think that this process has suffered from a lack of openness in the way in which the application was presented in that although it is not as large a site as some of the projects that we see in the park, etc., it is a very complicated site because of its location and because of the potential transformation of this entire area, if, in fact, other projects come forward. This would have been a very appropriate project to have come before us in some kind of preliminary review process where these kinds of issues could have been addressed very early on and would have saved a great deal of time for the applicant, as well as everyone else involved. I still believe that this building is fundamentally flawed in the way that it is located on the property and in the way it is massed on the property. I will iterate that. I do not feel that the changes that are being made go in the direction that the board suggested at the last hearing. They clearly are not in the spirit of what the suggestions were. The suggestions had more to do with the fundamental massing changes as opposed to what I would characterize as fairly timid alterations, such as the arcaded portion on E1 Camino, trying to mitigate the sun issue along E1 Camino. I think the building has to change more dramatically than that in order to really address the spirit of what those comments were. I recall making the suggestion of setting back the. second floor in an effort to regain a reduction in the mass along E1 Camino. That was done, but in a very timid way. The speaker from the public who referred to that second floor really heard the spirit of this suggestion, which was to set it back significantly, not a marginal amount. I think that those kinds of changes obviously have to do with square footage. There needs to be some significant changes done to this building in order for me to feel that it is approvable and a real enhancement to this area. I cannot make findings for a Design Enhancement Exception here. I think that it is fairly clear that removal of landscaping in an otherwise all-paved area that is quite visible from Cambridge is not going to be an enhancement of that from the street. I think that the building needs less mass or rearrangement of mass, and certainly, that area needs more landscaping, particularly large plant massing that can really improve and buffer the impact of all of the paving as perceived from Cambridge. So I cannot make the findings from a DEE as this project is currently proposed. You do have other alternatives rather than reduction of landscaping along the perimeter area. The last thing I want to reiterate is that the ATM really needs to find a new place that is more Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 6/1/2000 10 compatible with how people will actually use it, particularly with respect to people coming and going and stopping by car, if that is going to be the case. So I cannot make findings for approval of this project, and I would prefer that the applicant have yet one more shot at making this project more approvable. I could support a continuance once again, rather than the denial, so that you have a chance to make significant changes, considering that you have mentioned that you have studied a number of different alternatives to the massing of the building. Those are my comments, and I would propose a motion. MOTION: Vice-Chair Alfonso: I move that the project to be continued to a date certain so that the applicant has time to address our comments once again in a more significant fashion. SECOND: By Mr. Bellomo (?) Mr. Jessup: As it stands now, what happens if there is a deadlock? If we asked for a decision today, and if, for some reason, we do not have a clear majority, what is the result of that? Ms. Grote: Ifa decision is made today, and if it is a denial. That would be signed by the director within four days, unless he refers it back to you. If he signs the denial, there is a nine-day appeal period. If the project is appealed, it needs to go before the City Council within 31 days of the date of the appeal. That would put it into a council agenda in July, however, the council agendae in July are full. That would mean that most likely, it would be continued until September after the council returns from its summer break. So it would be heard on appeal in September before the City Council. If the decision today by the board is to recommend approval, that, too, within four days would be signed by the director, unless he refers it back to you. If there an appeal of an approval, it would again be referred to the City Council within 31 days, and most likely continued into September on appeal. Mr. Jessup: That was not exactly my question. Suppose there is a deadlock, since we do not have five members present. If there were a 2-2 split, what happens then? Ms. Grote: If you cannot reach a decision, I believe it would not be approved. If you cannot make a motion and get support for approval, then I believe it is denied. Male ARB Member: What would we be approving? Ms. Grote: If you made a motion to approve the project? Male ARB Member: Yes, to approve the project with conditions. Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 6/1/2000 11 107 Ms. Grote: You could do that. Male ARB Member: For this to come back with aggressive design changes. Ms. Grote: 2 ou would need to decide about what those conditions are and what would need to be changed. They should not be major elements of the building. You can condition details to come back, but really not major portions of the design. Mr. Jessup: I have another question. If it is continued, to what date would it be continued to? Is it the first week in August? Ms. Grote: July would be acceptable. Mr. Lippert: The advantage of our voting on making it a date certain for the first week in July is that it would then be agendized, and you would be able to come back here because we have asked you to come back here. (Possible dates were determined from the computer by Michael Sanchez) MOTION PASSES: The motion that the project be continued to July 6 so that the applicant has time to address board comments once again in a more significant fashion passed on a vote of 3-1. Board member voting against was not mentioned. Ms. Grote: They would need to submit revised drawings within 8-10 days from now to be able to make a hearing date of July 6. Vice-Chair Alfonso: Could you do that? It seems very soon. Mr. Jessup: Yes, that is too soon. Ms. Grote: The second meeting in July might be a better choice. Male staff member: Under the circumstances~ we would like a vote, and we would like you to make a decision today either approving it wit1~ conditions or tuming this down. Vice-Chair Alfonso: We made a vote and we made a decision to continue this item. Ms. Grote: The applicant can request a denial. At this point, it may make more sense to go ahead and do that if you believe that the applicant is not going to respond with modifications as you are requesting to meet the standards. The applicant does have that ability to request a denial. Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 6/1/2000 12 Vice-Chair Alfonso: Let me ask you, why would you prefer a denial to a continuance today? Mr. Jessup: For a number of reasons. There are specific issues that we think we can address. There are some issues over which we have no direct control. For instance, the location of the ATM has been mandated by our client’s client. We like the idea of relocating it to a different location, either where the night depository is located, or possibly underneath the stair tower at the other end along Cambridge, But that is not something we have been given any authority to make a change for. There is the issue of particular changes to the roof tile, for instance, or changing some of the finish materials and the way the finish is applied in the building is something that we have talked about and is something we could conceivably work with. The zone that this building is in allows a FAR of two. We are less than one. We have a building with the parking areas that are available to this building today are basically vacant lots. The landscaping that we have proposed we think is, in fact, an appropriate use, given the size of the property and given the approach of the building. So we are saying that we think certain things are immutable, for instance, the size of the building, where we do not feel we have much leeway at this point. So we are looking to get a decision from you so that we can proceed on a different front, if we need to. Vice-Chair Alfonso: So Lisa, we have made a motion to continue, and the applicant chooses to have the project. Do we have no recourse but to deny at this point? Ms. Grote: If you believe that the applicant is not going to make changes that would enable you to find in favor or be able to make the findings, i.e., if you do not believe that the project is going to be modified such that it meets the standards for review, then I would recommend that you go ahead and deny the project, if you do not believe that the applicant will come forward with sufficient changes. Mr. Lippert: I have a procedural question. You have given us the time line for the appeal period in relationship to the denial. If we were to continue the project, and I am saying this for the benefit of the applicant, and we were then to deny this project in the mid-July meeting, and he were then to appeal it, it would still be September before it would be heard before council. Is that correct? Ms. Grote: That is correct. Mr. Lippert: So this is really giving the applicant another oppommity to reconsider some of these issues here and maybe be able to make some movement in the direction of approval. Ms. Grote: That is correct. Vice-Chair Alfonso: That was the reason for my question. You are not really saving any time, Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 6/1/2000 13 109 necessarily, and a denial would give you less flexibility. That is why I asked the question. Mr. Jessup: Under those circumstances, I think that going for the continuance would be fine. If we are not approved the next time around, there are obviously no guarantees of what the council agenda would be and whether we would be pushed out to the end of September. We would like to think we would be approved. Ten days considering the kinds of changes that you would like us to make, ten days is a pretty short turnaround time. Vice-Chair Alfonso: We are not proposing that you consider the ten-day tumaround time. Apparently there is another date. Ms. Grote: July 20 is also a hearing date, which would enable more time. August 3rd is the last date that it could come before you, and I would not recommend waiting until the very last possible hearing. I would recommend the July 20th date. Vice-Chair Alfonso: I would agree to that if you would. Mr. Jessup: Okay. End of item. Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 6/1/2000 14 Attachment E ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING July 20, 2000 2275 El Camino Real [99-ARB-139, 99-EIA-28, 99-DEE-13]: Request by Moyer Associates Architects on behalf of James Baer/Premier Properties for continuance of a major Architectural Review Board review and recommendation to the Director of Planning and Community Environment to allow the remodel of the existing one-story 8,282-square- foot commercial building, including demolition of 768 square feet and construction of a 3,522-square-foot second-story addition, for a total of 11,036 square feet, and parking, landscaping and related site improvements. The project includes a request for a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) to allow a 2.5-foot perimeter landscape strip for approximately forty feet of the parking lot frontage for the required van-accessible parking space. Zone District: CC(2), Community Commercial Combining District. Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration. Female Staff Member: I would like to introduce Rachel Adcock. She has been with us for about six months now, and she is taking over the project management responsibility for this project. Lorraine Weiss had been managing the project, and Rachel has taken it over as of the last few weeks. Rachel will be seeing it through the building permit stage when it gets to that point. She will now give the staff report. Ms. Adcock: Good morning. I would like to begin with a brief project history. This project has been before you at three prior meetings, and each time, the item was continued for further design revision. The most recent review of this project took place on June 1 st, when the board had the following comments: The proposal did not include significant changes or responses previous comments of the Architectural Review Board. Massing, rather than style, was the issue, especially with the roof line of the building. The fenestration in the building needed to carry over to the Cambridge side of the elevation. The ATM on the comer of Cambridge and E1 Camino Real was not appropriate. The project could have been designed to avoid a Design Enhancement Exception. Efforts have not been made to address environmental issues. The side and rear elevations of the building needed more design attention. The building design needed to change more dramatically overall. The proposed pavement treatments were not an enhancement to the structure. The project needed to increase plant mass to buffer the building. The revised proposal before you today does incorporate some changes in response to board comments which the applicant will present to you shortly. Staff is recommending that the Architectural Review Board review the revised proposal for conformance with its previous comments. If the ARB finds that the design sufficiently addresses its concerns, the ARB may recommend approval of the project and a Design Enhancement Exception based upon the findings in Attachments A and B of your staff report and subject to the suggested conditions of approval in the Attachment C. Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 7/20/2000 I would like to make a quick announcement regarding the conditions of approval. We have a minor correction. There is a Condition 5.2 regarding storm water detention, which should be omitted. A Public Works staff member has determined that the site drainage is adequate as proposed and that on-site detention is not necessary. Thank you. Chairman Peterson Thank you, Rachel. Mr. Jessup: I am Chip Jessup. Michael Moyer and I are here to represent Moyer Associates Architects on behalf of the property owner, Jim Baer and Premier Properties. It seems like we have seen you a lot lately! We are happy to be here, and we hope that the changes that we have made and the alterations that have been made to this building are acceptable to you all. What I would like to do is to identify the changes, describing them briefly. There are a couple of design changes that we have had made for us since this was submitted, and Michael will talk about those. Generally, what we have done is to reduce the height of the building significantly. It is now at its highest -- 30 feet 8 inches tall to the top of the parapet, as opposed to 35 feet previously. We have eliminated the sloping roofs and terra cotta tiles. We have simplified the detailing, and we have kept the arcade along E1 Camino, and we have also recessed the building deeper on the E1 Camino side rather than on the Cambridge side. The size of the building remains the same in terms of overall square footage. We have set the building back several feet on the E1 Camino fagade in order to increase the apparent depth of this fagade. What we have done is to pull the end pieces forward a little bit, creating a much deeper recess, which is approximately a foot deeper between the front fagade and the window wall behind. We have stepped the roof structure on the Cambridge/El Camino entrance to be reflective at the parapets of what we have been calling all along as "the bookends," and those are, in fact, of the same proportions at the cap. The sun screening we have retained, and it is flat, rather than sloped. It matches the windows themselves in color. We would like to think that we have listened to your comments and to the comments of the neighbors. We have moved the ATM farther down Cambridge. The bank has said that it has to be on the street; it cannot be off Cedar Lane. They had some concerns about safety, etc. We think that the entry has been softened somewhat, and we like the swooping canopy. The detailing of the building has been simplified. It is much more square, and there is a lot less in the way of ogives. The other thing we have done which ironically over all these very months is that the integration of the street fagades we think is better as it winds through towards the back of what you might describe as the back of the building. The Cedro entrance and the Cedro fagades of the building are much better integrated with the rest of it, we feel. We have kept the honed limestone entryway, and we wanted to show this off, which is why we kept the stucco on either side. We have retained the planters on the Cambridge and E1 Camino sides, and we have retained the parking changes on Cedro because we do feel we have taken the board comments to Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 7/20/2000 2 heart. The access to the building is safer, and the turnaround for the van-accessible parking space has an easier access to the building, and the exiting from the building is improved, as well. The color and finishes palette is unchanged, except that obviously, we have eliminated the terra cotta roof tiles. We have also done one other thing. We have toned down the stucco color. What is listed in the finish schedule is a color called"cane" which is more of a yellow tone, and we have selected a lighter color. We do feel that the DEE is still necessary, since this is an addition and renovation of an existing building. We are not removing the exterior walls on the Cedro fagade of the building. There are limitations, notwithstanding the comments, on dimensions and turnaround. So we still feel that the DEE is necessary. Our signage continues to be front-lit, and as you know, we no longer have any back-lit signage. It is all surface-mounted and it is all front-lit. Michael Moyer: There are just a few changes that have occurred recently that you should be aware of. The cornice treatment that is roughly ten feet off the sidewalk on both the E1 Camino and Cambridge sides wraps around the entire rear of the building. The appearance, as drawn, is virtually the same. It is just the material reference, which was a stucco cornice at the rear, should in fact be the brush-hammered stone that would carry around from the Cambridge elevation to add continuity to the rear of the building from the front fagade. The other element that I wanted to mention is that the bank is now a single user of this building, and the contiguous tenant that is on Cambridge is no longer going to be an occupant. This signage band that is represented in the drawings will no longer be there. I also wanted you to be aware that at the E1 Camino fagade, the arcade that is across the front of the building is really acting solely as a shading device for the first floor. It is a free-standing arcade that is open at the top and is the depth of the arcade beam that is providing the shading on the lower level. As Chip mentioned, there is a horizontal trellis at the upper level both on Cambridge and E1 Camino that provides interior shading for the second floor. Ms. Adcock: (?) It probably would not hurt to reiterate the comment that was made earlier, which is that the bank has also agreed to using integrated shades, if that becomes a requirement or if they need it for sun control on the building. Chairman Peterson: Any questions? Male ARB Member: Can you explain that last part about the shades? I did not understand that. Mr. Moyer: Regarding the shades, the bank has agreed and has written a letter that they will install interior shading devices that will all be on motorized controls so that when the shades are lowered for sun control, they will all come down uniformly across the fagade. Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 7/20/2000 3 Male ARB Member: Are there any other changes in exterior materials, such as the cornices? Is the stucco lightening in color? Mr. Moyer: The has a bronze flashing on both the upper high step and the step just below it, adding that bronze horizontal element to the facia design. Of course, you understand that the whole skyline fagade is totally different from the previous application. Mr. Alfonso: I have a question for staff. Can items such as these shading devices actually be part of the conditions of a project like this? Ms. Adcock: Yes, we can make that a condition of project approval. Mr. Alfonso: This is a question for the applicant. Why cannot the project be done without a DEE? Mr. Moyer: The existing building, as it is located on the property, obviously has a fixed dimension to Cedro Lane. There was no parking at all. The area that is now parking was not a part of this property. The developer has deeded over that rear section where the parking is located to become a part of this parcel. We were therefore working under the existing conditions to accommodate a design solution. In order to establish the required parking and vehicle access for handicapped and parking access, the only solutions we have been able to uncover are those which require this design exception. As I understand it, it only impacts the planter that is to the north or left of the entryway into the parking lot. That planter that is to the south is at or exceeding the minimum requirements for planter depth. So it is just that one small strip to the north that is the exception. Mr. Alfonso: So what would have to happen to the project, from a design standpoint, in order for this DEE not to be needed? Mr. Moyer: You would have to move the existing wall towards E1 Camino and also that fagade to create more dimension. Mr. Alfonso: By how much? Mr. Moyer: I think two-and-a-half feet is the difference. It is two-and-a-half right now where five is required. Mr. Alfonso: Is that the rear wall that faces Cedro Lane? (Yes) That would have to come in towards E1 Camino? Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 7/20/2000 Mr. Moyer: The side of the building would to be removed, tom down and rebuilt and moved towards E1 Camino about two-and-a-half feet. Mr. Alfonso: Let me see ifI understand this correctly. Is that all three walls that are parallel to Cedro Lane, or only the one that has the entry? Mr. Moyer: Mike, you have a site plan that you could put up and point it out. It would be both sides of that rear entry. In order to have backup space, you would have to move the parking space that is the closest to the building line towards E1 Camino two-and-a-half feet and also provide backup space, so it may be that that whole wall would have to move towards El Camino two-and-a-half feet. It would require rebuilding the whole back half of the existing structure. Mr. Alfonso: Is that the only thing you would have to do in order not to have to do a DEE? Mr. Moyer: I believe that would be a way of achieving compliance. Mr. ’Bellomo: I have a couple of quick questions for staff. When, in fact, the adjoining property is developed, what happens to the trash recycling enclosure for this property? Is it now deemed always shared, or when you have a major project coming in like this, is it required to have on-site recycled trash areas, or will it always be shared jointly? Ms. Adcock: They would need to grant an easement to allow for placement of that recycling facility. When and if that property next door came in for redevelopment, that easement would have to be taken into account in redevelopment of the property. So it would have to be a shared facility. Mr. Bellomo: And the adjacent owner would have to agree to that? Ms. Adcock: The adjacent owner has agreed to an easement. Mr. Bellomo: So it is granted, and is a part of this approval. Is that correct? Ms. Adcock: That is correct. It is a condition of this approval. Mr.Bellomo: Is there enough room for recycle bins, etc., in that trash enclosure? Mr.Moyer: Yes, there is adequate room for recycling bins in the trash enclosure. Mr.Bellomo: Are they existing in there now? Mr.Moyer: No, the trash enclosure is not existing. It would be a new structure. Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 7/20/2000 5 Mr. Bellomo: Are you going to design it with enough room for recycling bins? (Yes) The other question I have is, again along the parallel with Cedro Lane, the wall, not with the accessible zone but the other wall, how are you proposing to protect the pilasters on the wall from cars opening and just ease of entering and exiting into that car on the passenger side? Is there any protection along that wall? Mr. Moyer: We do not have bollards there because of the very tight space that we have to accommodate bollards. We intend to have the limestone surround which is really the protection at that opening. Mr. Bellomo: So if you swing in there and you hit it with your bumper, there is no rail or anything that you might want to see there? Mr. Moyer: That is not a bad idea. I can see us putting in a bronze rail on the comer. That is a good suggestion. Mr. Bellomo: Also, the first floor plan shows the entry for the ATM at the entry, but it is proposed to -- Mr. Moyer: Yes, you are correct. The ATM, in fact, has been pulled back to the stair tower and is below the landing of the stair tower. Chairman Peterson I have two questions that you have already touched upon briefly, but I want to make sure I understand it.. The sun protection on E1 Camino on the lower level is that arcade- like element, but it is open at the top so that the sun can come down. At what angle does that give you protection, and is there anything else that you have thought about doing there? Mr. Moyer: We looked at the front angles relative to the top of the arcade versus the head of the window. The head of the window is actually at the lower portion of the arcade, so it is significantly below the top. In looking at the sun study, we learned that a trellis across there actually had no impact at all in shading the interior because of the thickness of the floor structure that is there. So we did not feel the need to have the trellis, and felt that the expression was more successful as a free-standing wall system without a trellis connecting. Chairman Peterson The other question I had was on the comer entry to the bank facility. There is signage which appears to be signage on the glass up at the top. Is that correct? Mr. Moyer: That is correct. Chairman Peterson Is that applied to the glass, or are they free-standing layers, or -- Mr. Moyer: As far as I know, it is applied to the glass and front lit from the exterior. Mr. Lippert: I have one important question. If our board were not to approve this today, is this Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 7120/2000 6 the proposal that would go forward to the City Council on appeal, or is it one of the previous permutations? Mr. Mover: Well, first of all, we definitely do want to have a conclusion from the board today about the design of the building. Without going into a lengthy dialogue, we would propose to take this project forward to the City Council if it were denied. Chairman Peterson That completes our questions. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to speak? Joy Ogawa: I turned in a written copy, including copies from the last meeting, because I wanted to make sure that I could, and the current staff report does not include the comments I made at that hearing, including my comments about the scale of the proposed building not being in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and my comment that the DEE is prohibited by municipal code. (Speaker is very unclear)We seem to have gone back to where we started in January. I can see that the line is gone, and that was not allowed under the sign ordinance, and the moved in the wrong direction on the wrong street.Cambridge Avenue, that curb is red the length of that building, to allow for a right-turn lane, so they have basically moved the ATM into a place where there is no street parking, so it is more of a traffic hazard. It is at least as much of a traffic hazard, if not more than it was before. I really think they should move the ATM to where the night depository is up E1 Camino. Overall, I think the building looks worse than it did the last time, maybe because I am a lay person, but the overall effect to me looks more prison-like now. I handed in a photo of the bank at Oak Grove Avenue in Menlo Park. If you take a look at that building, it is not nearly as massive as this proposed building. That ATM is actually at the front end of the building along El Camino away from the comer, at the right side of the photo. So I think the Menlo Park building is closer to the kind of building I would rather see in terms of appearance. For the record, I feel that the parking for the proposed project is not adequate. I have heard from other people, and one person was very concerned about the parking. I feel that the traffic impacts have not been adequately addressed by staff or by the applicants,written comments comer of the building.Condition 6.1, I think. Attachment A in the staff report. I think that Findings 2., 5, 10 and 13 cannot be made. Finally, I just want to say maximum development. This project more than maximum development more square footage than is allowed if they follow the code as far as on-site parking and landscaping is concerned. There have been three opportunities to design the project without a DEE, and they have not tried to do that. Regardless of the decision on this project, it will be appealed to the City Council, so I hope that the board decision will be Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 7/20/2000 117 one that we can feel confident - the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Thank you very much. Pia Graves: Good moming. First, I am disappointed to hear that Jerry Fink Insurance is leaving that building. I need to ask Jim where Jerry is going, because our neighborhood is having a dramatic erosion of local services. Replacing Jerry with more bank is not entirely consistent with what the neighborhood would like, I think. I am pleased that the overall height of the building has been reduced. Unlike Joy, I do think the design is somewhat of an improvement. The simplification of the detailing and a more consistent approach and wrapping it all around the back of the building is definitely a step in the right direction. But it is still clearly intended to be a statement piece at that comer, and I am not entirely clear that that massing is still right for the neighborhood. It would also have been nice, from the standpoint of lay people trying to evaluate where this change is going, if we could have had before-and-after drawings available to us to review. This is a little tough. I second what Joy said about the ATM being in the wrong place. Placing it next to a red zone is inviting violations. It is basically encouraging people to do something illegal. I do think we could probably persuade the city quite easily to stripe a couple of the parking places near the night depository area as 10- or 20-minute parking to facilitate ATM access, if that were necessary to meet the needs. As Joy pointed out, the similar mirror-image layout of the bank in Menlo Park, the same type of bank, the same occupant, has the ATM on the E1 Camino frontage. So I think that is a reasonable request. As far as the DEE, it still mystifies me that the apparent and obvious solution of slightly reducing the second-floor square footage so that the additional parking space is not required has not been considered, particularly now that Ms. Fink is moving out of that building. It would seem to me that the bank has access to most of the square footage in the back, so reducing the setback by a little bit, which would also help with the massing, would seem to be an obvious solution to the DEE requirement. Finally, I do have a concern about the viability of the plants growing in that frOnt arcade feature. It is a three-foot-deep space from front to back, which means that the actual space for the plants would be somewhat less than three feet in depth. With the sun baking in there, that requires a huge amount of water that tends to run across the sidewalk or is fried when we get a very hot day. That is not saying it cannot be done, but care does need to be taken in the selection of plant materials along there. Thank you. Chairman Peterson: Rachel, could I get you to respond to the question about the DEE and whether that is appropriate. Ms. Adcock: The DEE was supported by staff for the main reason that the applicant is Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 7/20/2000 incorporating the existing building which makes up the majority of the site coverage and site layout of the property the way it exists now. It would be possible to avoid the DEE were the applicant to reduce the building square footage by 310 square feet, I believe, thereby reducing one required parking space. That would add more space, or possibly by moving a wall of the building. Ms. Grote: I would also like to add, however, that the floor area ratio is about half of what is allowed in the zoning district, so they are not asking for additional FAR or additional square footage. Usually in cases where there are existing constraints because there is an existing building, we have supported Design Enhancement Exceptions because of the limited area that is available. Male ARB Member: If they were to develop this property to the full extent of the FAR allowed, what are the parking implications to that? Ms. Adcock: I would need a minute to figure that out. Chairman Peterson: I would like to see if the applicant would care to respond to the question of the location of the ATM and other alternatives, also to the issue of the adequacy of the soil mass for the planter in the front on E1 Camino. Mr. Moyer: Thank you, Bob. In regard to the ATM, the bank would prefer having it at the comer of E1 Camino Real and Cambridge. In fact, they feel very strongly about that. We were able to convince them to accept moving it back along Cambridge because of the concerns of the neighborhood and our understanding of those concerns. By moving it away from the comer, it reduces the potential traffic problems of people trying to stop at the intersection, and I can appreciate that concem. Moving it along the E1 Camino fagade moves it still farther away from the bank parking area that is to the rear of the building. We felt that that would encourage more attempts at curbside parking by multiple vehicles beyond what the parking capacity might be on E1 Camino. Also given that E1 Camino is a higher traffic street than Cambridge, we did not think that was a good traffic safety location. By moving it closer to the rear of the building, we were able to get it closer to the parking provided. We also looked at the location to the rear of the building itself, and were concemed about security issues. At the rear, it is far less visible than on the street, and people could be more susceptible to theft or vandalism by having it located at the rear of the building. So a compromise to all of this was to pull it back and put it below the stairwell area farther away from the intersection of E1 Camino and Cambridge. Regarding the planters, I think you may recall that we had initially started with container planters that were separate containers along E1 Camino Real. We had concems about debris blowing into the planting areas. Since those design reviews came before you, at your request we have indicated a built-in planter with a raised front that should eliminate the collection of debris. I appreciate the concern about drainage across the street, but there certainly will be landscape Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 7/20/2000 drainage, and it will be a matter of coordinating the timers to give adequate watering versus too much that would create drainage problems. So we feel that this can be addressed and is architecturally a successful solution for having some softening with planter treatment along the fagade. Ms. Adcock: Let me jump in, Chair Peterson, to answer Boardmember Alfonso’s question about the parking spaces. The applicant would be allowed by the floor area ratio portion of our code to have approximately 23,566 square feet of development. That almost doubles the amount being proposed. If they were to have that full amount of square footage, it would require somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 parking spaces. Mr. Alfonso: So in order for them to do that, would they have to go underground? Ms. Adcock: They would have to find a way to provide those parking spaces off-street. Mr. Alfonso: So the existing buildings would definitely have to be demolished to accommodate that. Ms. Adcock: Probably. Chairman Peterson: Any other questions? Male ARB Member: Now that the bank is going to take over the entire building, would one possibility be to move the ATM machine inside in a secured vestibule? Other banks have done that. Mr. Moyer: In the discussions with the bank, the idea of moving it inside has never been raised as an alternative, so I cannot really answer that directly, but I am quite clear that the desire of the bank is that it be a source of awareness to potential users of the facility and have it in public view. So my sense is that they would strongly be against the idea of internalizing the ATM inside the building. Chairman Peterson: I will return this item to the board for comments. Mr. Alfonso: I believe the lady had something she wanted to say. Mary Caseris, Regional Manager for First Republic Bank: I would like to make a comment about the ATM being inside the building. One of the main reasons we need the ATM outside is to serve the customers. Our customers, who are all over Palo Alto, need that ATM there. We do not profit more from having an ATM outside versus inside. But we do this to serve the customer who wants access to their account and wants to pull money out after business hours. This is our Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 7/20/2000 10 120 desire to do what is right for our customers. Mr. Alfonso: I think that in general, this building has improved. I appreciate the efforts that have been made by the applicant to address the comments. There is one fundamental part of this project, however, that I cannot find support for, and that is this DEE. I think that all through the history of the review, there has not been any attempt to find a way around that. My opposition to it has a number of layers. One is that the public realm is being asked to sustain a fairly large presence on a very pronounced comer. The public realm is, at the same time, being asked to forego any screening from the parking and to have that Cambridge presence of the building not have equal treatment. I think that is a very one-sided decision to grant a DEE where we are basically being asked that the public realm bear all of the burden of the imposition, as opposed to the applicant compromising in some way in square footage. It is clear that building to the maximum that the site allows, based on what we have heard from staff, is a much greater financial commitment to the applicant, so although I have no reason to believe so, it seems as though that is a reason why one would not proceed with demolition. Parking it would be exceedingly more expensive and complex. So from the standpoint of sustaining the existing building in this particular instance, I do not find that there is a compelling reason to grant a DEE for the reasons stated. I think that the shading devices on the interior of the building should be part of the conditions of approval for this project. I feel that it is vital that there be a backup to the existing shading devices that have been provided on the exterior. I find that to be a good move on the part of the applicant. I am not opposed to the ATM location along the Cambridge side under the stairwell, although I do think it should not be done in such a way that it would promote illegal parking. If the applicant can find a way to have that not be the case, I would certainly in support of that. I must say, however, that the Citibank in downtown Los Altos has a very glazed entry point, as this does, where the ATM is very visible from the street. One does go into the foyer and one does their transactions inside the structure. It works extremely well. My office is across the street from this building, and I see people coming and going, day and night. I am in the office at night sometimes, so it really is not an issue of service. It certainly provides more shelter for security and ease of access in inclement weather. So I am not convinced that locating the ATM in a well lit, clearly visible comer element like this would take away from the service. In fact, if it is visible and if it is easy to get to and one does not have to park illegally, that would make the front entry a stronger element since one can enter it even if the bank is closed. So that kind of creative solution has some merit, and is important to be looked at. I am actually in support of the project and find that there are enough grounds for approval, except for the DEE. So I do not know what that means in terms of what has to happen, but that is the one thing that I am not able to come to grips with. Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 7/20/2000 11 121 Mr. Bellomo: Thanks, Chip and Mike. I appreciate your work on the project. First of all, I want to say that I am in support of the architectural design submitted today. I think it has come a long way. It is quieter. I agree with Mike’s statement about the Cedro elevation being quite interesting and terraced. It is an interesting elevation from all views now, mad I really think the massing works. So I am in support of that. Regarding the planters, I think it is a good solution to have a raised planter bed. I believe that if you get heat-tolerant plants at that point with proper irrigation, I think it will be a win/win solution in stead of having the original containers placed on the street. This is integrated into the architecture, and it is a great solution. The front, including that on Cambridge, is great. I really think that the depressions of the mass at both second floors, how you have increased that, is really successful, the sun screening. You have come up with a really nice mass on a building. Regarding the siting, I think I have said it four times, at every meeting. I think I got it today that the site plan actually reflects the DEE. Actually, the parking lot does not work. On Cedro, at the mechanical area where the transformer is, you have a two-foot planter. You have cars parking. You are getting out onto that landscaped area. We all know that that will turn into rocks or boulders at some time. You just cannot transition out of a car and into an 18-inch planter and actually have that planting grow. It is going to get trampled. I think that portion of the site, and on the other side you have basically a car space fight against a wall trying to transition turning into that wall. It is an obvious design flaw. There is nothing else you can do, and it really does reflect that you are trying to work with an existing wall, a square footage, trying to get those cars into the space. It does not work as far as transition and it does not work as far as just layout and landscaping area. I think that is fundamental as to why the DEE might not work. I am not saying I am not in support of it, but it actually is an interesting project to look at to how a DEE can actually make a site not work when you are actually granting something. This is obvious. It does not work. It is not an appropriate parking lot layout with adequate landscaping at a property line and adequate clearance at a building line. The transition, again, for a vehicle at that entry is very difficult. I hope you include a rail on that edge. Someone who just does not have their driving skills together is going to hit that curb. It is a tough one, backing out, and backing out right at an entry point, too, is a bit of a safety hazard. We have talked about it. You know it. I know it, and it is basically about the DEE and square footage. You need that to park 300 more square feet. I can support the project. I am not in support of the parking lot design in that area. I wish something could be done, but you are out of room, so I do not know where to go with this. I do not want to put a wrench in the gears on this project. I think you have done an excellent job, and I appreciate it. Mr. Lippert: Generally, I think you have listened to the comments of the board. You have really taken them to heart, and I am really glad that you stuck with it and have come back to us one Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 7/20/2000 12 final time. I know it has been very frustrating for you, but I really think you have been able to take what we have said and have synthesized it. I am a little less enthusiastic about this design versus the previous designs. I have been a proponent of the project from the very beginning, and I do feel that I can support this project. I understand the challenges, and I think you have done a credible job in terms of addressing those challenges. The one minor concern I do have has already been reiterated by Frank with regard to the ATM. I believe that some sort of secured public vestibule at the corner would not only be desirable but also an enhancement to the building and would add to the security. What I am talking about is something very similar to what I think Citibank has in downtown Palo Alto at Plaza Ramona. It works very well where the public can park along Ramona Street where I think there is a painted timed curb there. They can run into the vestibule area after hours. They have card access to the vestibule, and do their banking. The bank does not need to be open for them to use it, and then continue on their merry way. I do have tremendous concerns about ATMs that are right up against the public right-of-way, fight up against the sidewalk. I do not feel that they work terribly well. I do not believe they provide security for people using ATMs. You see it in the downtown area. I think there is all but one ATM machine that is not stepped away from the public right-of-way. That completes my comments. Chairman Peterson: I am in support 6fthis project. I believe the applicant really has listened to us, and I think the improvements he has made are apparent here. I particularly appreciate the solutions to the sun problems. Those are ongoing problems and are best solved early on, rather than trying to do it later. I think that carrying the character of materials and design all the way around the building is a great improvement, and will really look well. Let me address the issues that I think are a little bit sticky fight now. The first one is the ATM. I do not have a problem with the ATM located here, because I think the location close to the rear parking is maybe the best solution. I, however, would not object if it were to move closer to the entry. I do not object to its moving inside, but I do not feel that it solves the parking area. That does not change it, so the proposed location may be better in terms of proximity to available parking. They tend to be used mostly on offhours, so parking is probably available. I support where you have it, but I do not mind if you move it someplace else, either. I think what you have proposed makes some sense. Regarding the issue of the DEE, in this case I do support it, because I feel it is an undue burden to ask the applicant to tear down that wall to try and reduce the square footage. There may be another solution that would do that, but this is an extremely difficult and marginally successful parking lot. My suggestion would be that the site and landscape, particularly at that one narrow planter area on Cedro Lane, not be planting. Maybe it should it should have some sort of stones Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 7/20/2000 13 123 or boulders at the very beginning, or perhaps there should be some screen element put there which will help protect some planting, or maybe have the planting go up on a screen instead of on the ground where it clearly will be walked on. S(, ihere probably is an architectural solution, though it may not be ideal. What was suggested, putting some sort of bumper band along the building, would certainly be desirable and could make it work. So I am in support of the project. I would like to see if we can find some consensus here. Mr. Alfonso: Let me ask a question of the applicant. What would have to be done to the project without changing the location of the rear wall in order for you to comply with the DEE? It sounds like it is a reduction of the second floor, that is, less new construction on the second floor. Is that correct? Mr. Moyer: In order to not have the exception, one solution would be to reduce the area of the building in some fashion. As you were talking, I was wondering if you would consider the exception to have a reduction of one automobile so that we could achieve greater separation from the building and have more planting. That is another idea. Chairman Peterson: Do you mean having a landscape reserve? Is this something they would be allowed to do? Ms. Grote: If there is a way to put that parking space in landscape reserve, yes, you can do that. That is something that could return to staff for review. A parking variance would be difficult to make the findings for to actually reduce the parking requirement by one space. I believe there is already one space being substituted with eight bicycle parking spaces. If there is a potential area for another eight bicycle parking spaces, you could substitute another vehicle parking space with eight bicycle parking spaces. We would need to find an area on the site plan for those additional bike parking spaces. That is another option. Male ARB Member: Let me ask a question of Mike. When you talk about this existing wall, we are all familiar with these major renovations. My thinking is not to reduce square footage. I want to establish that. In my experience there is not much left of these walls when you go through a renovation like this. Is it required that that wall remain because it is non-conforming? Is that one issue? The other question is, if you did tuck in that first-floor wall to get make those parking spaces breathe a bit with landscaping, just those five spaces, could you increase or cantilever the second floor or somehow make that area just less tight? Is that wall required to remain? Mr. Moyer: We have actually consulted on virtually all of the questions you just asked with our structural engineer. The entire one-story rear portion of the building is all existing. The roof framing and the block walls are remaining. There is a structural line at the point at which the two-story terminates at the rear of the building. We explored cantilevering the structure beyond Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 7/20/2000 14 that at one point, and it would be much more difficult structurally to accomplish that. So the reason for the second floor stopping where it does is that it is on a structural line that rtms through the existing building now. So in fact, we do feel that we are gaining a significant amount of savings in construction activity by maintaining both the rear block wall and the point of design from the second floor. Mr. Alfonso: I have a question. How much would square footage need to be reduced to accommodate a parking space? Ms. Adcock: Approximately 310 square feet. Mr. Alfonso: Can you reduce the second floor by 310 square feet? From the floor plan, it looks like you could. Mr. Moyer: Of course, you could, but we have chosen not to, but to say, can you, I am sure that with redesign, we could make the building smaller. Mr. Alfonso: There is an area between the stairwell on the northern part of the building and what looks like a sheer wall underneath between the stairwell and your entry element. Mr. Moyer: You are proposing to make the second floor smaller by 250 square feet? Mr. Alfonso: Let me ask another question. Can there be a possible smaller reduction of square footage by the addition of three bike stalls and replace that? There has to be either eight or 300 or a combination of the two. Mr. Moyer: We would be willing to explore the possibility of adding eight more bicycle storage spaces in lieu of another parking space, if that were a condition of approval today. Mr. Alfonso: As opposed to considering reducing second-floor square footage? Mr. Moyer: Yes, I am very clear that that is not a choice of the owner to reduce the square footage, nor of the bank. In fact, we have problems on the other side. There was a desire to have more square footage rather than a reduction, so I know that will be met with a lot of resistance. Mr. Alfonso: So where would one put them, and what kind of bike storage would they be? Ms. Adcock: They would need to be Class 1 bicycle lockers. Mr. Alfonso: I do not know what is worse. Chairman Peterson: I must say that if one parking space were to be removed and put in Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 7/20/2000 15 landscaping next to the building, then the backup could be landscaped, too, and that would make a substantial improvement to that rear entry. So if there is a solution that allows that, it would certainly be an advantage. Mr. Alfonso: It seems as though that the removal of one parking stall can increase the landscaping buffer on Cedro Lane and the distance from the entry to the first stall. So if there is a way to remove just one parking stall, I do not think the solution is going to be to add eight more bike spaces. I do not see where they are going to put it. So I do not know how we would make the findings for granting a landscape preserve, because some restriping would have to take place so that these things are adjusted. You are not really going to be able to gain it back. Ms. Grote: I think you are still going to need to make findings for a DEE. Most of the time for a landscape reserve, you do not need to make DEE findings. It is simply that the required parking is going to be put in landscaping, and an applicant would show you where the required parking would be placed, should they need it in the future. You can do up to 20% of the parking in landscape preserve. However, we know that you cannot simply put parking in this location, should they ever want to convert the landscape reserve to parking. So you would still be faced with making DEE findings, stating that should they come back and need that parking space or want to implement it. It is still a design enhancement in order to do that. So it does not relieve the need for the DEE findings. Chairman Peterson: I think we are all aware that there is a parking structure directly across the street from the parking area. Male ARB Member: I have a question for staff. The use of this building is what is driving the necessity for the parking, correct? Ms. Grote: Correct. Male ARB Member: Does planning look at multiple uses in the same building? Ms. Adcock: Yes, we do when we are assessing parking. However, both of the uses originally proposed for this building fall into the category of Professional Office, so they have the same parking. Male ARB Member: If they were to take 310 square feet of building space and make it into a lobby or vestibule area, does that do anything to the load? Ms. Adcock: It would still be counted if it were simply a lobby area. There are provisions for employee service areas and employee amenities that may possibly not be counted as FAR. Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 7/20/2000 16 Male ARB Member: What about an ATM vestibule? Ms. Adcock: That would still be counted. Chairman Peterson: Let me continue along the original line I had which a landscape solution that would mitigate, to some degree, the impact of this really tight parking situation. On that really small one next to Cedro, that it not be plants but have some sort of landscape screen or fence with vines on it, and on the building side, you would have some sort of high quality bumper along there, as you had suggested. People would still get out on the one side and step on a hard surface, but it would give them an extra foot there where you could have a screen that had a vine on it. Mr. Alfonso: That is an interesting solution. Is that a possibility for you to add an element to that planter area so that it becomes a more significant screen? Something that is durable and tall enough to replace the thinness of that planter? Mr. Moyer: To add a vertical element in that two-and-a-half foot landscape strip? Yes, I wrote that down, in fact, and think that is certainly a very viable idea. I also wanted to bring up an idea that I think Lee mentioned, this idea about using employee amenities, perhaps. The whole area is roughly 45 feet by 16 feet at the rear of the building. That is all employee amenity area. Would that help to solve this parking problem? Mr. Alfonso: That is a question for staff. Is it that whole back wing there where it looks like there is a kitchen and four bathrooms? Mr. Moyer: Right. It is the area that is about 16 feet by 40 feet. Ms. Adcock: I believe that it has already been counted as an employee amenity, but I will double check that number. Mr. Moyer: I do not believe that it was. At least, in our calculations it was not. Ms. Grote: Let us check that very quickly. If it has not, and it is more than 310 square feet, then yes, it would reduce that parking count because it is an employee amenity. Mr. Alfonso: Then they would not need a DEE? Ms. Grote: That is correct. They could then have one less parking space, and they could put that into landscape instead of parking. Mr. Alfonso: So that seems critical. Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 7/20/2000 17 127 Ms. Grote: Yes, it is. (A brief recess is taken to make a decision) Ms. Adcock: We have a possible solution. The applicant is willing to increase the amount of cafeteria area for its employees to equal 310 square feet, which would then allow them to reduce their parking requirement by one space. That would be a condition of approval of the project. Chairman Peterson: That would mean that we could juggle that parking a little bit to add some landscaping both on Cedro and certainly along that rear entry. Ms. Grote: Also just to give you a complete picture of the parking situation in the neighborhood, there is a public parking garage on California Avenue that is currently fully used, and there are people waiting for permits to get into that garage. So if there is a way to handle the parking on- site completely, that is preferable. This goes back to an earlier point when you had asked about variances and reducing parking for the existing square footage. Mr. Alfonso: Lisa, if they do that, we reduce one parking space, correct? Does that mean there is no need for the DEE? Ms. Grote: At that point, it would mean that there would not be the need for the DEE, as long as the applicant reconfigures the landscaping and adds the appropriate width along Cedro Lane. Chairman Peterson:. So we can do a proposal that conditions that. MOTION: Chairman Peterson: I move that we approve this project as submitted, with the following exceptions and conditions: That the applicant reconfigure the use of the employee amenity area to reduce the area of their project to the point at which they can reduce the parking requirement by one parking space. That, then, would be reconfigured to conform to the requirements along Cedro Lane and add landscaping at the rear entry. Mr. Moyer: (Inaudible question) Chairman Peterson: No, I am referring to the parking lot. The planter next to Cedro would conform in size, and the area next to the building would have landscaping in the portion that is left over. Mr. Alfonso: I would add, ifI could, that this revised proposal return to us on Consent Calendar. Ms. Grote: Action needs to be taken by August 14th. So yes, you are making a motion for approval today, and that would be your action. It could retum to you on Consent C’alendar after Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 7/20/2000 18 August 14, however, it should be as close to August 14 as possible. Chairman Peterson: I would be comfortable if this were returned to staff. Does anyone else support that position? Male ARB Member: Yes, I support that, as well. Male ARB Member: So do I. Chairman Peterson: With the idea, as always, that if staff is uncomfortable with it in any way, that they refer it to us. Are you agreeable with that, Frank? Mr. Alfonso: With the history of this project, I do not feel comfortable with it. So I would have to make that point that I would want it to come back on Consent. That is no reflection on staff. Male ARB Member: With the history of this project, I would like to staff review it. Chairman Peterson: My motion remains as stated, that it return to staff. The other item is that we are not in support of the DEE, finding that it is unnecessary. Did we have one staff finding that did not apply? Ms. Adcock: Yes, Condition of Approval 5.2 should be omitted. SECOND: By board member ’Chairman Peterson: All those in favor? That passes unanimously. Thank you very much. End of item. Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 7/20/2000 19 Excerpt Minutes Architectural Review Board - 7/20/2000 130 2O Attachment F CITY OF PALO ALTO Office of the City Clerk APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT (ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATIONS) To be filed in duplicate Name of Appellant Address 2. 3 o 5" Street City ZIP Assessor’s Parcel No. /Z~’- :~ z-o/,-///t~’t-~z- eta" Zone DistrictLOCATION OF PROPERTY: Street Address 2 2, "7 5" ~-~ / C~,’,~ o ~,~-/ Name of Property Owner (if other than appellant) Owner’s Address./VZ.Property Street City ZI P The decision of the Director of Planning and Community Environment dated "7//z z / o o . .., whereby the application of (original applicant) for architectural review was ,~]o]o~,-o~0 , is hereby appealed for the reasons stated (approved/denied) in the attached letter (in duplicate). Date ~.~ ~,,’#" 2.~ 2~ co Signature of Appellant ~’~f- ~-’~ CITY COUNCIL DECISION: Date Remarks and/or Conditions: Approved . Denied SUBMI’Iq’AL REQUIREMENTS SATISFIED: 1.Plans 2.Labels 3.Appeal Application Forms 4.Letter 5.Fee By: By: By: By: By:131 12/89 Joy Ogawa 2305 Yale Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 August 2, 2000 Honorable City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 RE:Appeal of Approval of 2275 E! Camino Real [99 ARB-!39, 99-EIA-28] by the Director of Planning and Community Environment on an Architectural Review Board Recommendation Dear Council Members: This letter accompanies an Appeal of the Approval of the above-referenced project at 2275 E1 Camino Real, and states my reasons for that Appeal. In brief, those reasons are that I believe that some of the findings of the ARB are in error, and I believe that the EIA, which summarizes the environmental impacts of this project, is inadequate with respect to its analysis of transportation and traffic. In particular, I believe that the proposed Automatic Teller Machine (ATM), which will be located immediately hdjacent to and facing the sidewalk along Cambridge Avenue, presents an obstacle to pedestrians, and creates a potential traffic hazard at the very busy intersection of Cambridge Avenue and E1 Camino Real. I also believe that the off-street parking for this project is inadequate for the proposed use. I, along with Pria Graves, attended and spoke at all four of the public hearings held by the Architectural Review Board pertaining to this project (hearings held on January 6, May 4, June 1 and July 20, 2000). I also submitted written comments at two of the hearings, and I have attached copies 0fray written comments to this letter. (Attachments 1 and 2) The Application in question was for a remodel of an existing one-story 8,282 square foot commercial building (that formerly housed Jose’s Restaurant, and a State Farm Insurance Office). The application included a demolition of 768 square feet and construction of a 3,522 square foot second story addition for a total of 11,036 square feet, and parking, landscaping and related site improvements. (The original Application also included a request for a Design Enhancement Exception for a 2.5 foot wide perimeter landscape strip, instead of a required 5 foot wide strip. Applicants maintained their request for this DEE throughout the four ARB hearings, up until the end of the last hearing, when they agreed to designate 310 square feet of the building as employee amenity space, in order to decrease the parking requirement by one space, thereby eliminating Applicants’ need for the DEE). (Originally, Applicants indicated that the building was to be used for an approximately 1500 square foot State Farm Insurance office, with the remaining 9500+ 133 Page 1 square feet to house First Republic Bank. At the final ARB hearing on July 20, Applicants informed the ARB that the State Farm Insurance office was no longer a part of the project, and that the building was to be used entirely for First Republic Bank). I. ERRORS IN ARB FINDINGS I believe that the following required ARB findings for this project are in error, and should not have been made: (1) The design is compatible with applicable elements of the city’s Comprehensive Plan; (2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site; (5) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character between different designated land uses; (10)Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and Convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. With respect to required finding (13) "The landscape design creates a desirable and functional environment in that it screens visible parking areas," I cannot, at this time, tell whether this finding is correct because Applicants have not yet submitted final plans that meet the conditions of the ARB, which require the 5 foot landscape perimeter strip along the parking lot. A.The Design Is Not Compatible With Applicable Elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The ARB accepted Staff’s finding of consistency and compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan in that the proposed uses are allowed in the Regional Community Commercial district. However, there are other goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan with which this project is not compatible. 1. Pedestrian-Unfriendly Design I believe that the proposed project is incompatible with the following goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: Goal T-3: Facilities, Services, and Programs that Encourage and Promote Walking and Biking. Policy T-14: Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations including public facifities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers, and multi-modal transit stations. Policy T-22: Improve amenities...to encourage walking and cycling and enhance the feeling of safety. Policy T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design .... Page 2 The proposed ATM will be located on the building wall immediately adjacent to and facing the sidewalk along Cambridge Avenue (i.e., there is no setback). Customers using the ATM will be standing on the sidewalk. Persons waiting to use the ATM will form a line on the sidewalk. This will interfere with pedestrians walking along that sidewalk, and is not a pedestrian-friendly design. In the original application, the ATM was located at the comer of E1Camino and Cambridge, to the right of the main entrance to the building. At the January 1 (first) ARB hearing, public voiced concerns about that ATM location being a traffic hazard which invited illegal parking at the comer of E1 Carnino and Cambridge Avenue. The ARB agreed with those concerns and suggested that the Applicants consider moving the ATM. Nevertheless, at the next two hearings, Applicants submitted plans that essentially did not change the location of the ATM. At both of these hearings, this lack of responsiveness with respect to the ATM location was pointed out. At the last ARB hearing on July 20, Applicants submitted plans with the ATM located halfway down the side of the building along Cambridge Avenue. Public expressed concern with this location, noting that the curb is red along length of the building along Cambridge Avenue in order to provide a right turn lane for this busy intersection. Applicants responded that they did not want the ATM to be located at the rear of the building near the parking lot because of safety concerns, but they also wanted the ATM to be located closer to the off- site parking, so they thought that moving the ATM along Cambridge was a good compromise. The ARB noted that ATMs facing sidewalks generally do not work, and that the ATM should at least be recessed. The ARB also pointed out that other banks, such as the Citibank at Ramona Plaza, had a secured vestibule or lobby entrance where customers had safe 24-hour access. However, the Applicant requested that the ARB make a ftnal decision at that July 20 hearing, and, apparently, the ARB did not have the will to require a different location for the ATM, or to deny the application on this basis, so the ARB recommended approval of the Application without any changes in the ATM location. I believe that there is no excuse for this ATM to be located where proposed. If safety is a concern, then Applicants can provide a secure lobby or vestibule for ATM users. If located at the back of the building and accessed from the parking lot, such an ATM would be more convenient for customers. Now that the entire building is to be used by First Republic Bank, such a design should be simple to incorporate. (However, I would like to point out that the CalFed building at the comer of California Avenue and E1 Camino has its ATM facing its parking lot, and I haven’t heard about any safety problems at that ATM). Applicants should not be rewarded for being unresponsive to the ARB’s comments for two consecutive hearings, and then finally make a change at the last (fourth) hearing, at which Applicants request a final decision. This sends a bad message that Applicants can be successful by employing the tactic of not addressing the public’s and the ARB’s stated concerns about a project until the time for their Application is about to expire, at which time Applicants firually make a change and then request a final decision by the ARB. ’t35 Page 3 2. Parking is Inadequate I believe that the proposed project is incompatible with the following policies of the Comprehensive Plan: Policy T-45: Provide sufficient parking in the ...California Avenue business [district] to address long range needs. Policy T-47: Protect residential areas fi:om the parking impacts of nearby business districts. In my written comments submitted at the January 6 ARB hearing (attachment 1), I detailed my concerns about how the zoning ordinance was interpreted in order to determine the on-site parking requirement for this project. I also expressed my concerns that that interpretation and calculation were not in accord with the Comprehensive Plan, which states under Policy T-45, that that "Palo Alto’s policy in the...California Avenue [area] "is for most new development to provide its own parking, as the existing demand exceeds the existing supply." At the January 6 ARB hearing, Applicants indicated that the proposed on-site parking was to be used for bank customers only. At that time, the number of proposed on-site parking spaces was eight. The application was approved with only seven on-site parking spaces. Applicants admitted that there would be an increased number and ~equency of car trips due to customer use of this parking lot. As explained in my written comments submitted January 6 (attachment 1), even eight on- site parking spaces is insufficient for abank of 9500 square feet (now to be 11,036 square feet). Furthermore, as no on-site parking for employees is being provided, and, as I understand that there is already a waiting list for permit parking in the California Avenue Business District, where are the employees going to park? Obviously, employees who need to find parking will park in nearby residential neighborhoods. This situation is clearly contrary to Policy T-47 of the Comprehensive Plan. I would suggest that reserving the on-site parking for employee use would be more compatible with the parking policies of the Comprehensive Plan, since there is more available time-limited public parking for customer use in that area. 3. Decreased Traffic Safety I believe that the proposed project is incompatible with the following goal of the Comprehensive Plan: P~e4 Goal T-6: A High Level of Safety for Motorists, Pedestrians and Bicyclists on Palo Alto Streets As I described in my written comments submitted on January 6 (attachment 1), I believe that the project will increase dongestion at the intersection of Cambridge Avenue and E1 Camino Real, and that this is, in large part, due to the design of the project, its planned use, and its location. The proposed location of the ATM will add to the congestion and create an additional hazard. The ATM is to be located along the red-curbed right turn lane on Cambridge Avenue, and because of insufficient on-site parking for this building, I expect that ATM customers will be tempted to make a "temporary stop" along the red curb to use the ATM, exacerbating the problems at an already busy intersection. This intersection is already dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists to traverse during peak traffic periods. Adding an additional hazard such as the ATM along Cambridge will make an already dangerous situation even worse. This could all be easily avoided by relocating the ATM. The Design Is Not Compatible With the Immediate Environment of the Site AND The Design Does Not Promote Harmonious Transitions in Scale and Character Between Different Designated Land Uses At 31 feet high, the proposed building towers above all of the other buildings on that block along E1 Camino. I do not understand why it is necessary for a two-story building to be that high. As I pointed out in my June 1 comments to the ARB (attachment 2, page 3), increasing the scale of the building as proposed is contrary to Policy L-30 of the Comprehensive Plan which calls for "[improving] the transition between the California- Cambridge area and the single family residential neighborhood of Evergreen Park" and for "[avoiding] abrupt changes in scale and density between the two areas." C. Access to the Property and Circulation Thereon Are NOT Safe And Convenient for Pedestrians, Cyclists and Vehicles As described above (section IA-1), the location of the ATMcreates a pedestrian- unfriendly situation. Furthermore, the location of the ATM creates a traffic hazard that will create congestion and jeopardize that safety of bicyclists and pedestrians trying to cross the street at the Cambridge Avenue/El Camino intersection. (See section IA-3 above and section II below). II. INADEQUATE EIA The Transportation/Traffic analysis in the EIA finds "No Impact" for this project on traffic. As described above (section IA-3), I believe that this project will have a large impact on congestion at the intersection of Cambridge and E1 Camino (for details, please refer to attachment 1). The ARB expressed a concern about traffic impacts at the first 137 Page 5 hearing, but there was never any response or follow-up to that concem. Additionally, with the ATM located along the red-curbed right turn lane on Cambridge Avenue, and because of insufficient on-site parking for this building, I expect that ATM customers will be tempted to make a "temporary stop" along the red curb to use the ATM, exacerbating the problems at an already busy intersection. Therefore, I believe that the proposed ATM is a design feature that will substantially increase hazards at this intersection. In conclusion, in this letter, I have attempted to explain the reasons for my Appeal. I hope that the Members of the City Council will carefully consider my concerns and the issues that I have raised, and I hope that the Council will then render a decision that will be in the public interest and in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. Thank you for your consideration of these comments and for the opportunity to present them to you. Very Truly Yours, Joy Ogawa Attachments: 2 Page 6 Joy Ogawa 2305 Yale SI. Palo Alto, CA 94.306 January 5, 2000 Architectural Review Board City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: 2275 El Camino Real [99-ARB-139, 99-EIA-28, 99-DEE-13] Dear Members of the Architectural Review Board: I am resident of College Terrace, and my home is located about a block away from 2275 El Camino Real. I can see the building situated at 2275 E1Camino Real from my living room, kitchen and bathroom windows. I also frequently walk along Cambridge Avenue, crossing E1Camino Real. I have been a customer or client at establishments presently located at 2275 E1Camino Real. I, therefore, have a keen interest in the proposed project tthat is the subject of the above-referenced application. I urge the Architectural Review Board not to approve the project proposal as recommended by the Staff Report, not to approve the Environmental Assessment concerning this project, and not to approve the Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) requested in the Application. In brief, my concerns include my belief that there is inadequate parking provided for the proposed size and use of the building, that the location and amount of parking will create a traffic problem and possible hazard, and I also have concerns about the look and design of the proposed building. I, The Proposed Project Provides Inadequate Parking The Applicants propose remodeling an existing one-story building with the addition of a second story comprising 3522 square feet, resulting in a net addition of 27.54 square feet to the building. The proposed building will house an approximately 9_500 square foot bank and a 1500 square foot insurance office. The Applicants claim, and the city staff report seems to agree; that under the zoning ordinance, the project is only required to provide 9 parking spaces, and the Applicants propose providing 8 parking spaces and 9 bicycle spaces. First, I don’t agree that 9 parking spaces is in accord with the zoning ordinance. My reasoning for this belief is detailed at the bottom of this section. However, even assuming that the requirements of Chapter 18.83 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code are met by this proposed project, I believe that the amount of parking provided is inadequate for the building, and is not in accord with the Comprehensive Plan policy T-445 to provide sufficient parking in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business districts to address long-range needs. The project actually decreases the amount of parking available in the California Avenue business district by 8 parking spaces, because a lot that is currently used to park up to 16 vehicles is being converted into a parking lot that can accommodate only 8 vehicles (see discussion below). I base my assertion of the inadequacy of the parking based on the following facts and observations on the parking situation at the Cal Fed building located at the corner of 139 California Avenue and E1Camino Real, about a block south of the proposed project. ! don’t know the exact floor space of the Cal Fed building, but I would guesstimate it tt~ be about 5000 square feet, probably less. Though it has only about half the floor space of the proposed 9500 square foot bank at 2275 E1 Camino, the Cal Fed building provides 13 on- site parking spaces, including 1 handicapped space. Yet, even though the Cal Fed building provides 50% more the parking spaces than the proposed 2275 [] Camino Real building, this parking does not always meet the demand, so Cal Fed employs a full-time parking lot attendant to help direct traffic, prevent accidents and tie ups. If 13 parking spaces does not always meet the parking needs of an estimated .5000 square foot bank, then certainly 8 parking spaces is an inadequate amount of on-site parking for a 9_500 square foot bank and 1.500 square foot insurance office located one block north on El Camino. Cal Fed also has the advantage of a city parking lot immediately adjacent and accessible to its on-site parking. The proposed building at 2275 El Camino Real does not. (The nearest public parking lot is located on the other side of Cambridge Avenue). A. Discussion of Zoning Ordinance Parking Requirement 1. The Applicants calculate that the minimum number of required on-site parking spaces for this project is 9. They calculate this using the 27.54 square foot net increase in floor area, and multiplying it by 1 parking space for each 310 square feet of floor area. The Applicants use the more generous I parking space / 310 sq. ft. ratio for a Bank or Savings and Loan office with more than 7.500 square ft. of gross floor area. It seems to me that the Applicants are trying to have it both ways. If they provide parking only for 27_54 square feet of bank floor area, then I think they should have to use the ratio of I parking space for every 180 square ft., which is the ratio required for banks with less than 7500 square feet of gross floor area. It seems to me that if the Council’s intention was to allow this sort of interpretation of the ordinance, then a 7.501 square foot bank would have a lower minimum parking requirement than a 7499 square foot bank. This is a very perverse outcome. The California Ave. assessment district will end up being a haven for large banks, because a larger bank would have a lower parking requirement than a small bank. I think the Council’s intentions with regard to this section of the ordinance need to be clarified. 2. The Applicants claim that the current number of parking spaces associated with 2275 E1 Camino Real is zero. Yet the same lot that they propose to turn into an 8-car parking lot currently provides parking for 16 cars. At least some of these cars must be associated with 2275 E1 Camino Real because there is a van with "Jose’s Restaurant" painted on it. The parking lot currently seems to be used mostly by people who work in or near the building because most of the cars seem to be parked there all day. The reality of the situation is that the proposed project at 2275 El Camino Real will eliminate current parking spaces for 16 cars in a situation with seemingly low traffic impact, and convert it into an 8-space parking lot with frequent car trips throughout the workday. This is a net loss of 8 parking spaces, and seems to me to be in conflict with the zoning ordinance which specifically states that "facilities used for off-street parking on July 20, 1978, shall not be reduced in capacity to less than the number of spaces provided in this chapter." (Section 18.83.040 (b))’ While Applicants can still try to claim exempt floor area under 18.83.030 (b), that subsection states that it is interpreted to allow changes in the use of exempt floor area without requiring additional’parking, but only provided that the change in use dots not consist of a change from a residential to nonresidential, or an increase inactual floor area Page 2 which does not cor~’titute exempt floor area. The proposed use at 2275 El Camino Real is a change in use with an increase in actual floor area which does not constitute exempt floor area, therefore, the 9500 square feet which will undergo a change in use should not be considered exempt. II. The DEE Should Not Be Approved As discussed above, the Applicants have used the most generous possible interpretation of the zoning ordinance parking requirement to come up with a minimum of 9 parking spaces. They propose to provide 8 parking spaces and 9 bicycle spaces. In addition, however, the Applicants are requesting a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) so that they can cut back a required 5 foot perimeter landscape strip to 2.5 feet. The Applicants claim that they need this DEE in order to provide the van accessible parking space. I am surprised and disappointed that the staff report recommends approval. The staff report completely ignores the fact that the inadequacy of the parking lot size is directly due to the size of the Applicant’s proposed second-story addition. If the Applicant reduced the second-story addition by 310 square feet, then a DEE would not be required. I strongly feel that an approval of the DEE is inappropriate when the amount of on-site parking is clearly inadequate for the size and use of the building. The ARB should not be encouraging or facilitating the building of additions that cannot fulfill the strict requirements of the ordinance, especially when the parking that is provided already falls well short of the real needs of the project. Approval of the DEE would, in my view, be "detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare or convenience." III. Traffic Concerns I believe that there will be a large increase in the number and frequency of car trips generated by the new use of the proposed building as a bank. The intersection of E1 Camino and Cambridge Avenue is already a busy one. Presently at peak traffic hours, cars trying to turn left from Cambridge Avenue onto E1Camino Real south often block the intersection due to the back tap of traffic from the California Avenue intersection. Additional car trips at this intersection will only worsen the problem. Additionally, I have concerns about the potential traffic problems and hazards created by the specific location of 2275 E1Camino Real building and its proposed parking lot. Sedro Lane, which connects to the proposed parking lot, is located close to the El Camino/ Cambridge Ave. intersection. I have observed that cars heading west on Cambridge can back up at the ....stoplight at E1Camino, and this backed up line of cars can extend~lait~a,2s~o;l~Yt~ag~__.k,g~,3~.~,3.~quite far E1 Camino changes so that the cars heading west on Cambridge can move on and not block Sedro Lane. In the meantime, traffic flowt~i~-rn Cambridge Avenue will bacl~ up. It only takes a few cars to back up onto E1 Camino. The traffic light pattern is such that the left turn lane onto Cambridge from El Camino heading south turns green before the Cambridge Ave. lights turn green. Cars attempting to turn left from E1 Camino-south onto Cambridge (heading east) can end up blocking the intersection when they start their left turn, only to find traffic flow blocked on Cambridge. Even when the Cambridge Ave. light turns green, during peak traffic periods, it is likely that many of the cars trying to turn left onto E1 Camino south from Cambridge (heading west) may be prevented from doing so due to back up of traffic along El Camino at the California Avenue stoplight. In this situation, the cars on that block of Cambridge will not be able to move in either direction, and a terrible traffic jam will be the inevitable result. Page 3 Another scenario I can envision is that due to the inadequate amount of on-site parking spaces in the proposed 2275 E1 Camino parking lot, there may be cars stopped on Sedro Lane at the entrance to the parking lot, waiting for a space to open up. This can result in the same sort of back up and traffic jam described above. Furthermore, Sedro Lane is currently open to traffic in both directions, but it is not a very wide street. I don’t think that two SUVs traveling in opposite directions could get by each other on Sedro Lane. A large vehicle try. ing to turn either right or left from Sedro Lane onto Cambridge could block Sedro Lane such that other vehicles would not be able to enter Sedro Lane, again blocking traffic flow. At the Cal Fed building !ocation, I have observed traffic backups along California Avenue such as I described above for Cambridge Avenue. However, backups on the fight lane of California Avenue heading east from El Camino don’t have such a great impact on traffic flow because California Ave. is 2 lanes in each direction, and traffic can get past on the left lane when the right lane is backed up. Cambridge Ave. is one lane in each direction, and at that location, it is virtually impossible to pass to either the right or left around a stopped vehicle due to the heavy traffic and occupied street parking. Additionally, Peral Lane, which feeds the Cal Fed parking lot off of California Ave, is a one-way street (south only). I believe that the one-way direction of Peral Lane helps alleviate traffic problems at the Cal Fed parking lot. Therefore, I suggest that, if the project goes forward with the parking lot as proposed, left turns should not be permitted from Cambridge onto Sedro Lane, i.e., Sedro Lane should be one-way south from the 2275 E1 Camino parking lot to Cambridge Ave. IV. Design Issues A. The building design uses way too much glass! Two stories of floor to ceiling glass is pedestrian unfriendly and does not fit in with the rest of the block. The staff report describes the proposed building as "Mediterranean style with classical elements." I hardly think that 2 stories of floor to ceiling glass to fits within this description. I would much rather see a less expensive, less flashy building with stucco exterior and red tile roof accents that fits in with the charming buildings on the rest of the 2200 block. The Applicants state that the "design intent of the project is to create a 2-story element at the corner of E1 Camino and Cambridge to create a strong sense of place at this prominent corner leading into the northern edge of the California Avenue Business District." I totally disagree with the design intent of the project. I don’t think this corner needs a prominent 2- story building. I don’t want to look out of my living room window and see two stories of glass at this comer. I don’t want to walk along Cambridge and pass by a glass wall that reaches all the way down to the sidewalk. I’ve looked at the building tile and decorative elements at 529 Bryant. They’re not unattractive dements, but they don’t make up for the excessive glass used in the project design. I noticed that 529 Bryant had "normal-sized" windows, not the huge sheets of glass proposed for 2275 California. The proposed project design does not fit with the buildings on the rest of the 2200 block of on the east side of El Camino and is thus not compatible with its surroundings. One need only look at page A4 of the architectural drawings to see the stark contrast between the proposed building and the rest of the block. Page 4 Furthermore, the Applicants propose to meet the trash/recycling requirements of the 2275 E1 Camino Real project by sharing with the adjacent property directly north.** The Applicants indicate that they own the adjacent property and are planning to "renovate." Yet, I have not been able to find any indication in the project application of where the recycling/trash facility is to be located, nor how the adjacent property is to be "renovated." ** Applicants describe this property as 2255 E1 Camino. Staff report calls it 2265 E1 Camino. I have looked at the numbers on these buildings and have found that the building directly north and adjacent to 2275 E1 Camino Real is numbered 22."37 El Camino Real. I think that the correct address of the building needs to be determined and entered into the project application. I would very much like to see the 2275 E1Camino Real project modified so that it fits in with the rest of the buildings on the 2200 E1 Camino Real block, and I would like to see the Applicant make some attempt to show us how that block will look once his remodels and renovations are complete. The height of the wall along Cambridge next to the parking lot is of concern to me. I think that this wall needs be low enough that drivers on Cambridge can see at a glance whether the parking lot at 2275 E1 Camino is full so that they can seek other parking (for example, in the public lot across Cambridge) and avoid tying up traffic along Cambridge. V. The Environmental Assessment Should Not be Approved The building has been given a Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Assessment. However, the report has failed to recognize the traffic hazards and problems created by this particular project as I have described above. In particular, I believe that this project creates very significant increase in potential congestion at the Cambridge/El Camino intersection. This congestion will likely be the result of the large increase in the number of vehicle trips, the inadequacy of the number of on-site parking spaces and the location of the parking lot in relation to the Cambridge/El Camino intersection. I also am concerned that the adverse impacts of the excessive use of glass on the building exterior are not sufficiently mitigated by the conditions laid out in the staff report. I hope that you will carefully consider my comments and require modifications to the project in ways that will address my concerns. Very Truly Yours Joy Ogawa Page 5 From: Joy Ogawa Date: July 20, 2000 2305 Yale Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 Members of the Architectural Review Board 2275 El Camino Real [99-ARB-139, 99-EIA-28, 99-DEE-13] I’m submitting written copies of my comments today, and I’m including copies of my comments from the June 1 hearing, because I want to make sure that those comments are included in the record. The current Staff Report for this project does not fully reflect the comments that I made at the June 1 hearing, including my comments about the scale of the proposed building not being in accord with the Comprehensive Plan, and my comment that the DEE is prohibited by section 18.91.020 of the Municipal Code. As I look at the most recently submitted plans for this project, I feel a sense ofdfjh vu. It seems as though we’ve come nearly full circle on this project to almost exactly where it started in January. The only notable changes I can see are that the LED sign is gone, which I understand was not allowed under the sign ordinance.anyway, and the ATM has been moved down the wrong street. By moving the ATM down Cambridge Avenue instead of up E1Camino, it seems to me that the Applicants have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the traffic and parking situation at this location. The curb is red along Cambridge for the entire length of the building. There are presently only two street parking spaces along this side of Cambridge just west of Sedro Lane, and these are next to the proposed parking lot. The red curb is to allow for a fight turn lane from Cambridge onto El Camino. This red curb has lengthened over recent years, and my guess is that the additional traffic created by projects such as this one will require that the red curb be extended all the way to Sedro Lane in the near future. So putting the ATM in a location where there is no street parking allowed, and where parking would block the flow of traffic, is a bad idea. The ATM should be located next to the night depository, up El Camino. There is street parking available all along E1 Camino. The changes proposed by the Applicant haven’t even begun to seriously address my concerns about the mass of this building. And in my opinion, the band-aid approach taken by the Applicants have made the building look worse. I think that now it looks more like a prison. I have a photo of the First Republic Bank in Menlo Park. It is located at 1215 E1Camino P~eafat the in~e~secti0n~uitli OLk G~o~. TbTaf 19Ieiald Pa~k-bfiil~tifig-is-nbt-n~a?lyag ........ massive as this proposed building. And that ATM is located at the far end of the building along E1 Camino, away fi:om the comer (right side of photo). I think the Menlo Park First Republic Bank building is closer to the type of building I would rather see at 2275 E1 Camino in terms of scale and overall appearance. Page 1 For the record, I still feel that the parking for this proposed project is inadequate. I also still feel that the traffic impacts have not been adequately assessed by Staff, or addressed by the Applicants. I refer to my written comments dated January 5, 2000. Please check the accuracy of suggested condition of approval number 6.1 on page 16 of the Staff Report. I previously pointed out in my January 5 written comments that the street number affixed to the building just north of the 2275 E1 Camino building is 2237, not 2265 as stated in the StaffReport. I don’t know if that street number has been verified. If not, it needs to be. Referring to Attachment A, page 9 of the Staff Report, I believe that "Findings For Approval" numbers (2), (5), (10) and (13) cannot be made. Finally, just this Monday, Council Member Bem Beecham commented, w:,th respect to the 2825 E1 Camino Real project, that "property rights do not include the right to maximum development." It seems to me that this project is asking for even more than maximum development, because it is asking for more square footage than would be allowed if Applicants followed the code with respect to on-site parking and landscaping. Applicants have had 3 opportunities over a 6-and-a-half month period to design this project without a DEE. I don’t see that they have made any attempt to do so. It appears to me that regardless of your decision on this project, it will be appealed to City Council. I hope that the Board’s decision will be one that the you can feel confident is in accord with the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Page 2 The following is a copy of the comments I made orally at the June 1, 2000 hearing with respect to 2275 El Camino Real: Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street I agree with the members of the ARB who have commented in past hearings that the scale of the building is too massive for this location. I believe that the current Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan supports that position. Policy L-28 of the Comprehensive plan states: Maintain the existing scale, character, and function of the California Avenue business district as a shopping service and office center intermediate in function and scale between Downtown and the smaller neighborhood business areas. Policy L-30 says: Improve the transition between the California-Cambridge area and the single family residential neighborhood of Evergreen Park. Avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between the two areas. I believe that the mass of the proposed building would be out of scale with the existing building and surrounding structures, and would make for a more abrupt change in scale and density with the Evergreen Park neighborhood. Therefore the proposed project is not in accord with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Applicant has pointed out that he believes the rest of the block will soon become 2-story, but I believe that that will be subject to ARB review as well. So I think it is premature to make that assumption. Another change that I believe was requested of the applicants by the ARB was to relocate the ATM away from the corner of E1 Camino and Cambridge, yet the applicants apparently have made no attempts to do SO. I also recall that the applicants had been asked by the ARB to attempt to direct customer parking to the city’s parking structure, since the proposed tenants will be depending on that structure for the bulk of its customer parking, and the applicants apparently have made no attempts to do this, either. With respect to the Design Enhancement Exception: When the ARB first reviewed this application on January 6 of this year, the Board asked the applicants to explain what the DEE was ’for. The applicants basically said that they had already completed the design of the building when they found out that they were required to provide a van accessible parking space. They couldn’t figure out a way to accommodate that van accessible parking space except by decreasing a required 5 foot deep parking perimeter landscape strip down to 2.5 feet, a decrease of 50%, along half of the parking lot. When the applicant’s came back to the ARB with a redesign on May 4, they had made a number of changes in their design, but they did not make any changes in the parking lot that would eliminate the need for the DEE. -The applicants-could have scaled-back thesecond story addition by-310square feet, thereby reducing _ the on-site parking requirement by one parking space, which would then allow for a full 5 foot perimeter landscape strip as required by the ordinance. This might also have allowed for a redesign of the parking area that could have improved vehicle flow. But the applicants chose not to do this, even though several members of the ARB had previously indicated that the scale of the building was too massive. I decided to look up the section of the Palo Alto Municipal Code that provides for a Design Enhancement Exception. What I’ve found makes me even more certain that granting this DEE would not only be poor public policy, but would also be contrary to the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 147Page 3 Section 18.91.010 of the Code says that the ARB may recommend minor exceptions to the site development, parking and loading requirements otherwise applicable under this title, when such exceptions will enhance the appearance and design of development subject to architectural review. Section 18.91.020 limits the Scope of the Design Enhancement Exception Process, by stating: "No exceptions shall be granted under this section which would increase floor area, decrease the number of required parking spaces, decrease the amount of required on-site landscaping, or decrease the required open space." The DEE that is being requested for this project, would both (1) increase floor area of the second story addition, more than would otherwise be allowed by the proposed on-site parking, and (2) this DEE would decrease the amount of required on-site landscaping. Both of these are conditions for which Section 18.91.020 of the Code says NO EXCEPTIONS SHALL BE GRANTED. Even if the exception requested by this DEE were not a clearly prohibited exception, I have not seen any convincing evidence that the requested exception ENHANCES the APPEARANCE and DESIGN of this project. The DEE should NOT be granted. Please do not approve this project the way it is now. Page 4 ATTACHMENT G Architectural Board of Review Findings for Approval to Deny the Appeal and Uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s Approval 99-ARB-139, 99-EIA-28 2275 El Camino Real The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, further the goals and purposes of the ARB Ordinance as it complies with the Standards for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 16.48 of the PAMC. (1)The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the city’s Comprehensive Plan in that the site is designated Regional Community Commercial and the proposed uses are allowed by this land use designation; (2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that it represents an improvement to the corner and the scale and massing reflect that of the surrounding development; (3) The design is appropriate to the function of a commercial office building; (5) The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses in that it scales back to avoid incompatibility with nearby residential buildings; (6) The design is compat.ible with approved improvements both on and off the site in that it is well defined and articulated and incorporates the appropriate use of materials; (10) Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles in that the corner building entrance is recessed for safe and convenient pedestrian access, and vehicular and bicycle access are provided in a logical manner at the rear of the building; (11) Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project in that the existing street trees will be retained in their present location; (12) The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function of the building and are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions; ARB Findings Page 1 of 2 "/49 (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 in that it supplements the existing ;treet trees, provides visual relief, and screens visible parking areas; (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 and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance; (15) The design is energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy design elements including, but not limited to: (A) Exterior energy design elements, (B) Internal lighting service and climatic control systems, and (C) Building siting and landscape elements. ARB standards 4, 7, 8, and 9 do not apply to the project. ARB Findings Page 2 of 2