Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-05-18 Architectural Review Board Agenda Packet_______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Architectural Review Board Regular Meeting Agenda: May 18, 2017 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 Action Items Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3877 El Camino Real [14PLN-00464]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Site and Design Review for the Demolition of the Vacant 5,860 Square-Foot Commercial Building and Construction of a new Mixed-Use Project. The Project Includes a 4,027 Square Foot Commercial Building and 17 Dwelling Units (Flats and Townhouses). Parking for the Project is Provided in a Basement. The Applicant Also Requests Approval of a Design Enhancement Exception to Allow the Basement to Encroach Into the Required Rear Yard Setback Below Grade. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated between March 6, 2017 and April 7, 2017. Zoning Districts: CS and RM-30. For more Information, Contact Project Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at SAhsing@m-group.us _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 3. QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER/PUBLIC HEARING. 689-693 Arastradero Road [16PLN- 00089]: Consideration of the Applicant's Request for Approval of an Architectural Review Permit for the Demolition of Three Existing Single-Family Homes and Construction of a New Preschool for up to 60 Children That Would Also Serve as a Satellite Expansion of the Existing Bowman School on Terman Drive. Three new Single-Story Structures Will Have a Combined Floor Area of 17,132 Square Feet and Will be Used for the Preschool, Gymnasium, and Classrooms. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated From January 19, 2017 to February 21, 2017. A Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is available. For More Information Contact: Claire Hodgkins at: claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org. 4. STUDY SESSION. 250 Hamilton Avenue [17PLN-00033]: Preliminary Architectural Review of Location and Design Options for the Deployment of Verizon Small Cell Wireless Communication Equipment on Utility Poles in the Public Right-of Way. The Proposed 18 Small Cell Node Locations in this Preliminary Architectural Review Application are Considered a Cluster of Nodes Within the Proposed Overall Deployment of 92 Small Cell Locations. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. Formal Application will be Subject to CEQA Review. Zoning District: Varies. For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Rebecca Atkinson at rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org. Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Five (5) minutes per speaker.1,3 5. Draft Architectural Review Minutes of May 4, 2017 Subcommittee Items Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The ARB Boardmembers are: Chair Alex Lew Vice Chair Kyu Kim Boardmember Peter Baltay Boardmember Wynne Furth Boardmember Robert Gooyer Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto or on Channel 26. Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Board Secretary prior to discussion of the item. Write to us. Email the ARB at: arb@cityofpaloalto.org. Letters can be delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM the Thursday preceding the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 3:00 PM the day before the meeting will be presented to the Board at the dais. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the ARB after distribution of the agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. 2017 Schedule Architectural Review Board Meeting Schedule & Assignments Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/5/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Canceled 1/19/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/2/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/16/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Peter Baltay 3/2/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/16/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/6/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/20/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/4/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/18/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/1/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/15/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Robert Gooyer 7/6/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/20/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/3/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Wynne Furth 8/17/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/8/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/22/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/6/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/20/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/3/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/17/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/15/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/29/2017 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2017 Subcommittee Assignments January February March April May June (Gooyer/ Baltay) (Gooyer/ Baltay) (Gooyer/ Baltay) (Baltay/ Kim) (Baltay/ Kim) (Baltay/ Kim) July August September October November December (Kim/ Furth) (Kim/ Furth) (Kim/ Furth) (Furth/ Lew) (Furth/ Lew) (Furth/ Lew) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8006) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/18/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3877 El Camino Real: Former Compadres Mixed Use Project Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3877 El Camino Real [14PLN-00464]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Site and Design Review for the Demolition of the Vacant 5,860 Square-Foot Commercial Building and Construction of a new Mixed-Use Project. The Project Includes a 4,027 Square Foot Commercial Building and 17 Dwelling Units (Flats and Townhouses). Parking for the Project is Provided in a Basement. The Applicant Also Requests Approval of a Design Enhancement Exception to Allow the Basement to Encroach Into the Required Rear Yard Setback Below Grade. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated between March 6, 2017 and April 7, 2017. Zoning Districts: CS and RM-30. For more Information, Contact Project Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at SAhsing@m-group.us From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration 2. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the City Council based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB. An earlier staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies; that report is available online: [http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=56818]. A copy of the report without prior attachments is available in Attachment J. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the Board and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report and modified to reflect recent project changes. Background On April 6, 2017 the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online: [http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-60]. The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table and expanded upon in the Analysis section: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Landscaping. Providing more at the boundaries to provide screening for neighbors Provided a row of trees on the north side adjacent to the north property and added more trees in-between buildings. Colors/materials. Consider a change in colors/materials and label colors and materials on the drawings; update the materials board. Provide different wood material and colors that are muted. A new materials board was submitted and the elevations are labeled. Security. Security for parking area. Possibly adding gate? The applicant will use both passive and active security measures including gates. Commemorative plaque or something similar to acknowledge prior activities on-site Provide plaque on a built-in bench with other ironwork materials salvaged from the existing building. Consider locating benches with backing Added built in seating adjacent to mixed- use building within plaza area. Analysis1 The Board discussed five areas where the project could improve as summarized in the previous table. The following sections describe in detail the issues, the responses and whether the revisions are adequate. Landscaping & Benches Summary of issue The Board provided direction to add more screening in the form of landscaping along the boundaries adjacent to the neighbors. The project had gaps in landscaped screening along the north property line adjacent to the multi-family site (with three units in two buildings) that fronts Curtner Avenue. Specifically, the project was evaluated against the requirements in PAMC 18.23 regarding visual screening. 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Summary of Response and Analysis The planters along the Townhouse Residences have been resized and repositioned to be integral with the Residence wall, thus freeing up additional landscaping area that can be planted directly into soil between the below grade parking garage and the adjacent property lines. The project includes more privacy screen trees and tall shrubs between the Townhouse balconies and the adjacent structures while resizing the bio retention areas to nestle between the enlarged, thickened screening evergreen foliage. A line of trees are now proposed along the north property line from the edge of the refuse/recycling bin staging area towards the elbow of the property where the stairwell is to the garage basement. The line of trees continues from the stairwell towards El Camino Real and end where the townhouses end. The revised plans show that the outdoor patios are detailed for the residential units. A bench is added within the plaza area adjacent to the mixed-use building, which will also address the commemorative comment and detailed in another section of this report. These changes enhance the project and support meeting Findings #2 and #5 respectively. Colors/Materials Summary of Issue The Board had concerns regarding the use of wood and wanted to see that the windows were bird friendly. The Board requested that the materials board be updated and submitted. Summary of Response and Analysis The proposed color palette was primarily revised to account for the use of the Trespa panel in lieu of the Ipe wood siding. This change was proposed in response to the concern of the ARB regarding the maintenance issues associated with the use of natural wood products on commercial buildings. The color for the panel siding, which had been a terra cotta color to complement the Ipe wood, is now a more muted gray to reflect the tones of the Trespa “wood” panels. A gray horizontal shade system was added to control solar gain in the El Camino Real retail space and to help make the glass more bird safe. The updated materials board was submitted to the City for review prior to the ARB meeting. These changes enhance the project and support Findings #2, #3, and #6. Security Summary of Issue The Board wanted to see a plan for security within the parking area. There were also a number of public comments regarding this issue of the basement parking. Summary of Responses and Analysis The project will include passive and active security measures such as increased lighting levels, glass backed stair/elevator towers, access control, monitored cameras, intercoms and panic buttons, security guard patrols, blue light system, public safety escort services, security gates City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 and effective signage. A security strategy plan has been submitted (Attachment K) and provides some illustrative detail regarding the locations of the security measures. The vehicular gates concept was reviewed by the City’s Transportation Division and those comments were incorporated into the submitted plan. Both the Fire and Building Departments will review the detailed plans at the time of building permit plan check. A condition of approval is added so that the owner/designee would submit a security plan for the City to review and approve. The Board may also consider whether the security plan should be further refined and reviewed by the City Council. These changes enhance the project and support Finding #4. Commemorative plaque and bench Summary of Issue There were a number of public comments regarding the existing building. The Board requested that the applicant acknowledge the existing building in some way on site with for example a commemorative plaque. Summary of Response and Analysis In response to the Board’s direction for the project to include a commemorative plaque, the applicant proposes is to mount a bronze plaque in the retail plaza with a description of the work that Gonzalo Silvestre and Carlos Campos created on the site. The specific verbiage would be developed in consultation with the heirs of Gonzalo Silvestre to develop the most complete picture of the artist work. The plaque would be mounted on a built-in bench in the plaza area, facing into the plaza as shown in the picture below from the submitted plans. The bench will also include some ironwork pieces salvaged from the existing building. EID Architects, 2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Example from EID Architects 2017 This revision attempts to address the Board’s comments on this issue and staff seeks direction on whether this meets the Boards intent with their comment. However, this tribute is not required by the code nor required as a mitigation measure to address any cultural resource impacts. Based on the foregoing, the willingness to provide the bronze plaque and ironwork is meaningful and appropriate. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project may have significant impacts on biological resources, which can be mitigated to a level of insignificant and therefore a Mitigated City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared. The document was circulated on March 6, 2017 through April 7, 2017. The environmental document and its appendices can be found at the following link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=2488&TargetID=319 Potential Impacts and Mitigation The on-site trees could support nesting activity by birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Disturbance to nesting birds would result in a significant impact. To avoid this impact, Mitigation Measure BIO - 1 requires nesting bird surveys to be conducted prior to and during construction and identifies assessment and avoidance measures that must be taken during construction if nesting birds are located on site. Additionally, the existing building and trees on site could support bat roosting. Mitigation Measure BIO - 2 requires a survey for roosting bats prior to building demolition and avoidance measures that must be taken during construction if roosting bats are located on site. Comments The comments and responses to those comments are included as Attachment L. The comments raise concerns regarding the project description, traffic, the historic nature of the existing building, dewatering during construction of the basement, and hazards and hazardous materials. None of the comments create the need for revisions to the document or substantiate cause for new significant impacts requiring new mitigation. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments Public Notification and Outreach The project was previously noticed for the April 6, 2017 ARB hearing. At that meeting, the ARB continued the item to the May 18, 2017 meeting. Therefore, no additional public notice is necessary. Public Comments There were many comments directed towards the project, as opposed to questions related to the environmental analysis. The project specific comments are addressed below. See Attachment J for the correspondence. 397-399 Curtner This site adjacent to the project was identified by some as a single-family residence, which may have informed the Board’s review of the project. However, upon review of the property records, the site is zoned multi-family and the County also assesses the property as multi- family. According to the tax rolls, the site includes three units in two buildings. Ground floor retail There were a number of questions regarding the project’s need to comply with the retail preservation interim ordinance. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 The discretionary application for this project was submitted on November 20, 2014 and has been continuously pending since then. In accordance with Ordinance 5325 (Interim Urgency Ordinance), a pipeline project is one that was submitted prior to March 2, 2015 and is currently pending. Ordinance 5407 was recently adopted by the City to formally codify the limiting of conversion of ground floor retail and section 15 of the ordinance states that projects submitted prior to March 2, 2015 do not have to comply with the retail conversion requirements. The project application meets the criteria set forth in the ordinance as an exempted project is exemption from conversion of retail to non-retail uses on the ground floor. The commercial space on the ground floor will be retail and the upper floor commercial space will be either office or retail space. The project applied the “retail” parking requirements, which require more parking than office uses. HRB Review of the Existing Building There were suggestions from the public that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) be given the opportunity to evaluate existing building at 3877 El Camino Real. The HRB reviews properties and structures that are formally designated on the City’s Historic Building Inventory. The HRB also functions as an advisory to add buildings to the inventory. The subject property is not listed on the City’s inventory and is not eligible for listing, and, therefore, the HRB was not consulted for this project. However, as part of the environmental review of this project, the city through its environmental consultant conducted its own study and concluded that the property did not meet the criteria for historic listing. Underground parking and security There were a number of comments related to the underground parking facility, its use, access, security, circulation and refuse collection. The following bulleted list addresses a number of these concerns:  The project proposes both passive and active security measures. Parking spaces will be monitored with onsite monitoring to ensure that parking spaces are properly being used by the right vehicles. The garage will be gated. The gates will be operational when the commercial businesses are not operating. The only exit from the garage is onto Curtner. There is an area that a vehicle can use to turn into and back around to turn around at the El Camino Real side of the garage. As mentioned there is an area for a vehicle to turn around at the El Camino Real end of the garage.  Retail Parking stalls will have a time limit that will be monitored. If stalls are in use by an improper vehicle signs will be visible to call for onsite manager. Each residential unit will have two reserved spaces. The parking structure will have onsite monitoring plan every two hours. Cars parked in the retail portion will have a time limit that will not pass two hours per vehicle. Cars parked in the guest portion will have permit stickers that each residential unit will be provided. A list of guest parking rules and regulations will be provided to each residential occupant. Parking for the office portion will also have a parking strategy plan that will only give a certain amount of spaces to potential tenant. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Owner will encourage residential and retail/office space to use public transportation. Owner will be providing public transit passes to occupants to encourage less vehicle parking.  The emergency vehicles will stage either on El Camino Real or Curtner Avenue. There is sufficient room for personnel to maneuver throughout the property as well as stage ladders where necessary.  Garbage is collected in the basement. Prior to garbage collection day, the on-site management team brings the bins/carts up to a staging area on-site next to the basement ramp. The garbage collection vehicle arrives to services the bins/carts and returns them to the staging area. The management team brings the bins/carts back down to the basement. The garbage collection truck will service the bins from Curtner Avenue. The frequency of pickups will be determined after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Construction Impacts There were a number of comments regarding the impacts of construction on the neighborhood. The following address those comments. A construction logistics plan will be required by the project. This plan will include such activities as staging, parking, and hauling during the construction period. This plan will be reviewed by the City to ensure that the construction will be as non-intrusive as possible for the neighborhood. Design Enhancement Exception There were comments regarding the Design Enhancement Exception request of the application. The following response addresses those comments. The project could provide parking above ground in an alternative design, however, that design may not meet some of the other findings or objectives of the City as the proposed design does. Parallel parking could be used; however, it is not the most efficient use of space. Additional parking would need to be provided on the surface, which would reduce the amount of open space areas. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 (408) 340-5642 (650) 329-2575 sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: ARB, DEE and Site & Design Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Comprehensive Plan Comparison (DOCX)  Attachment D: Performance Standards (DOCX)  Attachment E: RM-30 Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment F: CS Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment G: Conditions of Approval (DOCX)  Attachment H: Project Narrative (PDF)  Attachment I: Public Comments (DOCX)  Attachment J: April 6, 2017 ARB Staff Report (no attachments) (PDF)  Attachment K: Security Strategy Plan (PDF)  Attachment L: Response to Environmental Comments (TXT)  Attachment M: Environmental Assessment (DOCX)  Attachment N: Project Plans (DOCX) ATTACHMENT B ARB, DEE AND SITE & DESIGN FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 3877 El Camino Real 14PLN-00464 A. Architectural Review Findings The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The El Camino frontage is Service Commercial, while the Curtner Avenue frontage is Multi-Family. On balance, this project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies as further described in Attachment C. The project is consistent in mass and scale and considers appropriate transitions between commercial and residential properties. The project has streetscape consideration along El Camino Real and Curtner Avenue providing context-based treatment. The project redevelops a site and is considered infill. Along El Camino the project includes a vertical mixed-use component including a large sidewalk consistent with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The project also includes an outdoor plaza area for the ground floor retail and on-site bicycle parking for the commercial and residential uses. The buildings onsite are placed orderly and provide sufficient open space and connectivity between the streets, entrances and open spaces. The parking for the site is provided below ground, which frees up space on the ground level for the buildings and landscaping. The project provides plazas that are open to the public and include seating areas. The project supports full height tenant facades to help create a high quality streetscape. The project will pay the in-lieu fee to support the public art program and is required to comply with the NPDES Stormwater Permit, which includes bio-retention areas for stormwater management. The project is consistent with the City’s Zoning Code with the exception of the request to deviate from the rear setback requirement for the below-grade garage. This request is supported through the affirmative findings for the Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) request as further discussed below. The project is consistent with the South El Camino Design Guidelines in that it creates a wide sidewalk along El Camino Real, provides the required build-to setback, and massing for the building is considered by stepping the upper floors back. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The area is comprised of various commercial buildings of differing heights and size. The commercial buildings range between one and two stories. Residential buildings range between one and three stories in height in the area. The project proposes to construct a building that is taller and includes residential along El Camino as well as removing a surface parking lot and creating townhouses to the rear with frontage along Curtner Avenue. The proposed mixed-use building is three stories and is no taller than 35 feet, which is consistent with the zoning development standards. The commercial component is two-stories, consistent with commercial properties in the vicinity, while the residential component is on the second and third floors. The proposed townhouse buildings are two stories and under 30 feet in height, which is lower than the maximum zoning development standards. The project’s design includes consistency throughout with similar colors and provides plaza spaces near commercial spaces and other areas in the residential component of the project site to allow for connectivity and gathering places. The mixed-use building along El Camino Real is taller by one story than the commercial buildings within the vicinity. However, the building provides both commercial and residential, and a taller building is appropriate to accommodate both uses. The balance of the site with the residential buildings are consistent in height with other surrounding development. The project is consistent with the context-based design criteria for the applicable zone district: (1) Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment. The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides bike racks near the building entrances for short term use as well bike lockers in the garage to support the bicycle environment. In addition, the townhouses include bicycle lockers. The project meets the requirements for vehicular egress along El Camino Real that limits conflicts with pedestrians since it is one-way. Vehicular access is two-way off of Curtner Avenue and provides sufficient sight-distance at the driveway curb cut. As required, the project creates a 12- foot sidewalk along the frontage of the building. (2) Street Building Facades. Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street(s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that project’s mixed-use building provides a 12-foot sidewalk and maintains a build-to line setback (50% of the property frontage). The entry plaza is designed to guide pedestrians to the building entry. A planter is located in the front to provide visual interest. The residential component provides a larger setback to accommodate a vehicular ramp and elevator access to the basement garage. (3) Massing and Setbacks. Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project complies with the CS zoning development standards and the design is consistent with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines since the project complies with the height and setback requirements and the performance standards for projects adjacent to different land uses. Additionally, the use of balconies, light colored materials and appropriate fenestration facilitates the appearance of reducing the mass of the mixed- use building. The residential components include angled roofing that reduces the mass of the building and provides visual interest, while providing a uniform design. As with the mixed-use building, the colors palette is warm with balconies and fenestration provide adequate relief. Setbacks and open spaces are provided that include vegetation and trees that help offset perceived massing. (4) Low-Density Residential Transitions. Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties. This finding is not applicable to the project since there is no low-density residential development adjacent to the site. (5) Project Open Space. Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for residents, visitors, and/or employees of the site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides a plaza near the entry of the mixed-use building and between the building and the residential component. In addition, the project provides balconies for the enjoyment of the employees and residents. The residential component includes open spaces for outdoor gathering. (6) Parking Design. Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides all of its parking below grade. The El Camino Real access to the garages is limited to a one-way ingress into the garage, while access from Curtner Avenue is two-way. Curtner Avenue at El Camino Real is signal-controlled intersection. The basement design requires a deviation from the required rear setback through a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE). However, no changes are required on the surface to accommodate this request. Providing basement parking for the project allows for the site to be used efficiently for site planning of buildings and open space with limited amount of space required for the ramps from the basement to the streets. (7) Large (Multi-Acre) Sites. Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is consistent with the contemporary development patterns of the vicinity. The project is adjacent to the newly constructed multi-family project (six-units) on Curtner Avenue that has similar design themes. (8) Sustainability and Green Building Design. Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is subject to the California Green Building Code (CalGreen, Tier 2), as further detailed on Finding #6. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project proposes a contemporary style that is compatible with recent development along El Camino Real. Likewise, the residential component is consistently designed and is similar to the newly constructed multi-family (six-unit) project adjacent to the project along Curtner Avenue. The project as a whole includes metal, smooth troweled stucco finish, and composite wood paneling. All of which work cohesively to portray a high-quality mixed-use project. The mixed-use building along El Camino Real is consistent with the residential townhouses on the balance of the site. In response to the Board’s direction, the project uses trespa “wood” panels and modified the colors to be more muted. The use of trespa will aid in the long-term maintenance of the building and preserving its high-quality look. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The design of the new building is consistent with contemporary development within the City and the use of the space as office and retail on the ground floor for the mixed-use building. The site layout provides common areas for employees, patrons, residents and enlivens El Camino Real with the outdoor patio space adjacent to the building entry. For the residential component, the design includes appropriate setbacks and separation between buildings. The design is consistent in massing and design to the surrounding development. The project provides all of its parking below grade. The El Camino Real access to the garages is limited to a one- way ingress into the garage, while access from Curtner Avenue is two-way. Curtner Avenue at El Camino Real is signal-controlled intersection. The basement design requires a deviation from the required rear setback through a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE). However, no changes are required on the surface to accommodate this request. Providing the basement parking for the project allows for the site to be used efficiently for site planning of buildings and open space with limited amount of space required for the ramps from the basement to the streets. The project will include a security plan that would address concerns regarding the safety of those using the basement. This security plan would outline the proposed passive and active security measures that would be implemented. These measures include, but not limited to the physical design of the basement, cameras, patrols and security gate. With the implementation of these measures, the parking design is enhanced. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: The project will protect off-site trees during construction. The project provides a variety of drought-tolerant species. The site proposes open space areas that are designed to encourage gathering and connectivity between the mixed-use building and the residential units to the rear. The trees would provide appropriate habitat for wildlife as a part of a bigger neighborhood and community wide system. In response to the Board’s direction, the project includes additional trees along the northern property line adjacent to the multi-family property. These trees add more visual screening and are consistent with the performance standards for this project that is adjacent to other residential uses Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. A number of green building is included in the design and construction including a reduction in heat island effect, light pollution reduction, water efficiency with low-irrigation systems and appliances; and reduction in material and resource waste through reduction in cement use, pre-cut materials and details, pre- finished building materials. B. Design Enhancement Exception Findings (1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district. The site is “L”-shaped, has frontage on two streets and includes two separate zoning and comprehensive plan land use designations. There are no other properties within the vicinity with similar design and shape characteristics that would support a mixed-use project. While the adjacent property has a similar “L”-shape with frontage on two streets, there is not sufficient area in the rear to do anything more than a driveway and parallel parking, unlike the project site where there is sufficient land area to develop. The project proposes to transform a vacant restaurant building and adjacent surface parking lot into a vertical and horizontal mixed-use project that would be compatible with the zoning development standards and the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. To do so, the parking for the site would need to be underground, which is consistent with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines and the context-based findings for development. The only vehicular designed area that would be visible from the streets would be the ramps leading down to the basement. The exception is to allow a reduction in the required rear setback that applies to the basement from 10-feet to six feet. This would allow for the necessary space to provide drive aisles, appropriate turning radius and back-up distance and parking spaces to accommodate the project. (2) The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirements of this title (Zoning) and the architectural review findings set forth in Section 18.76.020(d). Not granting the setback deviation from 10-feet to 6-feet would necessitate surface parking and would compromise the congruent design of the site introducing negative aspects of vehicular activity. Having the parking below ground allows for the site above ground to have more flexibility in site design, which leads to more open space for gathering and wildlife to flourish. (3) The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. Allowing the setback deviation of four feet below ground does not affect the surrounding development above ground. The above ground project provides an additional four feet at the surface than what is required. The types of tree species chosen and the setback between the property line and the edge of the basement would allow for the perimeter trees to grow sufficiently. Traffic associated with the site would enter either from El Camino Real or Curtner Avenue, while traffic exiting the site will only exit onto Curtner Avenue and it is expected that traffic would then use the signalized intersection of Curtner and El Camino Real, rather than traverse through the residential neighborhood. The design of the frontage and vehicular ramp at Curtner Avenue would have sufficient sight-distance to ensure that pedestrians would not be at any unduly risk. For Informational Purposes: C. Site and Design Findings The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Site and Design Review as required in Chapter 18.30(G) of the PAMC. (a) To ensure construction and operation of the use in a manner that will be orderly, harmonious, and compatible with existing or potential uses of adjoining or nearby sites. According to the project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), the project’s construction would result in some temporary impacts; however, they would not result in any incompatible activities. A logistics plan is required to ensure that construction activities would not be harmful to the neighborhood. Regarding the operation of the site, the site would comply with regulations regarding late-night uses, noise ordinance, and solid waste handling. These are in place to ensure compatibility between different sites and uses. While at this time, there is no specific use proposed, the project would develop commercial spaces that would include retail and office uses. Those uses are consistent with other uses along El Camino Real and the surrounding neighborhoods that include both commercial and multi-family residential. Future specific uses would need to be consistent with the City’s regulations. The design of the site includes appropriate separation between the mixed-use building and the solely residential component and the adjacent multi-family properties. The project is consistent with the City’s Performance Standards set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.23, ensuring compatibility between commercial and residential uses. Proposed lighting is directed downward to prevent spillover to adjacent properties. Trash enclosures are located in the basement of the project. The project provides the required setback above ground and includes vegetation and tree plantings within the setback and open spaces. Mechanical equipment areas are screened appropriately. The site circulation facilitates access for all modes of transportation. The project includes short-term and long-term bike parking. On-site vehicular traffic will be directed underground, leaving the above-ground for pedestrians and bicyclist. Wide walkways and plazas surround the commercial areas and provide connectivity to the residential areas. In compliance with the City’s affordable housing requirements, the project proposes to include two below market rate dwelling units. This makes the project eligible for the State’s density bonus concessions. In which the project proposes to provide additional square footage to the project (2,596 square feet). Even with the additional square footage, the design of the project blends the additional square footage into the overall site design. (b) To ensure the desirability of investment, or the conduct of business, research, or educational activities, or other authorized occupations, in the same or adjacent areas. The project proposes a transformation in the site from a vacant commercial building with a large surface parking lot into a mixed-use (vertical and horizontal) site that is consistent with current zoning regulations, with the exception of a setback deviation for the basement parking, which does not affect the above ground improvements. The mixed-use building along El Camino Real proposes ground-floor commercial that is consistent with the City’s requirements and would provide a place for commerce and interactions for residents and business owners. The project is located in an area that has numerous older low-intensity commercial buildings. The proposed project is an example of a project that is consistent with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines and the vision for mixed-use development. The project’s mixed-use building along El Camino Real is larger than the surrounding buildings along El Camino Real as expected because it includes both commercial on the first and second floor and residential uses on the upper floors, however, the balance of the site transitions to solely residential and is consistent in massing and height with the adjacent properties. (c) To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. The project provides the required setback above ground and includes vegetation and tree plantings within the setback and open spaces. The site includes plazas and open areas to promote connectivity spaces for wildlife to flourish. These open spaces include vegetation and trees along the side and rear setbacks of the property. While the plant palette demonstrates many non-native species of plants, these trees will provide the potential habitat for birds and other wildlife. The parking for the project is located completely underground, which avoids a surface parking lot. However, at the same time the project will follow the appropriate regulations regarding dewatering and providing the basement space. (d) To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The project is consistent with a number of Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. These include: Goal L- 1, Policy L-4, Policy L-5, Policy L-9, Goal L-4, Policy L-19, Policy L-20, Policy L-21, Policy L-22, Goal L-9, Policy L-72, Goal T-3, Policy T-23, Goal, N-4, Policy N-21 and Goal B-5. The project is a mixed-use development that would include commercial and residential spaces, with some affordable housing units consistent with the City’s regulations. The project will comply with the stormwater codes, and include the appropriate amount of vehicular and bicycle parking. The site includes plazas and open space to encourage connectivity and interaction between the residents and commercial spaces. The buildings are placed orderly providing a mixed-use building along El Camino Real, where it is expected to have more intensive commercial development, with multi-family density located on the balance of the property, which is consistent with the surrounding development. Parking for the site is located completely below ground, which avoids many negative aspects of parking lots. The project provides two below market rate housing units, which promotes the availability of affordable housing. ATTACHMENT C COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TABLE 3877 El Camino Real / File No. 14PLN-00464 Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Service Commercial and Multi-Family. The project continues the Service Commercial and Multi-Family land uses. Land Use and Community Design Element Goal L-1: A well-designed, compact city, providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping district, public facilities and open spaces. The project redevelops a site into a horizontal and vertical mixed-use project. The project is consistent in mass and scale and considers appropriate transitions between commercial and residential properties. The project has streetscape consideration along El Camino Real and Curtner Avenue providing context- based treatment. Policy L-4: Maintain Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto’s desirable qualities. 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-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non- residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. Policy L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development. The project includes common gathering areas for patrons and residents. Goal L-4: Inviting, pedestrian-scale centers that offer a variety of retail and commercial services and provide focal points and community gathering places for the City’s residential neighborhoods and Employment Districts. The project redevelops a site and is considered infill. The El Camino component includes a vertical mixed- use along El Camino. The mixed-use component along El Camino Real includes a large sidewalk consistent with the South El Camino Real Design Policy L-19: Encourage a mix of land uses in all Centers, including housing and an appropriate mix of small-scale local businesses. Guidelines. The project also includes an outdoor plaza area for the ground floor retail. Policy L-20: Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners with buildings that come up to the sidewalk or that form corner plazas. Policy L-21: Provide all Centers with centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense of identity and encourage economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such as benches, street trees, kiosks, restrooms and public art. Policy L-22: Enhance the appearance of streets and sidewalks within all Center though an aggressive maintenance, repair and cleaning program; street improvements; and the use of a variety of paving materials and landscaping. Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create coherent development patterns and enhance city streets and public spaces. The buildings onsite are placed orderly and provide sufficient open space and connectivity between the streets, entrances and open spaces. The parking for the site is provided below ground, which frees up space on the ground level for the buildings, and landscaping. Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Goal L-9: Attractive, inviting public spaces and streets that enhance the image and character of the City. The project provides plazas that are open to the public. The project supports full height tenant facades to help create a streetscape. The project will pay the in-lieu fee to support the public art program. Policy L-72: Promote and maintain public art and cultural facilities throughout Palo Alto. Ensure that such projects are compatible with the character and identity of the surrounding neighborhood. Transportation Element Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling. The project is mixed-use that would include commercial services and residential uses. Policy T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-site parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details. The project includes on-site bicycle parking for the commercial and residential uses. Natural Environment Element Goal N-4: Water Resources that are Prudently Managed to Sustain Plant and Animal Life, Support Urban Activities, and Protect Public Health and Safety. The project is required to comply with the NPDES Stormwater Permit and includes bio-retention areas for stormwater management. Policy N-21: Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities. Business and Economics Element Goal B-5: Attractive, Vibrant Business Centers, Each with a Mix of Uses and a Distinctive Character. The project will redevelop into a mixed-use project. Performance Criteria 18.23 3877 El Camino Real 14PLN-00464 These performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. The trash enclosures are located in the basement parking area. Prior to trash/recycling pick up days, the bins/carts will be brought up to the staging area along the vehicular ramp along Curtner Avenue. Once the bins/carts are serviced, then they are brought back down to the basement. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The proposed exterior lighting is sufficient to provide safe circulation and is directed downward to reduce glare and impacts to the project’s residents. The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting (either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage pick up. Future commercial uses will have to comply with the City’s Late Night Ordinance requirements. At this time, it is unknown what tenants would occupy the commercial spaces. Any loading would occur off of El Camino Real for the commercial component. Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. The project provides the required setback above ground and includes vegetation and tree plantings within the setback and open spaces. In response to the Board’s direction, the project includes additional screening trees along the north property line and also in- between the townhome buildings. Mechanical equipment areas are screened appropriately. 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Project Consistency 18.23.030 Lighting 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are intended to protect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residential properties. New equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be subject to these requirements. The project will comply with the City’s noise ordinance. The trash enclosures are located in the garage basement. The commercial areas are located along El Camino Real and there is a buffer area between the commercial building and the surrounding residential buildings. The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. The project provides all of its parking below grade. The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project site. The site circulation facilitates access for all modes of transportation. The project includes short-term and long-term bike parking. On-site vehicular traffic will be directed underground, leaving the above-ground for pedestrians and bicyclist. Wide walkways and plazas surround the commercial areas and provide connectivity to the residential areas. The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. No proposed uses on the project site would produce odor or toxic air. In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. This is not applicable to the proposed uses associated with the project. 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration Project Consistency 18.23.070 Parking 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access 18.23.090 Air Quality 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials ATTACHMENT E ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3877 El Camino Real, 14PLN-00464 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.13 (RM-30 DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 8,500 sf area, 70 foot width, 100 foot depth 21,867.8 sf (0.50 acres) 21,867.8 sf (0.50 acres) Minimum Front Yard (2) 20 feet Parking lot 23 feet Rear Yard 10 feet Parking lot 14 feet above grade 6’1” below grade* Interior Side Yard 6 feet Parking lot 6 feet above grade 6 feet below grade Street Side Yard 16 feet Not applicable Not applicable Max. Building Height 35 feet Parking lot 29’8” Side Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at interior side lot line then 45 degree angle Not Applicable Complies Rear Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at rear setback line then 45 degree angle Not Applicable Complies Max. Site Coverage 40% (8,747 sf) Parking lot 37% (8,067 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 60% (13,121 sf) Parking lot 60% (13,105 sf) + 1,311 sf for BMR floor area ** Minimum Site Open Space 30% (6,560 sf) Not Applicable 56.3% (12,333 sf) Minimum Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit (1,650 sf) Not Applicable 7,001 sf Minimum Common Open Space 75 sf per unit (825 sf) Not Applicable 1,114 sf Minimum Private Open Space 50 sf per unit (550 sf) Not Applicable 5,887 sf * Design Enhancement Exception requested. ** Increase per 18.15.050d Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Multiple-Family Residential Type Required Proposed Vehicle Parking 2 spaces per unit, of which at least one space per unit must be covered. 34 spaces required Guest Parking: 1 space + 10% of total number of units. 3 required 34 spaces 7 spaces Bicycle Parking 1 space per unit (100% long term) 17 required 28 spaces ATTACHMENT F ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3877 El Camino Real, 14PLN-00464 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) Mixed-Use Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None 0.25 acres (10,957.5 sf) 0.25 acres (10,957.5 sf) Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) 9 feet 12 feet Rear Yard 10’ for residential portion; no requirement for commercial portion 75 feet 16 feet Interior Side Yard 10 feet Not applicable Not applicable Street Side Yard 5 feet Not Applicable Not Applicable Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback on El Camino Real 33% of side street built to setback (7) 70 feet (97%) No Street side yard 36 feet (50%) Special Setback 24 feet – see Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps Not applicable Not applicable Max. Site Coverage None 53.47% (5,860 sf) 50% (5,462.5 sf) Landscape/Open Space Coverage 30% (3,287 sf) Not Applicable 5,307 sf Usable Open Space 150 sq ft per unit for 6 units or more (9) Not Applicable 333 sf per unit Max. Building Height 50 ft or 35 ft within 150 ft. of a residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site 22 feet 37’-6” Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zoning districts Daylight plane height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zoning district abutting the lot line Not Applicable Consistent Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Retail: 0.4:1 (4,383 sf) Residential: 0.6:1 (6,574.5 sf) Total: 1.0:1 (10,957.5 sf) 53.47% (5,860 sf) Retail: 36.75% (4,027 sf) Residential: 59.7% (6,542 sf) + 1,285 sf BMR bonus (18.15.050d) Total: 0.96:1 (10,569 sf) Minimum Mixed-Use Ground Floor Commercial FAR 0.15:1 (1,644 sf) Not applicable 1,682 sf (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.. (7) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage, build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage (9) Required usable open space: (1) may be any combination of private and common open spaces; (2) does not need to be located on the ground (but rooftop gardens are not included as open space); (3) minimum private open space dimension six feet; and (4) minimum common open space dimension twelve feet. 18.16.080 Performance Standards. All development in the CS district shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, including all mixed use development 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Retail Services* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1/200 sf of gross floor area for a total of 21 parking spaces 63 spaces 21 spaces Bicycle Parking 1/2,400 sf (20% long term and 80% short term) equals 2 spaces Zero 2 (1 long term, 1 short term) Loading Space 0 loading spaces for 0- 4,999 sf Zero Zero * On-site employee amenity space is exempted from the parking requirements ATTACHMENT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 3877 El Camino Real 14PLN-00464 ________________________________________________________________________ Conditions of Approval Department of Planning and Community Environment Planning Division 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "3877 El Camino Real December 01, 2016,” stamped as received by the City on December 2, 2016 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 6. Density Bonus/Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Requirement: This project’s total BMR requirement is 2.7 units. When the BMR requirement results in a fractional unit, an in-lieu payment to the Residential Housing Fund may be made for the fractional unit instead of providing an actual BMR unit, except that larger projects of 30 or more units must provide a whole BMR unit for any fractional unit of one-half (0.50) or larger. To satisfy this requirement, the applicant shall provide 2 BMR for-sale housing units affordable to lower income households within the project in accordance with the requirements set forth in Program H3.1.2 of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Chapters 18.14 and 18.15 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and the BMR Program rules and regulations. The applicant shall also provide in lieu fees equal to 7.5 percent of the greater of the actual sales price or fair market value of each unit in accordance with the schedule set forth in H3.1.2 (e) to satisfy the fractional component of the BMR requirement. The fractional in-lieu fee shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits for the project; provided, however, that prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project, the applicant may elect to provide one additional inclusionary unit instead of paying the fractional in lieu payment. All Density Bonus/BMR units constructed under this condition shall be in conformance with the City’s BMR Program rules and regulations. A BMR Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney for the 2 BMR units shall be executed and recorded prior to final map approval or building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. Failure to comply with the timing of this condition and any adopted BMR Program rules and regulations shall not waive its later enforcement. The applicant is hereby notified, as required by Government Code § 66020, that the approved plans, these conditions of approval, and the adopted City fee schedule set forth in Program H3.1.2 of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan constitute written notice of the description of the dedications, reservations, amount of fees and other exactions related to the project. As of the date of project approval, the 90 day period has begun in which the applicant may protest any dedications, reservations, fees or other exactions imposed by the City. Failure to file a protest in compliance with all of the requirements of Government Code § 66020 will result in a legal bar to challenging the dedications, reservations, fees or other exactions. 7. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Estimated Development Impact Fees in the amount of $311,130.37 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 8. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 9. COMMEMORATIVE PLAQUE. The owner or designee shall produce and mount a bronze plaque in the retail plaza with a description of the work that Gonzalo Silvestre and Carlos Campos created on the site. The specific verbiage would be developed in consultation with the heirs of Gonzalo Silvestre to develop the most complete picture of the artist work. The plaque would be mounted on a built-in bench in the plaza area, facing into the plaza. As feasible and in conjunction with the Silvestre family any ironworks salvaged should be integrated into the bench design. 10. SECURITY PLAN. The owner or designee shall prepare, submit and receive approval from the City for a plan that would include passive and active security measures for the project site including the basement area. Such measures shall include, but not limited to increased lighting levels, glass backed stair/elevator towers, access control, monitored cameras, intercoms and panic buttons, security guard patrols, blue light system, public safety escort services, security gates and effective signage. 11. NOISE PRODUCING EQUIPMENT: All noise producing equipment shall be located outside of required setbacks, except they may project 6 feet into the required street side setbacks. In accordance with Section 9.10.030, No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device, or any combination of same, on residential property, a noise level more than six dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. 12. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m- group.us to schedule this inspection. Public Works Engineering Department PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT AND GRADING AND EXCAVATION PERMIT SUBMITTAL 13. MAPPING: Applicant shall file for a Minor or Major Subdivision Application. Five parcels would trigger a major subdivision. Public Works’ Tentative Maps and Preliminary Parcel Maps checklist must accompany the completed application. All existing and proposed dedications and easements must be shown on the submitted map. The map would trigger further requirements from Public Works, see Palo Alto Municipal Code section 21.12 for Preliminary Parcel Map or Tentative Map requirements and section 21.16 for Parcel Map or Final Map requirements. If a Map is required, it shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit or excavation and grading permit. 14. PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT: Owner shall create a public access easement for the additional area behind the property line needed to create a 12-foot wide sidewalk along El Camino Real. Plot and label the Public Access Easement along El Camino Real that provides the 12-foot wide sidewalk. 15. Subdivision Improvement Agreement is required to secure compliance with condition of approval and security of improvements onsite and offsite per PAMC Section 21.16.220. 16. Please verify if the existing sub-surface transformer within the sidewalk will continue to serve the development. If the existing transformer cannot serve the project then a new transformer upgrade may be required. The new transformer shall be located completely within private property. Plot and label the location of the new transformer, if needed. Or provide a note on the plans that indicate existing transformer to be used and if a new one is needed it will be located within private property. 17. OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS: Submit a copy of the off-site improvement plans that includes the replacement of curb, gutter, sidewalk, utilities, landscape, etc. Provide Caltrans standard details along the project frontage. Plans shall include the proposed public access easement, grades along the conforms. 18. Submit a construction cost estimate associated with the off-site improvements. PRIOR TO DEMOLITION BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE 19. Map shall be recorded prior to issuance of a Building Permit or Grading and Excavation Permit 20. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to building permit demolition that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. Plan shall include the following, but not limited to, construction fence, construction entrance and exit, stockpile areas, equipment and material storage area, workers parking area, construction office trailer, temporary bathroom, measures for dewatering if needed, crane location, working hours, contractor’s contact information, truck traffic route, setbacks from environmentally sensitive areas, erosion and sediment control measures to be implemented during construction. 21. DEMOLITION PLAN: Place the following note adjacent to an affected tree on the Site Plan and Demolition Plan: “Excavation activities associated with the proposed scope of work shall occur no closer than 10-feet from the existing street tree, or as approved by the Urban Forestry Division contact 650- 496-5953. Any changes shall be approved by the same”. Also plot and label the tree protection zone. 22. GRADING PERMIT: The grading and drainage plan must include an earthworks table with the estimated cut and fill volumes. If the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. An application and plans for a grading permit are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. Provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall include the following: pad elevation, basement elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, shoring for the proposed basement, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for the basement access, crane locations (if any), etc. Plans submitted for the Grading and Excavation Permit, shall be stand-alone, and therefore the plans shall include any conditions from other divisions that pertain to items encountered during rough grading for example if contaminated groundwater is encountered and dewatering is expected, provide notes on the plans based Water Quality’s conditions of approval. Provide a note on the plans to direct the contractor to the approve City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map, which is available on the City’s website. Provide the following note on the Rough Grading Plan and the Final Grading Plan. “In my professional judgement, the highest projected groundwater level to be encountered in the area of the proposed basement in the future will be ______ feet below existing grade.” 23. LOGISTICS PLAN: The applicant and contractor shall submit a construction logistics plan to the Public Works Department that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, on-site staging and storage areas, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact. The plan shall be prepared and submitted along the Rough Grading and Excavation Permit. Plot the construction fence, entrances, shoring, limits of over excavation, tree protection zone, construction workers parking area, staging and storage areas within the private site for equipment and material. The plans shall include notes as indicated on the approved Truck Route Map for construction traffic to and from the site. Note that there is a project immediately adjacent to another active construction site located at 405 Curtner Avenue. On the Logistics Plan provide a note for the project contractor to coordinate directly with the general contractor of 405 Curtner Avenue, to avoid conflicts in right-of-way. At no point will both projects be permitted to close off Curtner Avenue. 24. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works or Caltrans. On the Basement Plan, provide a dimension between the property lines and the basement walls, to verify that the shoring will be located completely within the subject property. In particular, near the proposed driveway ramps. 25. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 26. DEWATERING: Basement excavations may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level. We recommend a piezometer to be installed in the soil boring. The contractor must determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using the piezometer or by drilling an exploratory hole if the deepest excavation will be within three (3) feet of the highest anticipated groundwater level. If groundwater is found within two (2) feet of the deepest excavation, a drawdown well dewatering system must be used, or alternatively, the contractor can excavate for the basement and hope not to hit groundwater, but if he does, he must immediately stop all work and install a drawdown well system before he continues to excavate. Public Works may require the water to be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for the contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. Applicant shall install a water station for the reuse of dewatering water. This water station shall be constructed next to the right-of-way and shall be accessible 24 hours a day for the filling of water carrying vehicles (i.e. street sweepers, etc.). The water station shall also be sued for onsite dust control. Applicant shall meet with Public Works to coordinate the design details. 27. Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Street Work Permit. The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a street work permit prior to dewatering. The street work permit to dewater must be obtained in August to allow ample to time to dewater and complete the dewatering by October 31st. Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. Public Works has a sample dewatering plan sheet and dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp The following links are included to assist the applicant with dewatering requirements. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/30978 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51366 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47388. Green Building Green Building Requirements for Mixed Use Projects 28. The project shall meet both the residential and non-residential requirements for the corresponding areas. Green building requirements are subject to field inspection. Residential Area 29. For design and construction of residential projects, the City requires use of the Build It Green (BIG), Green Point Rated (GPR) program to comply with the mandatory measures of Chapter 4.(Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013) • The project is a new construction residential building and therefore must achieve BIG GPR minimum requirements and achieve 70 points + 1 point per additional 70 square feet over 2500 square feet. The applicant must hire a Green Point Rater and should use Green Point Rated Multi-family Checklist. • The project must meet the enhanced construction waste reduction at tier 2 (75% construction waste reduction). PAMC 16.14.160 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013) • The project is a new multifamily residential project and therefore must comply with the City of Palo Alto Electric Vehicle Charging Ordinance 5263. For resident parking, the project must supply one EVSE-Ready Outlet or EVSE Installed for each residential unit in the structure. For guest parking, the project shall provide Conduit Only, EVSE Ready Outlet, or EVSE Installed for at least 25% of the guest parking, among which at least 5% (and no fewer than one) shall be EVSE installed. See PAMC 16.14.370 for definitions on the types of EVSE parking. (Ord. 5263§ 1 (part), 2013). Non-Residential Area 30. For design and construction of non-residential projects, the City requires compliance with the mandatory measures of Chapter 5, in addition to use of the Voluntary Tiers. (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013) • The project is a new nonresidential construction project greater than 1,000 square feet and therefore must comply with California Green Building Standards Code Mandatory plus Tier 2 requirements, as applicable to the scope of work. PAMC 6.14.180 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project has indicated sustainable design objectives. The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. Green building requirements are subject to field inspection. The submittal requirements are outlined here: www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp. • The project is a nonresidential new construction projects with a landscape of any size included in the project scope and therefore must comply with Potable water reduction Tier 2. Documentation is required to demonstrate that the Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) falls within a Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) using the appropriate evapotranspiration adjustment factor (ETAF) designated by the prescribed potable water reduction tier. PAMC 16.14.220 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. The submittal requirements are outlined on the following site: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/residents/resrebate/landscape.asp. • The project is outside the boundaries of the recycled water project area and is greater then 1,000 square feet and therefore must install recycled water infrastructure for irrigation systems. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. • The project is either new construction or a rehabilitated landscape and is greater than 1,000 square feet and therefore must install a dedicated irrigation meter related to the recycled water infrastructure. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. • The project includes a new or altered irrigation system and therefore must be designed and installed to prevent water waste due to overspray, low head drainage, or other conditions where water flows onto adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, walks, roadways, parking lots, or structures. PA 16.14.300 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). • The project includes a new or altered irrigation system and therefore the irrigation must be scheduled between 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. unless weather conditions prevent it. Operation of the irrigation system outside the normal watering window is allowed for auditing and system maintenance. Total annual applied water shall be less than or equal to maximum applied water allowance (MAWA) as calculated per the potable water use reduction tier. PAMC 16.14.310 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). ). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 31. C&D: The project is a nonresidential new construction project and has a value exceeding $25,000 and therefore must meet Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction Tier 2. PAMC 16.14.240 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. • The project includes non-residential demolition and therefore must meet the Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction - Tier 2. PAMC 16.14.270 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. 32. Energy Star: The project is a nonresidential projects exceeding $100,000 valuation and therefore must acquire an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Rating and submit the rating to the City of Palo Alto once the project has been occupied after 12 months. PAMC 16.14.250 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). Submittal info can be found at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/benchmarking_your_building.asp. 33. EVSE: The project is a new non-residential structure and therefore must comply with the City of Palo Alto Electric Vehicle Charging Ordinance 5263. The project shall provide Conduit Only, EVSE-Ready Outlet, or EVSE Installed for at least 25% of parking spaces, among which at least 5% (and no fewer than one) shall be EVSE Installed. The requirements shall be applied separately to accessible parking spaces. See Ordinance 5263 for EVSE definitions, minimum circuit capacity, and design detail requirements. PAMC 16.14.380 (Ord. 5263 § 1 (part), 2013) See https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/43818 for additional details. 34. Zero Net Energy Design Review: The project is a new construction commercial project and therefore may elect to engage the City of Palo Alto consultant, BASE Energy Inc, free of charge. BASE will assist the project in targeting Zero Net Energy and exceeding the Title 24 Energy Code. Rebates may be available via working with Base. For more information, visit www.cityofpaloalto.org/commercial program or call 650.329.2241. The applicant may also contact Ricardo Sfeir at BASE Energy at rsfeir@baseco.com to schedule a project kick-off. 35. Utilities Incentives & Rebates: The project may be eligible for several rebates offered through the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department. These rebates are most successfully obtained when planned into the project early in design. For the incentives available for the project, please see the information provided on the Utilities website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/rebates/default.asp 36. Bird-Friendly Building Design: The west elevation on sheet A4.2 contains a glazed façade that covers a large area. Glazing shown on A4.1 does not indicate finish and appears to be clear. The project should consider bird-safe glazing treatment that typically includes fritting, netting, permanent stencils, frosted glass, exterior screens, physical grids placed on the exterior of glazing or UV patterns visible to birds. Vertical elements of the window patterns should be at least 1/4 inch wide at a minimum spacing of 4 inches, or have horizontal elements at least 1/8 inch wide at a maximum spacing of 2 inches. The applicant should consider consulting the San Francisco Standards for Bird Safe Buildings. TRANSPORTATION 37. The turn-around area in the parking garage adjacent to parking stall #1 as shown on sheet A1.1 may be mistaken as a common parking space. The area shall be filled with crosshatching and potentially additional pavement markings and/or signage to prohibit parking or stopping within the turn-around area. Utilities-Water, Gas & Wastewater PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 38. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the existing water/wastewater fixture unit loads (and building as-built plans to verify the existing loads) to determine the capacity fee credit for the existing load. If the applicant does not submit loads and plans they may not receive credit for the existing water/wastewater fixtures. 39. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. FOR BUILDING PERMIT 40. The applicant shall submit completed water-gas-wastewater service connection applications - load sheets for City of Palo Alto Utilities for each unit or place of business. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain). 41. City prefer to install utilities on Curtner Ave instead of El Camino Real 42. Water meter(s) up to 2” to be located in the public right of way 43. Due to limited space for individual meters, applicant can consider possibility for master metering. The buildings can only be master metered for gas if: The building will contain central heating, air conditioning, or central domestic hot Water and can be shown (using methods of calculation acceptable to CPAU) to be more energy efficient and at a more favorable cost-benefit ratio than would be the case if individual Metering were installed. 44. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater laterals and mains need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes, electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas. 45. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 46. The applicant may be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 47. The applicant's engineer shall submit flow calculations and system capacity study showing that the on- site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing may be required to determined current flows and water pressures on existing water main. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The applicant is required to perform, at his/her expense, a flow monitoring study of the existing sewer main to determine the remaining capacity. The report must include existing peak flows or depth of flow based on a minimum monitoring period of seven continuous days or as determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The study shall meet the requirements and the approval of the WGW engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing sewer main will be permitted. 48. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of public water, gas and wastewater utilities improvement plans (the portion to be owned and maintained by the City) in accordance with the utilities department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacture's literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant's contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. After the work is complete but prior to sign off, the applicant shall provide record drawings (as-builts) of the contractor installed water and wastewater mains and services per City of Palo Alto Utilities record drawing procedures (see last condition). For projects that take more than one month to complete, the applicant shall provide progress record drawings of work completed on a monthly basis. 49. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. 50. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (a double detector assembly may be allowed for existing fire sprinkler systems upon the CPAU’s approval). reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 51. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 52. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 53. Existing water services (including fire services) that are not a currently standard material shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 54. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 55. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 56. All WGW utility installations shall be from Curtner Street instead of El Camino Real (see note #31). 57. A separate water meter and backflow preventer is required to irrigate the approved landscape for landscaping areas in excess of 1,500 SF (including tree canopies). Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account an no other water service will be billed on the account. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards. 58. A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. For water meters 4” and larger the applicant's contractor must provide and install an 4’ by 8’ meter vault with meter reading lid covers and other required control equipment in accordance with the utilities standard detail WD-05. Water meters 4” and larger shall be in a PUE on private property, water meters 2” and smaller shall be located in the public right of way per the CPA WGW Utilities Standards. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 59. If a new water service line installation for irrigation usage is required. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 60. A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required. Show the location of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including all fire department's requirements. 61. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must meet the WGW Utility Standards. The City of Palo Alto normal service pressure is 7” WC (.25 PSI). Increased pressure must be requested in writing and is only provided if the houseline size calculates out at greater than 2” diameter for domestic (note: domestic can only be increased to 14” WC max.) and greater than 4” diameter for commercial at standard houseline pressure (7” WC) or the appliance requires increased pressure at the inlet. Further, due to meter limitations there must a minimum of 800 CFH demand for pressures greater than 14” WC. The only available pressure increments above 7” WC are 14” WC (1/2 psi), 1#, 2# and 5# after approval. Pressures in excess of 14” WC, will require testing the house piping at not less than 60 psig for not less than 30 minutes per the California Plumbing Code section 1204.3.2, witnessed by Palo Alto Building Inspection. The City of Palo Alto will not provide increased pressure just to save contractor money on the houseline construction. Requests to increase the pressure will be evaluated with the following submittals: The manufacturer’s literature for the equipment requiring increased pressure; the specific pressure you are requesting; the gas load; and the length of house gas piping from the gas meter to where the gas houseline starts branching off. 62. A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans 63. The applicant shall secure a public utilities easement for facilities installed in private property. The applicant's engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the county of Santa Clara, and provide the utilities engineering section with copies of the public utilities easement across the adjacent parcels as is necessary to serve the development. 64. Where public mains are installed in private streets/PUEs for condominium and town home projects the CC&Rs and final map shall include the statement: “Public Utility Easements: If the City’s reasonable use of the Public Utility Easements, which are shown as P.U.E on the Map, results in any damage to the Common Area, then it shall be the responsibility of the Association, and not of the City, to Restore the affected portion(s) of the Common Area. This Section may not be amended without the prior written consent of the City”. 65. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilties procedures. 66. Flushing of the fire system to sanitary sewer shall not exceed 30 GPM. Higher flushing rates shall be diverted to a detention tank to achieve the 30 GPM flow to sewer. 67. Sewage ejector pumps shall meet the following conditions: • The pump(s) shall be limited to a total 100 GPM capacity and • The sewage line changes to a 4” gravity flow line at least 20’ from the City clean out. • The tank and float is set up such that the pump run time not exceed 20 seconds each cycle. 68. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures can not be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 69. To install new gas service by directional boring, the applicant is required to have a sewer cleanout at the front of the building. This cleanout is required so the sewer lateral can be videoed for verification of no damage after the gas service is installed by directional boring. 70. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. 71. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for all WGW utility work in the El Camino Real right-of-way. The applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the WGW engineering section. 72. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Santa Clara county department of transportation for all utility work in the county road right-of-way. The applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the WGW engineering section. 73. The applicant shall obtain a construction permit from Santa Clara county valley water district for the utility service line to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. Public Works-Urban Forestry PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 74. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL‐ PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b)* verified all his/her updated TPR mitigation measures and changes are incorporated in the plan set, (c) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T‐1) and, (d) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. i. (b above) Other information. The Building Permit submittal set shall be accompanied by the project site arborist’s typed certification letter shall state that the plans have incorporated design changes and are consistent with City Standards, Regulations and following information: ii. Applicant/project arborist’s final revised Tree Protection Report (TPR) with said design changes and corresponding mitigation measures. (e.g.: if Pier/grade beam=soils report w/ specs required by Bldg. iii. Div.; if Standard foundation= mitigation for linear 24” cut to all roots in proximity) a. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual Construction Standards, Section 2.00 and PAMC 8.10.080. b. Specialty items. Itemized list of any activity impact--quantified and mitigated, in the Tree Protection iv. Zone (TPZ) for each tree. c. Oaks, if present. That landscape and irrigation plans are consistent with CPA Tree Technical v. Manual, Section 5.45 and Appendix L, Landscaping under Native Oaks and PAMC 18.40.130. 75. BUILDING PERMIT CORRECTIONS/REVISIONS‐‐COVER LETTER. During plan check review, provide a separate cover letter with Correction List along with the revised drawings when resubmitting. State where the significant tree impacts notes occur (bubble) and indicate the sheet number and/or detail where the correction has been made. Provide: 1) corresponding revision number and 2) bubble or highlights for easy reference. Responses such as “see plans or report” or “plans comply” are not acceptable. Your response should be clear and complete to assist the recheck and approval process for your project. 76. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on relevant plan sheets: d. SHEET T‐1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full‐ sized, Sheet T‐1 (Tree Protection‐it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at i. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban Forestry/Contractor is mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: Insp. #2‐6 applies; with landscape plan: Insp. #7 applies.) e. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City for full ii. implementation by Contractor, Monarch Consulting Arborists, Tree Inventory and Assessment Plan, dated September 18, 2014, shall be printed on numbered Sheet T‐1 (T‐ 2, T‐3, etc.) and added to the sheet index. 77. PLANS‐‐SHOW PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show Type I or Type II fencing around each Regulated Trees, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone as shown on Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T‐1, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35‐Site Plans; or using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. 78. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS: Plans with Public Trees shall show (a) Type II street tree fencing enclosing the entire parkway strip or, (b) Type I protection to the outer branch dripline (for rolled curb & sidewalk or no‐sidewalk situations.) f. Add Site Plan Notes. i. Note #1. Apply to the site plan stating, "All tree protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations, watering and construction scheduling shall be implemented in full by owner and contractor, as stated on Sheet T‐1, in the Tree Protection Report and the approved plans”. ii. Note #2. All civil plans, grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans and relevant sheets shall add a note applying to the trees to be protected, including neighboring trees stating: "Regulated Tree‐‐before working in this area contact the Monarch Project Site Arborist at 818.331.8982"; iii. Note #3. Utility (sanitary sewer/gas/water/backflow/electric/storm drain) plan sheets shall include the following note: “Utility trenching shall not occur within the TPZ of the protected tree. Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that no trenching occurs within the TPZ of the protected tree by contractors, City crews or final landscape workers. See sheet T‐1 for instructions.” iv. Note #4. “Basement or foundation plan. Soils Report and Excavation for basement construction within the TPZ of a protected tree shall specify a vertical cut (stitch piers may be necessary) in order to avoid over‐excavating into the tree root zone. Any variance from this procedure requires Urban Forestry approval, please call (650) 496‐ 5953.” v. Note #5. “Pruning Restrictions. No pruning or clearance cutting of branches is permitted on City trees. Contractor shall obtain a Public Tree Permit from Urban Forestry (650‐ 496‐5953) for any work on Public Trees”. 79. TREE REMOVAL—PROTECTED & RIGHT‐OF‐WAY TREES. Existing trees (Publicly‐owned or Protected) to be removed, as shown accurately located on all site plans, require approval by the Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit prior to issuance of any building, demolition or grading permit. Must also be referenced in the required Street Work Permit from Public Works Engineering. i. Add plan note for each tree to be removed, “Tree Removal. Contractor shall obtain a completed Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit # _____________ (contractor to complete) separate from the Building or Street Work Permit. Permit notice hanger and conditions apply. Contact (650‐496‐5953).” ii. Copy the approval. The completed Tree Care Permit shall be printed on Sheet T‐2, or specific approval communication from staff clearly copied directly on the relevant plan sheet. The same Form is used for public or private Protected tree removal requests available from the Urban Forestry webpage: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/trees/default.asp 80. NEW RIGHT‐OF‐WAY TREES‐‐PLAN REQUIREMENTS. New trees shall be shown on all relevant plans: site, utility, irrigation, landscape, etc. in a location 10’ clear radius from any (new or existing) underground utility or curb cut (see Note #4 above). g. Add note on the Planting Plan that states, “Tree Planting. Prior to in‐ground installation, Urban Forestry inspection/approval required for tree stock, planting conditions and irrigation adequacy. Contact (650‐496‐5953).” i. Plans shall state the Urban Forestry approved species, size and include relevant Standard Planting Dwg. #603, #603a or #604 (reference which), and shall note the tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. h. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30‐inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2‐inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1‐ inch. i. Add note on the Planting & Irrigation Plan that states, “Irrigation and tree planting in the right‐of‐way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards.” ii. Automatic irrigation shall be provided for each tree. Standard Dwg. #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. Bubblers mounted inside an aeration tube are prohibited. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. 78. NEW RIGHT-OF-WAY TREES—SOIL VOLUME. Unless otherwise approved, each new large* tree shall be provided with 1,200 cubic feet of rootable soil area, utilizing Standard Dwg. #604/513. Rootable soil shall mean compaction less than 90% over the area, not including sidewalk base areas except when mitigated. Sidewalk Mitigation in lieu of compacted root conditions may use Alternative Base Material methods such as: structural grid (Silva Cell), Engineered Soil Mix base or other method as approved. 79. Minimum soil volume for tree size growth performance (in cubic feet): Large: 1,200 cu.ft. Medium: 800 cu.ft. Small: 400 cu.ft. a. Landscape Plan. When qualifying for parking area shade ordinance compliance (PAMC 18.40.130) trees shall be labeled (as S, M or L). i. Engineered Soil Mix (ESM). When applied, Engineered Soil Mix base material shall be utilized in specified areas, such as a sidewalk base or channeling to a landscape area, to achieve expected shade tree rooting potential and maximum service life of the sidewalk, curb, parking surfaces and compacted areas. Plans and Civil Drawings shall use CPA Public Works Engineering ESM Specifications, Section 30 and Standard Dwg. #603a. Designated areas will be identified by crosshatch or other symbol, and specify a minimum of 24" depth. The technology may be counted toward any credits awarded for LEED or Sustainable Sites certification ratings. 81. LANDSCAPE PLANS i. Include all changes recommended from civil engineer, architect and staff, including planting specifications if called for by the project arborist, b. Provide a detailed landscape and irrigation plan encompassing on‐and off‐site plantable areas out to the curb as approved by the Architectural Review Board. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for the project. A licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant will prepare these plans, to include: i. All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including street trees. ii. Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations. iii. Irrigation schedule and plan. iv. Fence locations. v. Lighting plan with photometric data. vi. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. vii. All new trees planted within the public right‐of‐way shall be installed per Public Works (PW) Standard Planting Diagram #603 or 604 (include on plans), and shall have a tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. viii. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30‐inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2‐inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1‐inch. ix. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees. For trees, Standard Dwg. #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. Bubblers shall not be mounted inside an aeration tube. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Irrigation in the right‐of‐way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards. i.Landscape Plan shall ensure the backflow device is adequately obscured with the appropriate screening to minimize visibility (planted shrubbery is preferred, painted dark green, decorative boulder covering acceptable; wire cages are discouraged). j. Add Planting notes to include the following mandatory criteria: ii. Prior to any planting, all plantable areas shall be tilled to 12” depth, and all construction rubble and stones over 1” or larger shall be removed from the site. iii. ii. Note a turf‐free zone around trees 36” diameter (18” radius) for best tree performance. 82. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to demolition, grading or building permit issuance, a written verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Building Inspections Division. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. DURING CONSTRUCTION 83. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air‐spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2‐1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 84. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, Monarch Consulting Arborists, 831.331.8982, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 85. CONDITIONS. All Planning Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 86. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T‐1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 87. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1‐5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20‐2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 88. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY 89. URBAN FORESTRY DIGITAL FILE & INSPECTION. The applicant or architect shall provide a digital file of the landscape plan, including new off‐site trees in the publicly owned right‐of‐way. A USB Flash Drive, with CAD or other files that show species, size and exact scaled location of each tree on public property, shall be delivered to Urban Forestry at a tree and landscape inspection scheduled by Urban Forestry (650‐496‐5953). 90. LANDSCAPE CERTIFICATION LETTER. The Planning Department shall be in receipt of a verification letter that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. 91. PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to written request for temporary or final occupancy, the contractor shall provide to the Planning Department and property owner a final inspection letter by the Project Arborist. The inspection shall evaluate the success or needs of Regulated tree protection, including new landscape trees, as indicated on the approved plans. The written acceptance of successful tree preservation shall include a photograph record and/or recommendations for the health, welfare, mitigation remedies for injuries (if any). The final report may be used to navigate any outstanding issues, concerns or security guarantee return process, when applicable. 92. PLANNING INSPECTION. Prior to final sign off, contractor or owner shall contact the city planner (650‐ 329‐2441) to inspect and verify Special Conditions relating to the conditions for structures, fixtures, colors and site plan accessories. POST CONSTRUCTION 93. MAINTENANCE. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices‐Pruning (ANSI A300‐2008 or current version) and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.00. Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. February 28 2017 1 EID 3877 El Camino Mixed Use Site & Design Review Resubmittal 412 Olive Avenue, Palo Alto, 94306 off 650.226.8770 l Environmental Innovations in Design Eco-functional Architecture ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 412 Olive Avenue | Palo Alto | CA | 94306 dir. 650.793.2856 | off. 650.226.8770 Application Number: 14PLN-00464 Company Name: EID Architects, Environmental Innovations in Design Contact: Stuart Welte stuart@EIDarchitects.com Mark Wommack mark@EIDarchitects.com Project Address: 3877 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA Regarding: ARB Submittal for Major Project Planning Commission Hearing Document: Project Narrative including summary of comprehensive City Department review comments and EID responses. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ March 08, 2016 To: Sheldon Ah Sing | Senior Planner SAhsing@m-group.us City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Fifth Floor Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 EID is resubmitting revised drawing sets for 3877 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA for Major Architectural Review. EID Responses to City comments are below the project summary section of this letter. Scope of work: Existing Use: The parcel is an “L” shaped lot with frontage on both El Camino Real and Curtner Ave. There is a vacant 2-story commercial building on El Camino Real with on grade parking accessed from Curtner Avenue. All existing structures and paving is to be removed. Proposed Use: A new mixed use project to include (17) residential units and approximately 4,035 square feet of commercial/retail area. The commercial/retail space will be combined into a 3-story mixed use building that will also include (6) residential flats. The remaining (11) residential units will be within 2- story townhomes located behind the mixed use building and on the portion of the site that extends to Curtner Ave. All vehicular parking will be located within a parking garage that will be completely below grade. February 28 2017 2 EID 3877 El Camino Mixed Use Site & Design Review Resubmittal 412 Olive Avenue, Palo Alto, 94306 off 650.226.8770 Design Concept: The parcel is divided by a zoning boundary. The El Camino Real frontage is zoned CM and requires a more urban design solution that conforms to the requirements of the ECR Design Guidelines. The rest of the site is zoned RM-30. This includes the leg of the parcel that extends to Curtner Ave. This portion of the site is surrounded with other RM-30 zoned lots, so a more residentially scaled design solution is needed in this area to respect the context of the existing residential community. Our design concept responds to this by transitioning in form and scale from the larger urban mixed use building that fronts on ECR down to the smaller scaled townhomes that we propose on the balance of the site. Below-grade parking, provides significantly more open space and landscaping than typical of the surrounding neighborhood, enhancing both the private and public open spaces within the site, creating a welcoming, pedestrian friendly community. The townhomes are clustered to create open areas between the units and to break the massing of the buildings down into a residentially scaled structure. Materials and Methods of Construction: To reflect the complexity of the contextual aspects of the site, we’ve selected sustainably minded materials that respond to the functions of each building with the intention of creating a synergy among our two public entrances, the surrounding residential neighborhoods, and the vitality of the ECR. Contextually there is little to draw from the immediate neighborhood in terms of style or detailing, as the neighborhood is primarily comprised of painted stucco and concrete block construction, with nondescript modular aluminum sliding windows and very little focus on neighborhood greeting, nor particularly identifiable public open space. All proposed entrances to this new design create recessed plaza courts allowing for ease of access to generous common use areas. The commercial building employs large storefront windows to connect the retail functions with ECR, and external terra cotta sunshades to filter the sunlight from this direction while allowing inviting views into the Ground Level retail-commercial event spaces. We’ve framed the storefront with refined smooth finishes comprised of composite wood-resin building panels, smooth hard troweled stucco, and complimentary bronze colored metal and glass storefront entry systems which are arranged to focus the eye in towards the retail plaza and storefront. As the site moves away from the busy ECR corridor, we reduce the scale of the windows and transition into more residentially scaled materials. Individual home entries and balconies are accented with the warmer hues and texture of the composite wood-resin siding materials rendered in narrower board widths to complement the human scale. Each resident’s private bicycle parking is conveniently located in sheltered, lockable closets adjacent to their front door and multidirectional, landscaped walking paths allow for variety in one’s daily commute, whether it be to the basement parking garage via stair or elevator, or to public sidewalks and convenient bicycle, bus and commuter vehicle transportation, all the while provided with a variety of landscaped seating, waiting, meeting areas. Zoning Summary: • Zoning: RM-30 & CS • Lot Size: 32,825 SF / 0.75 Acre CS Zone: 10,957.5 SF RM-30 Zone: 21,867.8 February 28 2017 3 EID 3877 El Camino Mixed Use Site & Design Review Resubmittal 412 Olive Avenue, Palo Alto, 94306 off 650.226.8770 • APN: 132 41 091 CS Zone: • Lot area: 10,957.5 SF • Density Du/Ac : Permitted = 7.5 / Proposed = 6 (5 flats plus one BMR flat) • Max FAR Allowed: Commercial: 0.4 = 4,035 s.f. Residential: 0.6 = 6,574 s.f. BMR FAR Increase: 1,285 s.f. • Proposed Floor Area: Total Commercial: 4,034 s.f. Total Residential: 7,859 s.f. RM-30 Zone: • Lot area: 21,867 SF • Density Du/Ac : Permitted = 15 / Proposed = 11 townhomes (10 townhomes plus one BMR townhome) • Max FAR Allowed: Residential: 0.6 = 13,120 s.f. BMR FAR Increase: 1,311 s.f. • Proposed Floor Area: Total Residential: 14,416 s.f. Project Description: The proposed design will transform this blighted parcel into a vibrant and sustainable mixed-use community at the southeast corner of El Camino Real and Curtner Avenue. The project will include a mix of commercial and townhome style condominiums, which will be provided with ample parking located within the basement below grade. The existing structure, which has been unoccupied since 2008, is located on a parcel with two long and narrow legs. The existing structure is an eclectic mix of poorly executed additions and renovations. The balance of the site is paved to provide on-grade parking for this commercial building, this parking being accessed from Curtner Ave. The immediate neighborhood is a mix of older structures in various stages of reuse and condition. On El Camino, the immediate neighbors are a Starbucks that occupies a building that formerly served as a fast food restaurant and an auto oil changer in a WWII vintage Quonset hut with a “western storefront” facade. The residential neighborhood is predominantly comprised of 1960’s vintage two-story residential apartment blocks. On one adjacent parcel a new 3-story 6-unit townhome building is under construction. Our team is collaborating with the City of Palo Alto Community Development staff to thoughtfully synthesize a highly sustainable mixed use community for the proposed site. The project will complement and support the existing urban fabric, and will be harmonious with the new developments underway in close proximity to our site. The commercial spaces within the mixed use structure will contribute significantly to the revitalization of El Camino Real. New retail will be located on two levels and will open onto a large open courtyard space. February 28 2017 4 EID 3877 El Camino Mixed Use Site & Design Review Resubmittal 412 Olive Avenue, Palo Alto, 94306 off 650.226.8770 Designed for pedestrian interaction, the commercial spaces are open, inviting, and buffered from the busy El Camino Real traffic. We are proposing a mix of housing options that includes two bedroom flats and three bedroom townhomes. These units are planned to maximize energy efficiency and provide a range of entry level housing options that will promote a healthy living environment for residents. This, in conjunction with the inclusion of two affordable housing units within the project will provide housing for a diverse range of income levels. Parking is provided on site for the variety of uses including residential, retail and office, in numbers consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance. The proposed parking infrastructure has been carefully designed to meet the demands of each use and is supported by the analysis contained in the project traffic report. Locating this parking completely below grade maximizes site landscaping and enhances both the private and common open spaces within the parcel to an extent that far exceeds the requirements of the zoning ordinance. Summary of design revisions: The purpose of the redesign was to respond to comments received during the previous ARB hearing that identified areas of concern that had not been raised in prior ARB hearings. The objective of this redesign was to address the following concerns raised at our last ARB meeting: 1. We moved the parking level down to position the parking and podium deck completely below grade. This resulted in a reduction of the mass and bulk of the proposed project to levels that are smaller than the adjacent neighborhood. This solution also creates much larger and more functional private yard areas for the townhome residents. 2. Direct access from El Camino Real to the parking garage is provided via a one-way driveway ramp. This ramp is limited to entering the site to balance concerns regarding negative impacts on traffic on El Camino Real that a new driveway would create with ARB’s desire to provide direct access to parking from El Camino Real. All traffic leaving the garage would exit onto Curtner Ave, where a signalized intersection facilitates a safe path to re-enter El Camino Real traffic. 3. Provide a redesigned commercial building façade that conforms to the build-to setback line and to provide a more contextual design solution for the community. 4. Provide enhanced common open areas that are positioned located closer to the intended users. 5. Provide a more direct, more open pedestrian path through the property with a clear link to El Camino Real. 6. Reduce overall commercial area to conform to the maximum permitted based on the more clearly identified boundary of the CS district. BMR concession and Design Enhancement Exception. We are requesting one on-menu concession consistent with providing 15% low income BMR units and one Design Enhancement Exception for the rear yard setback of the underground basement parking. We are requesting one on-menu concession to permit an increase in FAR by an amount that equals the area of the BMR units that will be provided. This area is equal to the area of the BMR units and does not exceed the maximum 25% permitted by section 18.15.050 (d) (iv). February 28 2017 5 EID 3877 El Camino Mixed Use Site & Design Review Resubmittal 412 Olive Avenue, Palo Alto, 94306 off 650.226.8770 We are also requesting one Design Enhancement Exception for a 6 foot rear yard setback in the RM-30 zone for the below grade parking garage, which occurs entirely underground. This exception conforms to the criteria outlined in 18.76.050 (b) Applicability and (c) Findings: (1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district: This parcel is very unusual in regards to the parcel size and shape. The L shaped parcel extends to both El Camino Real and Curtner Avenue and crosses a zoning boundary. The narrow width of the parcel affords few options for resolving vehicular parking and circulation while balancing the need to create an attractive pedestrian environment. All of the neighboring residential parcels along Curtner Avenue employ long driveways to access on grade parking and/or rows of garages and carports. The narrow 55’ width of the Curtner frontage would make a similar solution on this site very unattractive. The requested 6’ rear yard setback would apply only to the below grade parking structure and would be completely invisible to all of the neighbors. This reduced setback permits double loaded parking within the basement, which is necessary to achieve the required parking count for the various uses proposed for the site. (2) The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirements of this title (Zoning) and the architectural review findings set forth in Section 18.76.020(d); This DEE promotes the development of a project that will enhance the residential character of the RM-30 portion of the site with generous open space and landscaping while facilitating the more urban use of the CS portion of the site with the requisite build-to setback requirements and corresponding density. Given the limited options for vehicular access and the narrow lot dimensions, a more traditional parking solution is not possible and would require significantly more on grade vehicular paving. (3) The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. Far from being detrimental, this solution will enhance the property or improvements in the vicinity by minimizing vehicular circulation and is in no way detrimental to the public. Sincerely, MARK WOMMACK, ARCHITECT Director of Architecture Environmental Innovations in Design Eco-functional Architecture EID A R C H I T E C T S ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 412 Olive Avenue | Palo Alto | CA | 94306 dir 650.226.8862 | off 650.226.8770 mark@EIDarchitects.com www.EIDarchitects.com Please be advised that our office has a new address. Thank you! Attachment I Public Comments To:Sheldon Ah Sing, sahsing@m-group.us. Jonathan Lait. jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org Date: April 7, 2017 Dorothy Bender’s Comments and Questions on Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration: Application Number: 14PLN-0064 Address of Project: 3877 El Camino Real Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 132-41-091 Applicant: Stu Welte, EID Architects Owner: Zijin, LLC 1. Ground Floor Retail: The current Project [14PLN-00464] was introduced to the ARB as a study session on December 3, 2015. The MND states: “The subject application is a pipeline project that is exempted from the interim retail conversion ordinance”. a) What is the official date of the filing of the Project [14PLN-00464]? b) What is the official date of the of the interim retail conversion ordinance? c) Why have the results of this study session not been documented in any of the recent staff reports and the Initial Study? 2. Historic Nature of the Building: a) Has a thorough evaluation been done of the historic significance of 3877 El Camino Real? (Gonzalo Silvestre, born in Mexico in 1898, opened his Ironworks shop at 3877 El Camino in the late 1930’s. Artifacts from this building have been saved by the Architect. It is believed that there is a fresco on a wall by the famous Mexican Artist Arnaldo Baja Rubio, http://www.iearts.org/artist_ArnaldoBRubiol.htm ) b) Shouldn’t the HRB be given the opportunity to evaluate 3877 El Camino Real? 3. Underground Parking: Security, Emergency Vehicles, Trash pickup: a) How will security and safety be maintained? b) If an owner arrives late at night, how can s(he) be assured s(he) can get to her/his own house safely? What if there are no parking spaces? c) How will emergency vehicles access the housing units? d) How many reserved parking spaces will a townhouse owner receive? e) How many reserved parking spaces will a flat owner receive? f) Will the garage be gated? g) If a car is coming into the underground garage and cannot find a parking space, how will it exit? h) What if two cars enter simultaneously from both El Camino and Curtner and there are no parking spaces? Is there adequate space for turning around? i) How will people who work nearby be prevented from using the garage? j) How will dumpsters (garbage, recyclables, compost) be moved up the ramp to the street for pick-up? How will they be returned? Where will they be placed? k) What is the proposed truck circulation and frequency of garbage, recyclables, and compost pickup? 4. Design Enhancement Exception: 18.76.040. The applicant is requesting a design enhancement exception to build the RM-30 zone alongside Starbucks with a 4-foot setback instead of the required 10-foot setback. Although it is underground, it does increase the floor area and affects the entire project. The code says “(4) No design enhancement exception shall be granted under this section that would increase floor area…” a) Is this requested exception a valid use of the zoning code section 18.76.040? b) If the Design Enhancement Exception were not approved, could parallel parking be used instead? 5. Plans for construction: a) Will construction trucks be permitted to enter or park on narrow Curtner Ave, a street already impacted by curb-side parking, and is basically a one lane street? b) Will a lane of El Camino Real need to be closed during construction? c) What are detailed plans for access to the site during construction? 6. De-watering and Toxics: a) Have measures been put into place in the event of de-watering? b) Since the proposed project is alongside 9-Minute Oil, close to gas stations and Superfund toxic cleanup sites, will there be continuous monitoring of the excavation to insure toxics are not released into the environment? 7. Traffic: Has a recent traffic cumulative impact study been done to insure there will be no traffic impacts on El Camino and Curtner Ave? Thank you very much, Dorothy Bender Dear Jonathan and Sheldon: Speaking for Ventura Neighborhood Association, in general, we like the idea of having community serving retail on the ground floor of 3877 El Camino Real. So whatever goes in there, we like the idea very much of a public plaza and retail. We are not taking a thumbs up or thumbs down approach to the project, but we do have concerns: 1. Are we sure this building is not a historic resource to be mined and preserved? The historical report was incomplete and did not mention the WPA-era mural that is beneath a painted wall, painted by a prominent artist who worked throughout California. The building is manufactured adobe but of a design quite common in the 19th century and could be the last of its kind in Palo Alto. I just don’t think the historical significance has been adequately explored. And the reason for that is, perhaps, that the owners do not want the results of a drill down. Additionally no where did the historic report mention that fixtures had been removed and catalogued and stored. The Silvestre family has only just become aware of the movement to tear down the property and it would have been great had they been brought in from the beginning to help in the historical review. 2. Traffic is a plague in our neighborhood. The auto exit on already impacted Curtner will bring 60 new cars onto our streets as they cut through Ventura to avoid the parking lot that ECR is at rush hour. Though the building is fully parked which is great, there is bumper to bumper parking on Curtner so the construction traffic impacts and city services like garbage removal will find maneuvering about a challenge, adding to gridlock. What about emergency services? We can’t tell how ambulance and fire trucks can rush door to door in time of need? 3. Others have stated better than I, namely Jeff Levinsky at Thursday’s ARB meeting, that there were errors in the actual first application, that due process has been overlooked in several areas. The only reason I pick on this is that we want developers to abide by the rules as set forth by our codes, so as not to encourage abuse of those codes by developers and that the law be equally applied to all. Otherwise, we just don’t know what to expect, as citizens. And it’s unfair to developers who abide by the rules when others get to take shortcuts. 4. During the dig out of the basement, who will make sure that any toxicity is mitigated. Wouldn't it be awful to house homes and businesses over polluted soil that slowly releases toxic fumes? How will safety be assured? i want to affirm that the architect Stuart Welte and the owners whom we met were very nice and indicated they wanted to work with residents to build something we can all enjoy and be proud of. I want to thank City Staff, particularly Jonathan Lait, for being responsive and helpful. I believe that Planning Staff is overworked and understaffed. I wish there were more staff to share the workload. I would like Jonathan to stay on staff, and hope that the City knows what excellent work he does. Becky Sanders, Moderator Ventura Neighborhood Association Response to the Mitigated Negative Declaration Project at 3788 El Camino Real. Sheldon S. Ah Sing Jonathon Lait My name is Greg Gatwood and I have lived at 399 Curtner Ave. Palo Alto For 7 years. There are many aspects of this development scheme that concern me. The developers and city have stated that this is a neighborhood in transition. I’m not sure that this is so. This odd shaped parcel sits on two zone types. My concerns are based on traffic on El Camino and Curtner after completion and Traffic on El Camino and Curtner during Construction. 1. Curtner Ave. appears to be a two way residential street, but is in fact a one-way street when the residents do not park completely on both sides of the sidewalks. One car must pull over in a driveway or empty spot to allow an oncoming car to pass most of the time. All the time if one or both vehicles are SUV’s or construction vehicles. A 62 vehicle parking lot empting on to Curtner will create traffic back ups between the proposed exit and El Camino. This will be a great quality of life burden for all Curtner Ave drivers and a safety problem for the many bikers and pedestrians on our street. 2. El Camino has two major #3 lane obstructions through out the day. Namely Keys school morning and afternoon drop offs and pickups. Starbucks Drive through morning rush hour java junkie fixes. Minor back ups are right turners off ECR into the Chevron station and Ventura Ave. Another entrance on El Camino with a very tight radius will create another traffic obstacle. 3. Construction traffic. A project like this will require the excavation or 100’s of cubic yards of earth, dozens and dozens of extra large concrete delivery trucks and hundreds of construction material and personnel delivery trips. It is more than Curtner Ave. can handle. It will be a traffic burden for all North bound El Camino traffic. There is no way that this could be addressed responsibly. 4. A new traffic study is needed now. The 2014 study is too old and in my opinion inadequate. It does not reflect the 12 new units on our street. The residents of Gabriel Court mostly park on the street, not in their garages. The 405 Curtner project is not yet built and will add many more vehicles entering and exiting out of their driveway. History indicates that many of these new residents will also be parking of the very overcrowded Curtner Ave. 5. Basement construction. Will my yard next to this project be dried out during construction. Will de watering be necessary? It looks like yes, how will I be compensated if my yard is dried out during this process? How will the residence of the city be compensated for the lowering of the water table, even if only temporarily? I do not think Curtner avenue can bear this amount of development. I think the construction process will be way too much for us to bear and ask that the city ask the developer to scale it back. I would like to ask the City Council members not concern themselves with helping the developer maximize their profits, but maximizing the citizens quality of life. Respectfully yours, Greg Gatwood 399 Curtner Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94306 Comments on Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration: Application Number: 14PLN-0064 Address of Project: 3877 El Camino Real Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 132-41-091 Applicant: Stu Welte, EID Architects Owner: Zijin, LLC (1) Given that the City planner spoke of the commercial space being retail on April 6, 2017, please clarify if the project will be creating retail or office space. (2) The Dudak historic review for the building mentions that there were original frescos that have been painted over on interior walls but says the date is unknown and doesn’t mention the artist. The Silvestre family however has identified the artist as Arnaldo Baja Rubio, who also worked for the Federal Art Project in the 1930s. His commissions included Los Angeles City Hall and the San Bernardino Post Office. That information should be included in the historic review and there should be a thorough evaluation of his historic significance. (3) The historic review should also then evaluate whether the murals in the building can be restored. It may well be that they can be, which would then lead to some opportunities for historic preservation. (4) Please note that criteria #3 in the historic review asks whether the existing building is an example of a type of building that was once common. The review says that there weren’t many adobe buildings constructed in Palo Alto in the twentieth century and so this is not representative of a type that once was common. But adobe buildings were of course common in this area in the prior century. It’s not clear why the review narrowed the focus to one particular century, when the actual criteria doesn’t mention that at all. The plain facts are that that this building, being adobe, is of a type that was once common and is now indeed very rare - in fact, the review doesn’t cite if there are any other adobe buildings left in Palo Alto at all. When said that way, the building appears to meet Criterion 3. (5) The municipal code at 18.15.080(a) says that any request for a concession must “be submitted with the first application for a discretionary permit for a development.” Becky Sanders asked the city for any documents related to the concession request and those documents she received are dated in 2016. But the first application was made back in 2014. So the concession doesn’t appear to have been requested at required time. (6) The same section of the code further requires that “the application be on a form prescribed the city.” The documents Becky received are not on any city form. (7) And then further on in the code it says the application should include, “If a concession or incentive is requested, a brief explanation as to the actual cost reduction achieved through the concession or incentive and how the cost reduction allows the applicant to provide the restricted affordable units.” But the explanations in what the city sent Becky do not mention any cost reduction. Where is the required explanation of cost reduction that was to be made as part of the original application? (8) How does adding about 2,600 square feet provide an actual cost reduction? Normally, extra FAR would add to construction costs. (9) The explanation in subsequent materials says the extra FAR will allow for areas under stairwells and in porches. But the stairwells would have to exist anyway and I don't think porches are counted as FAR. So where actually is the extra FAR going? To enlarge the market rate units? (10) State law says that a "concession" must lead to an identifiable and actual cost reduction related to affordable housing. So is a concession of FAR that does not lead to an actual cost reduction a legal "concession" under state law? If not, it seems like the applicant could also request an additional concession. Thank you RE: 3877 El Camino Real Mitigated Negative Declaration Comments I am writing on behalf of the Barron Park Association Board to request that you require a Full Transportation Impact Analysis for the project at 3877 El Camino Real. Our residents are concerned about the potential traffic impacts of the current design. The existing study uses data from 2 1/2 years ago, and several apartment buildings have been built on Curtner and overall traffic on El Camino has increased significantly since then. We also feel that the current analysis does not sufficiently address cut-through traffic on Curtner and conflict of the El Camino Real ingress with the adjacent Starbucks driveways, which already backs up on the street at times.Also, the decision not to include general office space usage in the trip generation estimates may be misleading. That scenario could significantly affect peak traffic rates, trip distribution and assignment and traffic light queuing at both Ventura and Curtner intersections and should be covered in the report. Finally, we are concerned that during construction, at least one lane on El Camino will need to be closed; Curtner, too, will be impacted during construction. The plans do not address this traffic challenge. Please do not approve this project without adequately assessing traffic impacts. Thank you, Richard Elder, BPA President I am writing with questions and concerns about the proposed project at 3877 El Camino (Compadres): 1. How will emergency vehicles, especially fire trucks, access the rear units of the complex? What vehicle access will they have and how close are fire hydrants? Doesn't the City of Palo Alto require adequate access to dwellings for emergency vehicles and are those requirements being met by this proposed development? 2. Where will garbage pick-up be placed? If the receptacles are going to be in the underground garage area, how will they get to the street level for pick-up and where will they be placed? If pick-up is along Curtner, where will they be placed since parking along the street is usually full? Will the garbage receptacles take up precious parking space? 3. Will someone from the City of Palo Alto, or their designee, be monitoring the excavation to make sure that toxins aren't being released? We understand there is ground contamination: has this been studied? Is there a plan to mitigate it? 4. I am concerned about the additional traffic that will be generated from the new cars that will be making use of the parking facility. The entry on El Camino Real is awkward with regard to the Starbucks immediately to the Mountain View side of the Compadres site; it's unfortunate that congestion on El Camino due to traffic leaving Starbucks will likely be exacerbated by traffic trying to enter 3877 El Camino. New residents are likely to use the Curtner entrance and exit instead, adding to the traffic on Curtner and to traffic cutting through our neighborhood. I believe an updated study of traffic should be undertaken. Thanks for your attention to these concerns. Sincerely, Susan Kemp Comments about the DEIR for 3877 El Camino Real (14PLN-00464 -12/3/2015) 1. More retail, not office, is wanted by residents of Barron Park and Ventura Neighborhoods My neighborhood, Barron Park, has a long record of protecting its neighborhood retail businesses along El Camino Real. These businesses adjacent and across the street from Barron Park provide us with valuable services - food, laundry, copying, car repair, postal, work-out, medical, pet, etc. - allowing Barron Park and Ventura to be a "walkable neighborhoods". The project must provide ground floor retail. It's not been in the pipeline continuously to the present from the time the emergency retail protection ordinance passed in mid-2015 and took effect. Therefore the project not exempt and is subject to the ground floor retail protection ordinance. The ARB study session on December 3, 2015 considered a development filed under the above application/project number - never considered before in the City application process including hearings or study sessions. Therefore there can be no claim by the owner that this project was in the pipeline before the ordinance pertained, requiring it to provide ground floor retail. We, as neighbors, expect the City to enforce its ordinance. Offices provide nothing to our neighborhood, nor to the Ventura neighbors, and are not allowed on the ground floor. 2. Construction staging and truck traffic A. Curtner is a particularly narrow short crowded residential street (moving and parked cars on both sides) ending at Park Blvd on the East (a Bike Blvd). Curtner ends at busy El Camino on its West end. Planning truck routes, construction related parking, materials storage, etc. must be done, agreed upon and enforced very carefully by the City and with input of neighbors on Curtner. Given the situation there, it seems reasonable that no construction parking or truck traffic be allow on Curtner. B. El Camino has its own challenges. The Starbucks drive-thru exit is adjacent to the front of the development and must be addressed to facilitate cars exiting safely - or exiting at all. The school corridors of Arastradero and Meadow surely will not be permitted truck routes. C. Enforcement has been a problem at other recent developments as to routes being ignored along with work hours and noise. The City must commit and staff timely enforcement of any agreements as to the above. 3. Underground Garage - Dewatering and Toxics A. Given the large underground parking area, the highest standards must apply to mitigate loss of groundwater during construction and damage to neighboring properties and housing. B. Toxics - Given the land is next to 9-Minute Oil & Lube, attention must be paid to testing for the presence of toxics in water and soil. CPI (formerly Varian) is a Superfund toxic site still in clean-up mode. If toxics are found in the project soil or water, appropriate measures must be taken to protect residents and workers that will be living and working there by the owner and enforced by the City. Winter Dellenbach Barron Park, Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 7847) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/6/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3877 El Camino Real: Mixed Use Project Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3877 El Camino Real [14PLN-00464]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of an Architectural Review for the Demolition of the Vacant 5,860 Square-Foot Commercial Building and Construction of a new Mixed-Use Project. The Project Includes a 4,027 Square Foot Commercial Building and 17 Dwelling Units (Flats and Townhouses). Parking for the Project is Provided in a Basement. The Applicant Also Requests Approval of a Design Enhancement Exception to Allow the Basement to Encroach Into the Required Rear Yard Setback Below Grade. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated on March 6, 2017 and the comment period will end on April 7, 2017. Zoning Districts: CS and RM-30. For more Information, Contact Project Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at SAhsing@m-group.us From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the City Council based on findings subject to conditions of approval for Site and Design Review, Design Enhancement Exception and the adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Report Summary The project is located on a 32,825-square foot L-shaped parcel with street frontage along El Camino Real and Curtner Avenue. The site includes two zoning designations; commercial and residential zoning. The proposed project involves demolition of the vacant commercial building located along El Camino Real and construction of a new mixed-use project. The project consists City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 of a three-story mixed-use building including six residential flats along the site’s frontage on El Camino Real (the CS zoned area), 11 residential two-story townhouses in the rear portion of the site, and a below-grade parking garage that would include all the required parking for the site. A total of two income deed restricted housings units are being provided on site. The project seeks approval of a Site and Design application, which requires review before the PTC, Architectural Review Board (ARB) and City Council. The applicant seeks approval of a Design Enhancement Exception to allow a decreased setback below grade for the basement garage. This exception does not affect the above ground improvements. The subject application is a pipeline project that is exempted from the interim retail conversion ordinance. The Planning and Transportation Commission conducted a public hearing on the project on March 8, 2017 and recommended approval of the project to the City Council (3-1). Background Project Information Owner: Zijin, LLC c/o Ran Lin, 15001 Montalvo Rd. Saratoga, CA 95070 Architect: EID Architects, LLC c/o Stuart Welte Representative: Not Applicable Legal Counsel: Not Applicable Property Information Address: 3877 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Ventura Lot Dimensions & Area: 313 feet deep x 77 feet wide (El Camino Real) + 53 feet wide x 164 deep (Curtner) 32,825 square feet Housing Inventory Site: No. Located w/in a Plume: No. Protected/Heritage Trees: No. Historic Resource(s): The existing structure was evaluated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and found not be a significant historic resource. Existing Improvement(s): 5,860 square feet 2-stories & 22-feet tall (1938) Existing Land Use(s): Vacant restaurant and parking lot Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: RM-30 (residential multi-family) West: CS & CN (Commercial Uses), Oil change shop, coffee shop, restaurants. East: CS (Commercial Uses) Gas station, credit union South: CN (Commercial Uses) Special Setbacks: None Aerial View of Property: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: DigitalGlobe, US Geological Survey, USDA Farm Service Agency, Google 2017 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Zoning Designation: CS & RM-30 Comp. Plan Designation: Service Commercial and Multiple Family Residential Context-Based Design: Yes Downtown Urban Design: Not applicable SOFA II CAP: Not applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): Yes Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes Located w/in AIA (Airport Influence Area): Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None. PTC: Site and Design on March 8, 2017. Recommended approval Project Packet: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56281 Meeting video: http://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation- commission-44/ HRB: None. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 ARB: Preliminary Review on December 19, 2013 (13PLN-00439) http://midpenmedia.org/watch/pacc_webcast/December/PAARB_12 1913.html Project Description The project site consists of approximately 32,825 square feet and supports an existing 5,860- square-foot vacant building. The site is “L” shaped with street frontage on both El Camino Real (CS zoning district) and Curtner Ave. (RM-30). The proposed project involves demolition of the existing building along El Camino Real and construction of a new mixed-use project. The contemporary-designed building is proposed to be three stories containing 4,035 square feet of commercial area (including 896 square feet of common area—lobby, etc.) and six residential flats (five market rate and one affordable unit) on the commercially zoned portion of the property (0.25 acres). The project is designed with smooth stucco, composite paneling, rain-screens and glass. Behind this building on the portion of the lot zoned RM-30 (0.50 acres), the proposed residential townhouses would be two stories each and are configured as four duplexes and one triplex for 11 more two bedroom units, or a total of 17 units for the site. The total residential floor area is 22,243 square feet; the total project floor area is 26,278. All the parking for the project is provided below grade. The garage would include 34 spaces assigned to the residential units, seven guest spaces, and 21 commercial parking spaces for a total of 62 parking spaces. The proposed parking slightly exceeds the City’s requirements. Garage access is provided with a two-way driveway ramp accessed from Curtner Avenue and an ingress-only (one-way) ramp on El Camino Real. Trash facilities for the project are in the basement area as well as bicycle lockers. Both stairwells and elevators are provided. The Design Enhancement Exception request is for the decrease in the 10’-0” setback in the rear at the basement to 6’-2”. The project is required to provide on-site affordable housing and in doing so, qualifies as an eligible state density bonus project. The applicant seeks a code authorized concession related to floor area (see discussion below). The pedestrian access to the commercial portion of the project would be provided from the existing sidewalk along El Camino Real. A wide walkway would be created at the southwestern corner of the building leading to the interior of the site. This would provide access to the lobby for the residential portion of the mixed-use building and to a pedestrian gate leading to the common open space area at the northern end of the mixed-use building and farther into the site to access the residential townhouses. Proposed landscaping includes the addition of grass mounds and seating walls in the common open space area; retention of the existing street tree; planting of one new street tree; and, City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 potted plants along the vehicle ramps into the parking garage, cascading vines at the garage entries, and trees planted along the site perimeters. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested and subject to ARB purview:  Site and Design: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.30(G). Site and design is intended to provide a review process for development in environmentally and ecologically sensitive areas, including established community areas which may be sensitive to negative aesthetic factors, excessive noise, increased traffic or other disruptions, in order to assure that use and development will be harmonious with other uses in the general vicinity, will be compatible with environmental and ecological objectives, and will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Site and Design is also required for mixed-use projects with nine or more units. If recommended for approval, the project requires review before the Architectural Review Board before the project is forwarded to the City Council for final action of all requested entitlements. Site and design applications are evaluated to specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. The findings to approve a site and design application are provided in Attachment B.  Design Enhancement Exception (DEE). The process and evaluation criteria for evaluating a DEE request is provided in PAMC Section 18.76.050. A DEE may be used to grant a minor exception to zoning regulations when doing so will enhance the design of a project without altering the function or use of the site, or its impact on surrounding properties. The code specifically provides that minor changes to parking lot design and setbacks as reasons for granting an exception, subject to findings. The Director typically acts on DEE requests, however, as this project includes the requested Site and Design application, the City Council will make the determination to grant the subject DEE. For informational purposes the DEE findings are provided in Attachment B. Planning & Transportation Commission (PT&C) The PTC conducted a public hearing on March 8, 2017 regarding the project. There was public comment regarding the state of the existing building and whether the building possesses quality and integrity that would warrant the building to be eligible for historic listing. It was explained that during the environmental review that an evaluation of the building was conducted to determine whether the building retained the required characteristics to be eligible for listing on a historic register. It was found that the building does not possess the required criteria to be eligible. There was some public comment regarding traffic and compatibility with the surrounding areas. The Commission noted that there was some information that was not available on the City’s website for their review for the environmental document, which has since been updated. However, after discussion, the Commission recommended that the City Council approve the project (3-1). City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The project site is mid-block on El Camino Real. A coffee shop (Starbucks) is located immediately east of the project site and an automobile service use (Nine Minute Oil & Lube) is immediately west. A medical office (Agile Physical Therapy) is on the corner of El Camino Real and Curtner Avenue. A multi-family residential development is located to the north of the commercial properties that front on El Camino Real. Land uses on the southern side of El Camino Real are similar, with commercial properties fronting El Camino Real and multi-family and single-family residential properties to the south. Within the vicinity of the site, buildings are generally low, one to two-story buildings. Buildings are located along the sidewalk, however, the sidewalk within the vicinity is not wide. The project proposes development that is consistent with the zoning code development standards and the vision of the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. This includes providing the wide sidewalk, where none exists now and providing the build-to setback as encouraged in the guidelines. The buildings within the vicinity are not mixed-use; only commercial buildings. The proposed mixed-use building is consistent with the zoning development standards and design guidelines, however, there is no other comparable development nearby. The portion of the project that is solely residential is consistent in mass and height to the surrounding multi-family development as depicted in the following pictures. 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. Planning and Transportation Commission in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommended action. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 From El Camino Real From Curtner Ave City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Townhouse: Typical Mixed-Use Building Zoning Compliance2 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. The project is also subject to the CS and RM-30 context-based design criteria and standards in PAMC Section 18.23 (Performance Standards). These performance criteria are intended to provide additional criteria to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family and commercial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. An evaluation of the project to these performance standards is provided in Attachment G. The project meets the density requirements and meets the development standards, except for the deviation requested for the rear setback at the basement level. A summary table is provided in Attachment E and F which demonstrates that the proposed project complies with applicable development codes, or is seeking through the requested permits permission to deviate from certain code standards, in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The allowed residential density for the site is 30 dwelling units per acre (Both CS and RM-30 districts), which based on the project site amounts to 22 dwelling units that would be allowed. However, the project only proposes 17 dwelling units. State Density Bonus / Below Market Rate Housing Ownership housing projects with five or more units are required to meet the City’s Below Market Rate Housing Program (BMR). In accordance with PAMC Section 18.14.030, this project’s total BMR requirement is 2.7 units. When the BMR requirement results in a fractional unit, an in-lieu payment to the Residential Housing Fund may be made for the fractional unit instead of providing an actual BMR unit. To satisfy this requirement, the applicant is required to provide two BMR for-sale housing units affordable to lower income households within the project in accordance with the requirements set forth in Program H3.1.2 of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Chapters 18.14 and 18.15 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and the BMR Program rules and regulations. The fractional unit will result in an in-lieu payment to the housing fund. By meeting the City’s BMR requirements, the project also qualifies as a state density bonus housing project pursuant to state law, which is codified in the City’s municipal code in PAMC Chapter 18.15. This law allows a developer to increase the density of housing units in a project beyond the standard provided in local regulations; take advantage of reduced parking requirements; and, receive concessions, or deviations from the development standards in order to help off-set the cost of providing the affordable units. The amount of concessions granted is dependent on the percentage and restricted income level of the affordable units provided. To help guide developers toward incentives that do not have a specific adverse impact to the public health, safety or the physical environment, the city has adopted a list of incentives that the city has already determined acceptable. The proposed project is below the maximum allowed density for the site (22 units allowed 17 units proposed) and the applicant is not seeking a density bonus for additional units. However, the applicant is providing two deed restricted housing units or 11.7% of the units as affordable City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 to moderate income levels (120% of the median County income). This qualifies the applicant to receive one development concession. As authorized in the City’s zoning code (PAMC 18.15.050(d)(iv)) the applicant has selected an increase to residential floor area. The code allows an increase in the floor area ratio up to 25% or up to the square footage of the restricted affordable units, whichever is less. A 25% increase to the project’s floor area ratio dedicated to housing is 4,924 square feet of area. The proposed deed restricted housing includes a total of 2,596 square feet of area. Since the latter floor area is less than the 25% calculation, this is the maximum floor area that can be added. While eligible for a parking reduction, the applicant is not seeking any modification to required parking requirements. As designed, the project complies with the requirements of the BMR program and the state density bonus law. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 The project site has two land use designations. The El Camino frontage is Service Commercial, while the Curtner Avenue frontage is Multi-Family. Review of the project finds it consistent with several Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies, including the following, but described in greater detail in Attachment F. The commercially designated portion of the project site includes a mixed-use building and the balance of the property is located within the Multi-family designation. The mixed-use building does propose a mass and scale that is larger than the surrounding, however, the project transitions well from the El Camino Real frontage to the rear and towards Curtner Avenue. The project supports the goals of a well-designed, compact city that provides a place to live, work and shop with open spaces. The comprehensive plan supports the development of mixed-use. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project’s transportation was evaluated by Hexagon Transportation Consultants (included as Appendix G of the project Mitigated Negative Declaration, Attachment I). The traffic study evaluated a larger, but similar project (18 dwelling units and 4,024 square feet of commercial compared to 17 dwelling units and 3,139 square feet). Based on the study, the project would generate 256 daily trips that would include 14 peak hour morning trips and 23 peak hour afternoon trips. The traffic study indicates no impacts to signalized intersections within the study area. The study also evaluated the parking for the project and determined that since the project proposes to be consistent with the standards (drive aisle widths) that there would be adequate back up distance; provided the DEE is ultimately approved. The study recommends that 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 additional red-curb be added on either side of the ramp along Curtner Avenue to ensure adequate sight-distance. The project provides an amount of vehicular and bicycle parking that exceeds the City requirements and access to and throughout the site is sufficient. Each townhouse provides bicycle parking near the front entrance in a void caused by the stairwell of each building. This area would be secured and include bicycle parking apparatus so that the space can only be used for parking bicycles. The Curtner Avenue frontage is a suggested walking and bicycle route to Barron Elementary School. The opposite side of El Camino Real is a suggested walking route to Barron Elementary School. The conditions of approval require that a “logistics plan” be submitted to the City for review and approval. This would include information about phasing, construction staging and construction routes. This would be the opportunity for the City to ensure that construction, while temporary does not impact the safety of those within the vicinity of the project site. Consistency with Application Findings The project is subject to Site and Design Findings. Compliance with these findings is included in Attachment B and generally relate to the proposed project being constructed and operated in a manner that is orderly, harmonious and compatible with existing uses of nearby sites; a desirable investment when evaluated to adjacent areas; designed with sound principals of environmental design and ecological balance; and in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. All findings and conditions presented in this report are drafts. Staff will continue to refine these statements and requirements as the project is reviewed by the required hearing bodies and upon receiving public comments. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is subject to a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) prepared by Dudek. The document was circulated on March 6, 2017 for 20 days. A link to the MND is provided in Attachment I. There are mitigation measures related to biological resources. The on-site trees could support nesting activity by birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Disturbance to nesting birds would result in a significant impact. To avoid this impact, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires nesting bird surveys to be conducted prior to and during construction and identifies assessment and avoidance measures that must be taken during construction if nesting birds are located on site. Additionally, the existing building and trees on site could support bat roosting. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 requires a survey for roosting bats prior to building demolition and avoidance measures that must be taken during construction if roosting bats are located on site. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on _______, which is ____ days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on _______, which is ____ in advance of the meeting. Public Comments No written comments have been received. However, a number or speakers were present at the Planning & Transportation Commission meeting that spoke. There were concerns regarding whether the existing building was eligible for historic listing. There was also some concern regarding traffic and compatibility of the project with the surrounding areas. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1.Recommend approval of the project with modified findings or conditions; 2.Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3.Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 540-5642 (650) 329-2575 sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Draft ARB, DEE and Site & Design Findings (DOCX) Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX) Attachment D: CS Zoning Comparison (DOCX) Attachment E: RM-30 Zoning Comparison (DOCX) Attachment F: Comprehensive Plan Comparison (DOCX) Attachment G: Performance Standards (DOCX) Attachment H: Project Plans (DOCX) Attachment I: CEQA Document (DOCX) Attachment J: Applicant's Project Narrative (PDF) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 3 4 5 7 6 9 8 10 11 12 13 14 1 27 1 EVSE HC 2 13 28 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15TRASH TRASH 4 5 6 7 8 9 33 32 31 3010 171820 16 EVSE EV EV EV EV EV EV EVEVEVEVEVEVEV EV EV GUEST 1 GU E S T 3 GU E S T 4 GU E S T 5 3 VAN 173.72 SQ. FT. 243.59 SQ. FT. 11 14 21 15 34 GUEST 2 GU E S T 6 GU E S T 7 12 19 29 S1.0SECURITY STRATEGY PLAN3877 EL CAMINO REAL SCALE : 1/16" = 1'-0"4/21/17 MONITORED CAMERAS INTERCOMS & PANIC BUTTONS KEY ENTRY GATES W/ TRAFFIC BARRIER ARM EFFECTIVE SIGNAGE BLUE LIGHT SYSTEM SECURITY GUARD PATROLS EFFECTIVE LIGHTING PEDESTRIAN SECURITY GATE ON SITE SECURITY PATROLING AFTER WORK HOURS EXAMPLE OF PROPOSED SCHEDULE WILL BE 7-10PM 5-7AM KEYED ENTRY NEEDED COMING IN FROM CURTNER SIDE AUTOMATED OPENING EXITING CURTNER TRAFFIC BARRIER ARM AT BACK-OF-WALK AT EACH VEHICLE ENTRANCE GATE TO BE CLOSED AFTER RETAIL HOURS TRAFFIC BARRIER ARM AT BACK-OF-WALK AT EACH VEHICLE ENTRANCE BLUE LIGHT SYSTEM AND PANIC BUTTONS AT EVERY STAIRCASE EXIT AND ENTRY 24/7 LIVE STREAMING PATROL CAMERAS CAMERAS PLOTTED TO MAXIMIZE VISIBILITY EFFECTIVE SIGNAGE TO BE PLOTTED AT NECESSARY LOCATIONS SECURITY STRATEGY PLAN PEDESTRIAN SECURITY GATE AT STAIR ENTRANCE PEDESTRIAN SECURITY GATE AT STAIR ENTRANCE PEDESTRIAN SECURITY GATE AT STAIR ENTRANCE Response to Environmental Comments The comments are available online at the following address: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57837 Page 1 Attachment L Attachment M Project Mitigated Negative Declaration Initial Study The project Mitigated Negative Declaration Initial Study is available on-line at the following address, which includes the Initial Study and Appendices. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=2488&TargetID=319 Attachment N Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “3877 El Camino Real” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “5-4-2017 3877 El Camino Real Submittal” Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 7845) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/18/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 689-693 Arastradero Road: Bowman School Annex Title: QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER/PUBLIC HEARING. 689-693 Arastradero Road [16PLN-00089]: Consideration of the Applicant's Request for Approval of an Architectural Review Permit for the Demolition of Three Existing Single-Family Homes and Construction of a New Preschool for up to 60 Children That Would Also Serve as a Satellite Expansion of the Existing Bowman School on Terman Drive. Three new Single- Story Structures Will Have a Combined Floor Area of 17,132 Square Feet and Will be Used for the Preschool, Gymnasium, and Classrooms. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated From January 19, 2017 to February 21, 2017. A Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is available. For More Information Contact: Claire Hodgkins at: claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MND/MMRP) adopted by Council on May 8, 2017. 2. Recommend approval of the proposed project, with staff’s preferred Alternate Parking Layout included in Attachment I, to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval included in Attachments B and C respectively. Report Summary City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB during a preliminary review and in the form of a study session for the first formal review. An earlier staff report for the first formal review includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies; that report is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54708. A copy of the report without prior attachments is available in Attachment D. A location Map is included in Attachment A. The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the Board during the first formal review and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report and is modified to reflect recent project changes. Background On November 17, 2016 the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-52/. The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table. ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Further address issue of shadows cast from Gymnasium Building onto the adjacent Young Life Preschool Playground. As suggested by one board member, the applicant has redesigned the roof along the north side of the gymnasium to include a shed roof that creates a lower profile to the sun, as shown in Section A-A on Sheet MAR13 and on the rear elevation on Sheet MAR14 in the Project Plans included in Attachment I. No change to the building location has been proposed and the applicant has not explored setting the gymnasium below grade, which were other suggestions from board members. Further explore queueing for drop-off and pickup; ensure that queueing is minimized. The applicant’s proposed plans, with their preferred parking layout, do not include any proposed changes to further address queueing for drop-off and pickup. However, under the alternate parking layout included in Attachment I, the proposed entrance and exit of the site has been redesigned to further address queueing for drop-off and pickup in addition to resolving other concerns raised by Transportation staff that were still being assessed during the last study session, as discussed in further detail below. Clarify the design of the paseo/entrance; consider making the fencing in front of the IDEAlab more open. Sheet MAR6.2 and MAR7.A show the fencing proposed for the entrance to the paseo. Fencing is of an open design that allows views through. This can also be seen on the front elevation on Sheet City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 MAR9. Sheet MAR9 also shows changes, as seen on detail 1 and 3, to the fencing in front of the IDEAlab, which has been redesigned to allow views through. Further explore disabled access to the IDEAlab and amphitheater No changes have been proposed; additional analysis is provided below. Provide additional information about circulation, particularly the pathway for students walking between the existing Bowman School site located at 4000 Terman and the proposed project site. Sheet MAR22 provides information about circulation between the existing main Bowman School on 4000 Terman Drive and the proposed Bowman School annex at 693 Arastradero. Additional clarification on circulation is also provided in Attachment E. Explore ways to encourage biking and carpooling Additional information about ongoing carpool coordination and incentives for use of alternate forms of transportation for the existing main Bowman school is provided in Attachment F. These same carpool matching services and incentives would also be provided for students at the new proposed Bowman school annex. Mechanical room; consider placing bike parking in front of the mechanical room While no changes have been made, Detail D on Sheet MAR6.2 has been revised to provide more clarity regarding the bike parking and the mechanical room doors. The proposed project is designed to have bike parking in this location and the revised submittal better illustrates the doors in the full project context, as shown on MAR 7A. The mechanical room location allows for maintenance access without disturbance to students inside the classrooms or outdoor play areas. Create a 10-15 foot radius bulb out to further protect the larger oak tree. Under both the applicant’s proposed parking layout and staff’s preferred Alternative Parking Layout a 9 foot radius from the parking stalls is provided. The applicant has not made any changes to improve the distance. However, staff notes that a 10 foot radius appears to be feasible and recommends the inclusion of a condition of approval that would require a 10 foot radius from the protected oak tree. Show and define planting in the sidewalk planting strip. As shown in Sheet MAR7 planting has been added to the planting strip. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Analysis1 In addition to the ARB direction on the project, staff recommends a site design change to the proposed ingress and egress of the new Bowman School annex site, which is included in Attachment I as the Alternate Parking Layout, also referred to herein as “staff’s preferred alternative.” Transportation, Public Works Engineering, and the Palo Alto Fire Department recommend the revised ingress/egress for the following reasons: 1) The previously proposed egress for the site did not allow for an option to take a U-turn at Georgia Avenue. As previously designed, drivers that wanted to travel west out of the site would need to travel east to find a turnaround option such as making a U-turn at Hubbart or turning down a residential side street to turn around before turning back onto Arastradero to travel west. The revised designed allows for an immediate U-turn at Georgia Avenue upon exiting the site. 2) The previously proposed egress for the site aligned the egress with a gap in the median design at Georgia Avenue. The City’s Transportation Division expressed concern that drivers that wanted to travel west may be tempted to make an illegal left turn out of the site to avoid the need to travel east to find a different turnaround. The Transportation Division highlighted this as a potential safety issue that could be avoided through revisions to the design. 3) The previously proposed design did not properly account for planned changes to the median in accordance with the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Concept Plan, approved by City Council on September 28, 2015. In particular, Fire had previously recommended approval of the project with the assumption that fire access from the westbound approach could be provided across the median where it aligned with the ingress driveway. However, Public Works Engineering has clarified that this location is an important opportunity location to provide vegetation, a key issue raised by the public in comments dating back to as early as 2004 when the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor project began. The Palo Alto Fire Department has since indicated to staff that if access through the median cannot be provided, the ingress/egress would need to be revised. Although Fire can/would access the site via the egress in the event of an emergency if no other option was available, Fire did not recommend that a new project be designed to provide primary emergency access through an egress driveway (i.e. into potential oncoming traffic). The revised design provides access from the westbound approach to the Fire Department through the ingress driveway without the need to eliminate vegetation in the median. 4) The previously proposed ingress for the site was located adjacent the narrowest point on eastbound Arastradero along the project frontage. The Focused Traffic Impact Assessment concluded, based on assumptions from traffic patterns at the existing Bowman School site, that queueing is not anticipated to spill into Arastradero Drive. However, as an additional precaution to ensure that any unanticipated queueing into 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Arastradero Road would be less impactful to traffic, the City of Palo Alto Transportation Division requested that the design be revised to locate the ingress driveway at the widest point along the frontage (where there are two lanes instead of one). This would allow cars the space to move around any queueing in the event that it does occur. Both designs still allow for queueing on site beyond the maximum anticipated queue at peak hour morning drop-off. Under staff’s preferred alternative there are three fewer parking spaces than are provided under the applicant’s proposed parking layout. However, staff has reviewed the breakdown of required parking outlined in Attachment C of the November 17, 2016 staff report and notes that a calculation error resulted in the conclusion that 20 parking spaces were required where only 16 are actually required in accordance with the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Therefore, staff’s preferred alternative would still provide 17 parking spaces where only 16 are required. Staff would recommend that minor improvements be made to the Alternate parking layout design to provide screening for the transformer, which has been placed in a more visible location. Staff has added a condition of approval requiring that screening for the transformer be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning prior to building permit issuance. Under the applicant’s proposed parking layout, included as Sheets MAR5 and MAR6.1 of the plan set in Attachment I, the Transportation, Public Works Engineering, and Fire Department concerns outlined above would not be addressed. In addition, the ARB’s recommendations to further assess and minimize queueing would not be addressed. The applicant has expressed concerns that the revised counter-clockwise design is atypical. Specifically, the applicant has stated their concern that unloading students on the opposite side of the car from the walkway presents a safety concern for students, assuming that parents would place the car seat on the right side of the car. Staff has considered these concerns but notes that child seats could be placed on either side of the car and are often placed in the center seat. Therefore, on balance, staff recommends that the project be approved only with the alternate parking layout. Shading The proposed project, including the gymnasium, complies with both the side and rear daylight planes required within a single-family residential zone district. Consistent with the recommendation of the ARB, the applicant further reduced shading in the revised submittal by providing a shed roof at the bleachers. The shed roof design has reduced the number of weeks that a shadow is cast into the adjacent property at the beginning and end of each winter. Shading of 18” or more into the adjacent property would still occur approximately 9 weeks out of every year in the afternoons between November and February as shown in sheets MAR25.1 and MAR25.3 of the plans included in Attachment I. This is a reduction from the original and previously revised designs which assumed 17 weeks of shading and 13 weeks of shading, respectively, of 18” or more. The applicant has not provided shading studies to show whether there would be an improvement if the gymnasium were moved further in from the side property line. However, staff notes that the proposed building design avoids encroachments into the rear and side setbacks. Moving the gym further south/southwest 5 to 6 feet per one of the board members’ suggestions would result in a setback encroachment and moving it further City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 to the rear of the lot would require both a rear setback encroachment and a daylight plane encroachment. In addition, as currently designed, a 20 foot paseo is provided between buildings from the front of the property to the rear. This is required for fire access. If the building were to be shifted, revisions to the building would be required in order to maintain this fire access. Pedestrian Circulation A description of pedestrian circulation between the existing main Bowman School campus on Terman Drive and the proposed Bowman School annex on Arastradero Road is provided on sheet MAR22. Students ages 3-5 (total of up to 60 students) would be dropped off and picked up at the proposed annex site. Up to 240 students grades 1 through 8 would continue to be dropped off and picked up at the main campus. Students in grades 1 through 8 would walk from the main campus to the proposed annex once a week to utilize the breakout spaces (e.g. IDEAlab, woodshop, gymnasium) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. and walk back to the main campus at the end of the day. There is a pathway at the rear of the main campus that links directly to the sidewalk along Arastradero Road; the total walking distance between the two sites is approximately 170 yards. Students grades 7 and 8 would be allowed to walk in pairs to and from the site. All other grades would walk to and from the site in classes of 25 students with adult supervision. Disabled Access The applicant has not made changes to the location of the elevator based on one board member’s concern that the different access point of the elevator (presumably referencing its location outside of the main building) may not be as inviting to a student with a physical disability as the stairs. However, it should be noted that the main stairwell to the below grade patio is also outside and immediately adjacent to the elevator. Therefore, all students would walk outside for the main stair or elevator access and could either choose to use the elevator or the stairs. The entrance to both the stairwell and the elevator are covered with a roof to provide shelter from the elements. All other aspects of the site, including the other two single floor buildings, are accessible to the disabled. Public Art Since the previous study session, the applicant has indicated a preference in providing on-site public art instead of the in-lieu public art contribution. The applicant has noted that it intends to provide stainless steel metal inlays in the new on-site sidewalk at the front of the property that represent each of Maria Montessori’s 10 “human tendencies.” The proposed public art requires final Public Art Commission approval and must meet all applicable municipal code requirements, including building code requirements. A condition of approval has been included to address this requirement. Conditional Use Permit & Variance The Board’s review of this project is related to the Architecture Review findings. There are concurrent applications for a conditional use permit and variance. While not subject board City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 review, staff has included some preliminary findings and conditions in support of these requests. This information is draft and subject to modification. It is provided as information material for the public. Action on these entitlements is expected to occur at the same time the Director takes an action on the Architectural Review. This information can be found in Attachment J. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. A Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was circulated for public review and comment on January 19, 2017. The public comment period was open through February 21, 2017. A Final Environmental Analysis considered comments on the IS/MND and changes to the proposed project based on staff comments. A link to the Final IS/MND as well as the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is provided in Attachment G. A focused Traffic Impact Analysis is included as Attachment E to the Final IS/MND. City Council will consider the final MND and MMRP at a Council hearing for a Preliminary Parcel Map with Exceptions on May 8, 2017. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on May 5, 2017, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on May 8, 2017, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, six project related comments were received. One commenter noted his general opposition to the proposed project, primarily due to traffic concerns. A second commenter noted concerns related primarily to traffic and parking. Three other commenters expressed their general support for the project. These five written comments are included in Attachment H. A sixth commenter provided oral comments at the November 17, 2016 study session. These concerns related to the proposed gymnasium resulting in shading on the adjacent property to the north/northeast, which is used on weekdays as a preschool. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Claire Hodgkins, Project Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2116 (650) 329-2575 claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Architectural Review Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Conditions of Approval (DOCX)  Attachment D: Previous ARB Staff Report (PDF)  Attachment E: Description of Circulation (DOC)  Attachment F: Bowman School Bicycling and Carpool Program (DOC)  Attachment G: Environmental Analysis and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (DOCX)  Attachment H: Written Public Comments (PDF)  Attachment I: Project Plans and Alternate Parking Layout (DOCX)  Atttachment J: Draft Conditional Use Permit and Variance Findings and Conditions of Approval (DOCX) Ter m a n Par k Parki n g L o t Term a n Alta Mesa Memorial Park Gu n n H i g h S c h o o l Gunn High School Hetc h H e t c h y R i g h t o f W a y Rec o r d O v e r l a p Re s e a r c h e d 2 - 1 0 - 1 9 7 6 Hetch Hetchy Right of Way Alta Mesa Memorial Park Alta MesaMemorial Park Ter m a n M i d d l e S c h o o l Bow m a n I n t . Scho o l 24 24 24 24 60 3 0 24 24 24 24 24 24 30 Mausoleum #2 Mausoleum #1 Adobe CreekMausoleum Terman Middle School Aras t r a d e r o West Apar t m e n t s Student Activities Center QUAD Math & Sc i e n c e Office (MS - 6 ) World Language s &English- Social St u d i e s Offices LOCKER S Bowm a n I n t e r n a t i o n a l S c h o o l Science Arastrad e r o S t a t i o n 9 . 3 '1 0 . 9 '1 1 5 . 0 '7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 '7 0 . 0 ' 2 0 . 6 '2 1 . 4 '1 4 . 2 '1 1 0 . 2 ' 1 2 4 . 9 '1 1 6 . 8 ' 1 1 5 . 4 ' 6 5 . 0 ' 1 1 6 . 1 ' 1 0 . 2 ' 6 1 . 8 ' 1 1 6 . 0 ' 3 1 . 3 ' 2 9 . 5 ' 1 1 0 . 4 ' 6 2 . 0 ' 2 1 . 0 ' 1 1 6 . 1 ' 6 4 . 0 ' 1 3 1 . 0 ' 3 7 . 5 ' 3 9 . 8 ' 1 3 1 . 0 ' 5 0 . 0 ' 1 3 0 . 5 ' 8 1 . 4 ' 1 3 0 . 5 ' 5 0 . 5 ' 1 3 1 . 0 ' 8 2 . 3 ' 6 5 . 3 ' 1 4 2 . 3 ' 1 0 3 . 4 ' 1 3 8 . 6 ' 6 1 . 0 ' 1 3 8 . 6 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 1 1 9 . 2 ' 1 3 1 . 0 ' 6 4 . 0 ' 1 2 0 . 3 ' 4 9 . 5 ' 2 2 . 1 ' 1 1 0 . 4 ' 6 1 . 4 ' 1 1 5 . 1 ' 8 3 . 0 ' 4 7 . 7 ' 1 3 3 . 7 ' 6 8 . 9 ' 3 3 . 5 ' 1 5 6 . 4 ' 4 2 . 0 ' 1 5 6 . 4 ' 1 4 . 7 ' 9 4 . 9 ' 1 2 6 . 3 ' 5 8 . 0 ' 1 2 6 . 3 ' 7 8 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 3 0 . 5 ' 4 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 2 0 . 3 ' 8 3 . 4 ' 1 2 3 . 6 ' 6 8 . 2 ' 1 1 8 . 8 ' 9 2 . 0 ' 1 1 8 . 8 ' 7 7 . 0 ' 1 1 6 . 0 ' 9 2 . 0 ' 1 1 6 . 0 ' 7 7 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 6 8 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 6 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 3 ' 6 7 . 7 ' 1 1 5 . 3 ' 8 0 . 0 ' 1 2 2 . 5 ' 6 9 . 8 ' 1 2 2 . 5 ' 8 0 . 0 ' 1 4 2 . 3 ' 3 3 . 0 ' 1 4 5 . 0 ' 4 3 . 1 ' 3 2 . 1 ' 6 3 . 8 ' 1 0 5 . 8 ' 2 0 . 0 ' 1 1 . 0 ' 3 4 . 6 ' 2 0 . 0 ' 1 0 5 . 8 ' 9 5 . 0 ' 1 1 4 . 2 ' 6 0 . 0 ' 1 1 4 . 2 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 6 . 7 ' 1 0 8 . 0 ' 8 3 . 0 ' 4 . 2 ' 8 7 . 0 ' 3 4 . 6 ' 2 2 . 6 ' 1 4 . 5 ' 3 2 . 9 ' 1 1 6 . 7 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 2 0 . 0 ' 6 0 . 0 ' 1 7 0 1 . 1 ' 1 6 9 3 . 7 ' 9 9 . 9 ' 9 2 6 . 7 ' 2 3 3 . 7 ' 1 1 7 7 . 1 ' 5 2 3 . 1 ' 2 2 5 . 4 ' 1 3 . 7 ' 9 3 8 . 8 ' 1 0 . 0 ' 6 0 . 0 ' 1 7 1 . 3 ' 1 6 4 . 8 ' 5 6 7 . 8 ' 2 6 7 . 4 ' 3 1 . 1 ' 4 1 8 . 5 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 1 2 . 4 ' 5 7 . 8 ' 1 1 9 . 2 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 '7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 '7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 4 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 4 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 6 . 2 ' 1 3 . 5 '9 7 . 1 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 4 ' 5 1 . 6 ' 6 2 . 0 ' 1 0 9 . 1 ' 6 5 . 1 ' 8 5 . 9 ' 3 8 . 7 ' 5 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 8 4 . 0 ' 1 3 3 . 7 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 . 5 ' 1 1 4 . 2 ' 7 1 . 3 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 3 7 . 0 ' 2 4 . 3 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 3 ' 9 . 0 '5 5 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 3 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 2 5 . 0 ' 1 1 6 . 9 ' 5 4 . 4 ' 1 1 6 . 9 ' 7 2 . 7 ' 4 2 . 0 ' 1 1 9 . 2 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 2 7 . 8 ' 2 3 . 6 ' 9 . 4 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 1 0 2 . 2 ' 1 2 6 . 1 ' 5 2 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 7 7 . 0 ' 1 1 2 . 8 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 6 4 . 4 ' 1 2 6 . 1 ' 9 1 . 6 ' 3 4 . 0 ' 1 2 8 . 3 ' 4 7 . 3 ' 1 3 4 . 3 ' 7 2 . 0 ' 1 3 2 . 5 ' 6 5 . 7 ' 1 4 0 . 0 ' 1 9 . 5 ' 6 5 . 4 ' 1 3 4 . 3 ' 4 5 . 0 ' 1 4 3 . 9 ' 5 9 . 3 ' 5 3 . 4 ' 1 4 0 . 0 ' 4 6 . 6 ' 1 1 2 . 8 ' 6 1 . 5 ' 1 8 . 0 ' 1 8 . 6 ' 1 4 3 . 9 ' 5 9 . 7 ' 1 2 8 . 3 ' 1 0 8 . 0 ' 1 1 2 . 1 ' 8 0 . 0 ' 1 0 8 . 8 ' 6 5 . 0 ' 1 0 9 . 1 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 0 9 . 5 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 0 8 . 8 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 2 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 0 9 . 5 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 9 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 2 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 1 . 7 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 9 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 2 . 4 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 1 . 7 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 3 . 1 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 2 . 4 ' 6 1 . 5 ' 9 . 6 ' 9 . 1 ' 1 1 3 . 3 ' 7 0 . 2 ' 1 1 3 . 1 ' 6 8 . 6 ' 1 6 . 4 ' 1 5 . 1 ' 7 7 . 6 ' 6 1 . 3 ' 1 1 3 . 3 ' 4 5 . 5 ' 5 8 . 0 ' 6 3 . 0 ' 3 3 . 7 ' 2 0 . 3 ' 8 . 4 ' 9 . 1 ' 5 . 0 ' 2 0 . 0 ' 7 7 . 0 ' 6 6 . 0 ' 6 0 . 0 ' 5 8 . 0 ' 4 5 . 5 ' 5 . 0 ' 2 4 . 9 ' 3 6 . 8 ' 1 3 . 8 ' 1 4 . 5 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 1 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 8 ' 7 . 0 ' 7 7 . 0 ' 2 0 . 0 ' 4 3 . 5 ' 7 . 4 ' 1 1 5 . 8 ' 9 2 . 6 ' 9 7 . 1 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 3 0 . 5 ' 4 7 . 8 ' 8 0 . 2 ' 6 2 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 2 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 1 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 1 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 1 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 1 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 1 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 1 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 1 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 1 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 1 2 2 . 2 ' 6 1 . 5 ' 1 0 2 . 4 ' 1 4 . 6 ' 1 4 . 5 ' 3 3 . 4 ' 4 9 . 4 ' 1 0 2 . 4 ' 7 3 . 3 ' 1 3 . 7 ' 7 8 . 5 ' 2 5 . 0 ' 3 6 . 5 ' 2 5 . 0 ' 7 8 . 5 ' 8 0 . 0 ' 1 5 . 0 ' 1 2 8 . 3 ' 1 6 . 6 ' 1 5 . 3 ' 1 2 8 . 3 ' 6 5 . 0 ' 9 9 . 5 ' 3 2 . 7 ' 9 9 . 5 ' 1 2 0 . 0 ' 1 1 9 . 1 ' 3 8 . 9 ' 1 1 9 . 1 ' 5 9 . 0 ' 8 4 . 0 ' 1 1 4 . 6 ' 1 6 . 9 ' 1 4 . 5 ' 2 8 . 9 ' 1 1 4 . 6 ' 7 4 . 7 ' 1 2 0 . 4 ' 3 6 . 7 ' 1 2 0 . 4 ' 6 1 . 0 ' 9 9 . 6 ' 3 6 . 0 ' 6 1 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 1 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 1 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 1 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 2 5 . 9 ' 3 3 . 7 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 0 2 . 8 ' 1 4 . 1 ' 2 6 . 0 ' 1 0 2 . 8 ' 9 0 . 0 ' 1 0 8 . 0 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 1 2 . 3 ' 3 7 . 0 ' 7 0 . 7 ' 1 1 9 . 2 ' 5 8 . 0 ' 1 0 8 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 1 ' 7 . 2 ' 6 2 . 2 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 2 . 0 ' 4 6 . 4 ' 3 1 . 1 ' 9 9 . 9 ' 2 2 . 1 ' 4 8 . 5 ' 1 0 . 0 ' 1 2 . 6 ' 7 . 8 ' 2 3 . 2 ' 1 1 . 6 ' 1 4 7 . 3 ' 7 . 8 ' 7 . 0 ' 1 1 2 . 7 ' 1 1 8 . 8 ' 1 3 4 . 0 ' 6 7 . 0 ' 1 2 1 . 7 ' 1 5 . 6 ' 1 4 . 5 ' 5 . 8 ' 3 1 . 5 ' 1 9 . 7 ' 9 9 . 9 ' 5 8 . 8 ' 9 8 . 4 ' 1 5 . 3 ' 2 0 . 8 ' 3 5 . 8 ' 3 4 . 2 ' 9 7 . 5 ' 1 1 1 . 1 ' 8 9 . 9 ' 8 0 . 8 ' 1 0 6 . 9 ' 1 5 0 . 6 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 0 7 . 6 ' 6 2 . 4 ' 7 . 6 ' 1 0 6 . 9 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 0 8 . 1 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 0 7 . 6 ' 5 7 . 0 ' 1 3 2 . 5 ' 7 7 . 0 ' 1 3 3 . 0 ' 1 3 7 . 1 ' 5 6 . 0 ' 1 3 3 . 0 ' 3 9 . 0 ' 3 2 . 2 ' 1 2 1 . 7 ' 6 1 . 9 ' 1 3 7 . 1 ' 7 0 . 4 ' 5 8 . 5 ' 1 1 2 . 1 ' 2 8 . 0 ' 7 6 . 0 ' 1 2 0 . 4 ' 1 2 0 . 7 ' 3 0 . 2 ' 2 8 . 2 ' 1 1 6 . 0 ' 8 0 . 0 ' 9 3 . 6 ' 1 7 . 1 ' 1 6 . 0 ' 4 8 . 2 ' 1 1 5 . 4 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 8 . 2 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 2 8 . 2 ' 4 1 . 8 ' 1 1 5 . 5 ' 1 2 . 2 ' 5 7 . 8 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 '1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 '1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 '1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 '1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 9 9 . 2 ' 1 5 . 5 ' 1 4 . 3 ' 5 1 . 6 ' 1 1 7 . 6 ' 6 6 . 7 ' 5 . 2 ' 4 . 8 ' 1 1 8 . 8 ' 6 4 . 0 ' 1 1 7 . 6 ' 1 1 5 . 4 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 5 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 6 5 . 0 ' 1 3 . 0 ' 1 2 0 . 6 ' 3 1 . 6 ' 3 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 5 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 8 7 . 0 ' 1 1 2 . 2 ' 6 5 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 8 2 . 8 ' 1 2 3 . 9 ' 6 2 . 0 ' 1 1 2 . 2 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 9 9 . 9 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 5 0 . 2 ' 1 2 3 . 9 ' 2 4 . 0 ' 2 6 . 3 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 9 8 . 9 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 3 . 9 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 4 9 . 0 ' 4 0 . 5 ' 1 1 3 . 9 ' 4 9 . 6 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 7 8 . 9 ' 1 1 0 . 6 ' 6 6 . 0 ' 1 0 9 . 3 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 0 9 . 3 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 0 8 . 9 ' 9 2 . 0 ' 1 2 4 . 2 ' 6 2 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 6 ' 7 4 . 9 ' 1 2 6 . 8 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 5 0 . 2 ' 1 2 4 . 2 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 2 . 5 ' 5 4 . 5 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 3 4 . 2 ' 4 0 . 5 ' 1 3 1 . 0 ' 5 0 . 0 ' 1 2 2 . 5 ' 5 0 . 3 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 9 8 . 0 ' 7 2 . 3 ' 1 3 1 . 0 ' 7 2 . 3 ' 1 1 1 . 4 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 5 0 . 2 ' 1 1 7 . 5 ' 9 3 . 0 ' 1 1 7 . 5 ' 6 2 . 0 ' 1 1 4 . 2 ' 9 6 . 9 ' 1 0 5 . 0 ' 8 6 . 9 ' 1 5 . 7 ' 9 5 . 0 ' 3 2 . 4 ' 2 4 . 9 ' 4 0 . 7 ' 9 2 . 2 ' 1 3 0 . 0 ' 9 6 . 9 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 2 8 . 2 '4 1 . 8 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 1 3 0 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 0 8 . 5 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 0 8 . 1 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 0 8 . 9 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 0 8 . 5 ' 1 0 9 . 6 ' 1 7 . 0 ' 5 0 . 5 ' 1 0 2 . 3 ' 6 9 . 5 ' 5 1 . 3 ' 1 0 8 . 9 ' 1 0 3 . 0 ' 1 5 5 . 2 ' 4 0 . 0 ' 1 5 5 . 2 ' 4 0 . 0 ' 1 0 7 . 2 ' 1 1 7 . 0 ' 3 4 . 1 ' 2 6 . 9 ' 1 1 7 . 0 ' 8 7 . 0 ' 1 0 8 . 0 ' 8 0 . 2 ' 5 2 . 2 ' 1 0 8 . 0 ' 8 5 . 0 ' 1 5 . 7 ' 8 6 . 9 ' 1 4 7 . 9 ' 3 0 . 7 ' 8 7 . 3 ' 9 7 . 5 ' 2 8 . 6 ' 4 9 . 9 ' 5 0 . 0 ' 1 3 9 . 2 ' 2 7 . 4 ' 2 6 . 8 ' 1 4 3 . 0 ' 1 2 0 . 4 ' 2 5 . 7 ' 2 9 . 4 ' 6 . 0 ' 1 1 2 . 7 ' 6 7 . 0 ' 4 1 . 9 ' 1 0 8 . 9 ' 8 0 . 0 ' 1 0 9 . 6 ' 2 2 . 1 ' 2 6 . 2 ' 1 1 . 1 ' 1 0 7 . 5 ' 9 9 . 8 ' 1 2 . 2 ' 2 0 . 8 ' 1 3 7 . 8 ' 3 3 . 0 ' 1 3 7 . 8 ' 1 4 3 . 3 ' 6 5 . 7 ' 7 4 . 0 ' 1 2 1 . 9 ' 8 5 . 0 ' 4 7 . 0 ' 9 2 . 2 ' 4 7 . 0 ' 8 5 . 0 ' 1 2 1 . 9 ' 7 4 . 0 ' 9 2 . 2 ' 1 2 8 . 5 ' 1 2 5 . 5 ' 2 4 4 . 7 ' 1 0 4 . 2 ' 7 1 . 6 ' 1 0 8 . 8 ' 3 6 . 6 ' 5 4 . 0 ' 2 1 . 0 ' 2 1 . 0 ' 1 7 7 . 7 ' 2 6 3 . 5 ' 2 6 . 0 ' 7 7 . 0 ' 2 3 9 . 2 ' 1 5 7 . 7 ' 2 5 6 . 9 ' 1 2 5 . 5 ' 1 5 4 . 5 ' 2 6 3 . 5 ' 2 5 . 0 ' 7 7 4 . 4 ' 2 4 7 . 9 ' 8 3 . 8 ' 5 8 . 7 ' 7 1 . 1 ' 1 3 3 . 8 ' 7 0 . 3 ' 6 1 . 4 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 3 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 2 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 3 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 3 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 4 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 3 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 5 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 4 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 2 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 1 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 6 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 5 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 7 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 6 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 7 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 7 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 8 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 7 ' 2 9 . 2 ' 4 5 . 9 ' 1 2 7 . 3 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 8 ' 6 0 . 6 ' 1 4 . 9 ' 1 3 5 . 8 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 7 . 3 ' 1 4 2 . 5 ' 8 9 . 9 ' 4 6 . 5 ' 9 7 . 3 ' 6 5 . 0 ' 9 2 . 1 ' 2 8 . 5 ' 6 6 . 5 ' 9 . 6 ' 1 4 2 . 5 ' 7 0 . 8 ' 7 6 . 1 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 5 6 . 1 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 1 0 5 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 3 9 . 6 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 1 4 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 3 3 . 3 ' 5 1 . 1 ' 1 3 4 . 4 ' 5 4 . 3 ' 1 1 3 . 1 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 4 0 . 6 ' 1 4 . 5 ' 2 2 . 6 ' 1 4 7 . 2 ' 1 0 9 . 0 ' 1 3 4 . 4 ' 3 2 . 0 ' 5 4 . 9 ' 1 1 8 . 7 ' 7 3 . 0 ' 1 6 3 . 3 ' 3 8 . 4 ' 8 2 . 3 ' 7 5 . 2 ' 9 3 . 0 ' 1 1 8 . 7 ' 7 6 . 0 ' 1 0 5 . 0 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 5 6 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 1 ' 1 0 2 . 3 ' 1 9 . 7 ' 4 0 . 8 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 5 2 . 9 ' 8 6 . 0 ' 5 7 . 5 ' 1 2 0 . 0 ' 3 0 . 0 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 4 0 . 0 ' 6 0 . 6 ' 1 4 0 . 4 ' 1 3 5 . 5 ' 3 2 . 9 ' 6 5 . 7 ' 9 8 . 6 ' 3 2 . 9 ' 1 3 5 . 5 ' 1 0 7 . 5 ' 8 0 . 0 ' 5 7 . 5 ' 2 8 . 1 ' 3 3 . 0 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 6 9 . 0 ' 9 2 . 5 ' 1 5 . 0 ' 1 1 0 . 0 '8 6 . 2 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 9 0 . 0 '1 0 6 . 2 ' 6 7 . 4 ' 1 1 6 . 2 ' 6 7 . 4 ' 1 1 6 . 2 ' 6 7 . 4 ' 1 1 6 . 2 ' 6 7 . 4 ' 1 1 6 . 2 ' 6 7 . 4 ' 1 1 6 . 2 ' 6 7 . 4 ' 1 1 6 . 2 ' 5 4 . 5 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 9 6 . 3 ' 7 4 . 7 ' 1 1 6 . 2 ' 1 3 4 . 0 ' 9 6 . 0 ' 1 3 4 . 0 ' 9 6 . 0 ' 1 3 4 . 0 ' 7 6 . 0 ' 1 3 4 . 0 ' 7 6 . 0 ' 1 3 5 . 0 ' 7 6 . 0 ' 1 3 5 . 0 ' 7 6 . 0 ' 1 3 5 . 0 ' 7 6 . 0 ' 1 3 5 . 0 ' 9 0 . 0 ' 1 0 5 . 0 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 8 9 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 8 9 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 9 0 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 1 0 5 . 0 ' 1 3 5 . 0 '7 0 . 2 ' 1 3 5 . 0 '7 0 . 0 ' 1 3 4 . 0 ' 7 0 . 4 ' 1 3 4 . 0 ' 7 0 . 2 ' 1 1 6 . 2 ' 6 7 . 4 '1 1 8 . 3 ' 1 2 . 9 '5 4 . 8 ' 6 0 . 0 ' 1 3 5 . 0 ' 4 2 . 7 ' 6 5 . 3 ' 2 7 . 0 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 3 5 . 0 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 1 3 5 . 0 ' 1 1 9 . 2 ' 8 . 7 ' 5 2 . 1 ' 1 3 3 . 3 ' 1 2 9 . 0 ' 1 2 0 . 0 ' 8 6 . 0 ' 1 2 0 . 0 ' 8 6 . 0 ' 1 2 0 . 0 ' 8 6 . 0 ' 1 2 0 . 0 ' 8 6 . 0 ' 1 2 0 . 0 ' 8 6 . 0 ' 1 2 0 . 0 ' 8 6 . 0 ' 1 3 6 . 1 ' 5 4 . 6 ' 1 2 0 . 0 ' 1 1 8 . 8 ' 6 7 . 0 ' 6 7 . 0 ' 1 4 0 . 0 ' 6 7 . 0 ' 1 4 0 . 0 ' 6 9 . 3 '1 4 0 . 0 ' 3 4 . 9 ' 8 3 . 9 ' 4 5 . 3 ' 3 4 . 8 '7 4 . 0 '1 2 7 . 0 ' 7 4 . 0 '1 2 7 . 0 ' 1 0 8 . 4 '4 1 . 0 '8 4 . 2 ' 1 3 4 . 0 '1 2 1 . 1 ' 7 4 . 0 '1 2 7 . 0 ' 7 4 . 0 '1 2 7 . 0 ' 1 2 4 . 8 ' 4 1 . 6 ' 6 2 . 7 ' 7 0 . 6 ' 5 8 . 8 ' 1 1 7 . 5 ' 8 2 . 5 ' 1 1 0 . 9 ' 6 8 . 0 ' 8 2 . 5 ' 6 6 . 0 ' 7 6 . 6 ' 9 8 . 3 ' 8 3 . 2 ' 7 4 . 6 ' 9 6 . 4 ' 7 8 . 5 ' 7 0 . 6 ' 4 9 . 5 ' 8 7 . 8 ' 2 6 . 4 ' 7 9 . 2 ' 3 5 . 6 ' 6 2 . 0 ' 4 0 . 3 ' 1 0 7 . 6 ' 8 5 . 8 ' 7 9 . 2 ' 1 6 6 . 3 ' 5 4 . 8 ' 8 4 . 5 ' 7 5 . 2 ' 1 6 1 . 0 ' 4 6 . 2 ' 1 0 2 . 3 ' 7 0 . 6 ' 3 3 . 0 ' 7 7 . 9 ' 8 5 . 1 ' 6 3 . 4 ' 1 7 8 . 2 ' 1 0 4 . 9 ' 3 7 . 0 ' 1 3 4 . 6 ' 1 4 7 . 2 ' 6 7 . 3 ' 1 5 5 7 . 2 ' 6 6 . 7 ' 1 4 5 1 . 0 ' 1 3 3 . 3 ' 3 0 0 . 0 ' 1 2 4 . 8 ' 4 1 . 6 ' 6 2 . 7 ' 7 0 . 6 ' 5 8 . 8 ' 1 1 7 . 5 ' 8 2 . 5 ' 1 1 0 . 9 ' 6 8 . 0 ' 8 2 . 5 ' 6 6 . 0 ' 7 6 . 6 ' 9 8 . 3 ' 8 3 . 2 ' 7 4 . 6 ' 9 6 . 4 ' 7 8 . 5 ' 7 0 . 6 ' 4 9 . 5 ' 8 7 . 8 ' 2 6 . 4 ' 7 9 . 2 ' 3 5 . 6 ' 6 2 . 0 ' 4 0 . 3 ' 1 0 7 . 6 ' 8 5 . 8 ' 7 9 . 2 ' 1 6 6 . 3 ' 5 4 . 8 ' 8 4 . 5 ' 7 5 . 2 ' 1 6 1 . 0 ' 4 6 . 2 ' 1 0 2 . 3 ' 7 0 . 6 ' 3 3 . 0 ' 7 7 . 9 ' 8 5 . 1 ' 6 3 . 4 ' 1 7 8 . 2 ' 1 0 4 . 9 ' 3 7 . 0 ' 1 3 4 . 6 ' 1 4 7 . 2 ' 6 7 . 3 ' 1 5 5 7 . 2 ' 6 6 . 7 ' 1 4 5 1 . 0 ' 1 3 3 . 3 ' 3 0 0 . 0 ' 1 2 4 . 8 ' 4 1 . 6 ' 6 2 . 7 ' 7 0 . 6 ' 5 8 . 8 ' 1 1 7 . 5 ' 8 2 . 5 ' 1 1 0 . 9 ' 6 8 . 0 ' 8 2 . 5 ' 6 6 . 0 ' 7 6 . 6 ' 9 8 . 3 ' 8 3 . 2 ' 7 4 . 6 ' 9 6 . 4 ' 7 8 . 5 ' 7 0 . 6 ' 4 9 . 5 ' 8 7 . 8 ' 2 6 . 4 ' 7 9 . 2 ' 3 5 . 6 ' 6 2 . 0 ' 4 0 . 3 ' 1 0 7 . 6 ' 8 5 . 8 ' 7 9 . 2 ' 1 6 6 . 3 ' 5 4 . 8 ' 8 4 . 5 ' 7 5 . 2 ' 1 6 1 . 0 ' 4 6 . 2 ' 1 0 2 . 3 ' 7 0 . 6 ' 3 3 . 0 ' 7 7 . 9 ' 8 5 . 1 ' 6 3 . 4 ' 1 7 8 . 2 ' 1 0 4 . 9 ' 3 7 . 0 ' 1 3 4 . 6 ' 1 4 7 . 2 ' 6 7 . 3 ' 1 5 5 7 . 2 ' 6 6 . 7 ' 1 4 5 1 . 0 ' 1 3 3 . 3 ' 3 0 0 . 0 ' 6 1 . 9 ' . 3 ' . 3 ' . 2 ' 6 2 . 1 ' 4 1 . 6 ' 6 2 . 7 ' 7 0 . 6 ' 5 8 . 8 ' 1 1 7 . 5 ' 8 2 . 5 ' 1 1 0 . 9 ' 6 8 . 0 ' 8 2 . 5 ' 6 6 . 0 ' 7 6 . 6 ' 9 8 . 3 ' 8 3 . 2 ' 7 4 . 6 ' 9 6 . 4 ' 7 8 . 5 ' 7 0 . 6 ' 4 9 . 5 ' 8 7 . 8 ' 2 6 . 4 ' 7 9 . 2 ' 3 5 . 6 ' 6 2 . 0 ' 4 0 . 3 ' 1 0 7 . 6 ' 8 5 . 8 ' 7 9 . 2 ' 1 6 6 . 3 ' 5 4 . 8 ' 8 4 . 5 ' 7 5 . 2 ' 1 6 1 . 0 ' 4 6 . 2 ' 1 0 2 . 3 ' 7 0 . 6 ' 3 3 . 0 ' 7 7 . 9 ' 8 5 . 1 ' 6 3 . 4 ' 1 7 8 . 2 ' 1 0 4 . 9 ' 3 7 . 0 ' 1 3 4 . 6 ' 1 4 7 . 2 ' 6 7 . 3 ' 1 5 5 7 . 2 ' 6 6 . 7 ' 1 4 5 1 . 0 ' 1 3 3 . 3 ' 3 0 0 . 0 ' 1 2 4 . 8 ' 4 1 . 6 ' 6 2 . 7 ' 7 0 . 6 ' 5 8 . 8 ' 1 1 7 . 5 ' 8 2 . 5 ' 1 1 0 . 9 ' 6 8 . 0 ' 8 2 . 5 ' 6 6 . 0 ' 7 6 . 6 ' 9 8 . 3 ' 8 3 . 2 ' 7 4 . 6 ' 9 6 . 4 ' 7 8 . 5 ' 7 0 . 6 ' 4 9 . 5 ' 8 7 . 8 ' 2 6 . 4 ' 7 9 . 2 ' 3 5 . 6 ' 6 2 . 0 ' 4 0 . 3 ' 1 0 7 . 6 ' 8 5 . 8 ' 7 9 . 2 ' 1 6 6 . 3 ' 5 4 . 8 ' 8 4 . 5 ' 7 5 . 2 ' 1 6 1 . 0 ' 4 6 . 2 ' 1 0 2 . 3 ' 7 0 . 6 ' 3 3 . 0 ' 7 7 . 9 ' 8 5 . 1 ' 6 3 . 4 ' 1 7 8 . 2 ' 1 0 4 . 9 ' 3 7 . 0 ' 1 3 4 . 6 ' 1 4 7 . 2 ' 6 7 . 3 ' 1 5 5 7 . 2 ' 6 6 . 7 ' 1 4 5 1 . 0 ' 1 3 3 . 3 ' 3 0 0 . 0 ' 3 1 4 . 5 ' 2 7 . 1 ' 2 4 3 . 9 ' 1 4 6 . 4 ' 1 4 3 . 2 ' 2 2 6 . 5 ' 2 2 6 . 1 ' 2 4 0 . 0 ' 9 5 . 1 ' 3 0 5 . 2 ' 2 0 . 0 ' 3 0 . 0 ' 2 0 . 0 ' 3 0 . 0 ' 2 0 . 0 ' 2 7 2 . 3 ' 4 3 7 . 6 ' 5 1 5 . 4 ' 1 0 1 . 8 ' 1 3 1 . 0 ' 1 0 2 . 4 ' 9 7 . 6 ' 1 9 3 . 4 ' 3 . 2 ' 1 3 0 . 7 ' 1 4 7 . 8 ' 1 3 1 . 0 '2 3 . 1 ' 1 3 5 . 7 ' 1 5 . 0 ' 1 8 6 . 6 ' 1 9 0 . 3 ' 4 5 . 0 ' 3 4 0 . 6 ' 1 0 2 . 4 ' 1 4 7 . 8 ' 1 3 0 . 7 ' 1 1 4 . 2 ' 1 8 6 . 7 ' 1 1 4 . 3 ' 1 8 6 . 6 ' 1 3 8 . 2 ' 1 0 2 . 5 ' 1 3 8 . 2 ' 1 0 2 . 5 ' 4 8 . 5 ' 2 2 6 . 3 ' 9 3 . 5 ' 1 5 0 . 2 ' 4 5 . 0 ' 7 6 . 0 ' 1 7 0 . 3 ' 2 3 6 . 7 ' 1 7 0 . 3 ' 2 3 6 . 7 ' 2 3 6 . 7 ' 1 7 0 . 3 ' 2 3 6 . 7 ' 1 7 0 . 3 ' 1 7 0 . 3 ' 2 3 6 . 7 ' 1 7 0 . 3 ' 2 3 6 . 7 ' 1 6 9 . 6 ' 2 4 2 . 7 ' 7 . 9 ' 8 . 2 ' 1 5 0 . 8 ' 2 3 6 . 7 ' 2 5 2 . 4 ' 4 1 2 . 8 ' 2 3 9 . 1 ' 3 5 1 . 3 ' 2 7 6 . 0 ' 2 8 3 . 8 ' 4 5 0 . 0 ' 2 1 2 . 0 ' 2 8 3 . 8 ' 4 9 4 . 1 ' 2 2 6 . 1 ' 6 9 2 . 6 ' 3 5 1 . 3 ' 2 7 6 . 0 ' 2 1 2 . 0 ' 4 5 0 . 0 ' 2 4 0 . 0 ' 1 3 5 7 . 5 ' 4 8 . 7 ' 1 0 8 . 0 ' 6 2 . 0 ' 1 3 9 . 0 ' 5 3 . 1 ' 1 9 3 . 4 ' 2 2 4 . 3 ' 2 6 8 . 9 ' 1 3 0 . 0 ' 1 5 2 . 2 ' 1 5 . 2 ' 5 . 6 ' 5 . 1 ' 1 4 . 4 ' 1 4 . 0 ' 3 3 . 2 ' 2 1 . 8 ' 1 0 . 1 ' 3 . 8 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 4 . 9 ' 8 0 . 1 ' 1 5 8 . 3 ' 1 6 . 7 ' 1 5 . 8 ' 1 5 2 . 2 ' 1 5 . 7 ' 1 4 . 5 ' 1 4 7 . 9 ' 8 3 . 3 ' 1 5 8 . 3 ' 3 7 . 0 ' 7 . 3 ' 3 2 . 1 ' 1 . 2 ' 1 . 9 ' 1 6 . 0 ' 1 1 . 5 ' 1 0 . 5 ' 6 4 . 5 ' 1 6 . 0 ' 2 . 1 ' 1 . 0 ' 3 5 . 7 ' 3 . 1 ' 1 6 . 0 ' 5 0 . 0 ' 1 6 . 0 ' 3 . 1 ' 2 8 . 4 ' 3 . 4 ' 3 2 . 3 ' 1 4 . 2 ' 1 8 1 . 5 ' 4 4 . 2 ' 5 3 . 1 ' 7 . 4 ' 8 . 5 ' 9 . 4 ' 1 0 . 9 ' 3 3 . 7 ' 1 7 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 0 ' 8 7 . 5 ' 9 3 . 0 ' 1 4 0 . 6 ' 1 1 9 . 2 ' 1 4 0 . 0 ' 6 7 . 0 ' 1 4 0 . 0 ' 8 1 . 4 ' 4 7 . 9 ' 7 5 . 2 ' 1 3 0 . 9 ' 5 2 . 0 ' 1 4 0 . 0 ' 4 7 . 9 ' 4 9 . 0 ' 3 1 . 1 ' 1 4 . 1 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 3 7 . 0 ' 1 2 2 . 2 ' 4 1 . 0 ' 2 6 . 9 ' 3 0 9 . 0 ' 3 0 7 . 9 ' 1 3 9 . 5 ' 1 4 0 . 1 ' 2 6 4 . 4 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 9 9 . 6 ' 9 9 . 6 ' 4 4 . 4 ' 4 3 . 9 ' 2 6 4 . 0 ' 3 0 8 . 8 ' 6 8 . 8 ' 5 4 . 6 ' 2 6 5 . 0 ' 9 9 . 5 ' 1 8 9 . 5 ' 2 6 5 . 0 ' 3 2 7 . 6 ' 9 2 . 2 ' 4 0 . 7 ' 2 4 . 9 ' 3 2 . 4 ' 9 6 . 9 ' 1 0 5 . 0 ' 9 6 . 9 ' 9 5 . 0 ' 3 0 7 . 3 ' 5 3 6 . 0 ' 4 3 8 . 4 ' 4 3 8 . 4 ' 2 9 1 . 5 ' 7 . 6 ' 4 4 7 . 9 ' 2 0 4 . 1 ' 3 0 9 . 0 ' 3 5 8 . 9 ' 3 1 1 . 0 ' 2 0 3 . 2 ' 6 5 . 8 ' 1 4 . 4 ' 7 0 . 0 ' 5 4 . 2 ' 1 3 9 . 2 ' 1 1 9 . 4 ' 6 6 . 3 ' 6 6 . 8 ' 1 1 9 . 1 ' 1 3 . 0 ' 9 0 . 8 ' 2 0 9 . 9 ' 1 1 9 . 1 ' 6 6 . 3 ' 8 0 . 1 ' 5 4 . 1 ' 5 4 . 2 ' 1 3 0 . 2 ' 1 3 0 . 2 ' 1 3 0 . 2 ' 1 3 0 . 2 ' 5 4 . 2 ' 5 4 . 1 ' 1 1 0 . 0 ' 5 6 . 3 ' 6 3 . 3 ' 1 0 7 . 3 ' 1 0 7 . 5 ' 5 1 . 1 ' 9 4 . 7 '6 7 . 1 ' 9 2 . 5 ' 5 2 . 2 ' 4 0 . 1 ' 6 0 . 6 ' 9 6 . 4 ' 9 4 . 8 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 7 5 . 2 ' 5 6 . 2 ' 9 6 . 4 ' 3 2 . 5 ' 3 8 . 0 ' 4 9 . 8 ' 4 9 . 8 ' 1 0 . 2 ' 1 0 . 2 ' 7 7 . 8 ' 7 7 . 8 ' 6 3 . 5 ' 5 6 . 1 ' 1 3 5 . 0 ' 3 2 . 5 ' 7 6 . 0 ' 1 9 4 . 1 '1 0 1 . 7 ' 1 0 1 . 7 ' 6 5 . 5 ' 6 5 . 5 ' 6 6 . 1 ' 1 0 1 . 9 ' 3 3 . 1 ' 2 0 . 0 ' 8 6 . 2 ' 3 0 . 2 ' 3 0 . 2 ' 6 0 . 8 ' 6 0 . 8 ' 4 9 . 2 ' 4 9 . 2 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 1 3 4 . 0 ' 4 7 . 9 ' 1 1 0 . 6 '1 1 0 . 6 '9 7 . 4 ' 1 7 2 . 1 ' 2 0 2 . 7 ' 3 1 . 0 ' 2 2 . 7 '6 1 . 5 '6 1 . 2 ' 1 2 6 . 3 '1 2 6 . 3 ' 5 9 . 6 ' 1 1 . 5 ' 3 5 . 2 ' 7 8 . 8 ' 9 2 . 3 ' 3 6 . 2 ' 7 8 . 8 ' 1 0 0 . 9 ' 3 2 . 9 ' 1 0 3 . 4 ' 5 9 . 0 ' 1 5 2 . 4 ' 1 0 0 . 9 ' 1 1 . 5 ' 1 2 8 . 2 ' 1 2 8 . 2 ' 8 1 . 0 ' 7 6 . 3 ' 2 2 . 7 ' 7 1 . 1 ' 1 4 6 . 7 '1 4 6 . 7 ' 1 3 9 . 8 ' 2 1 . 1 ' 3 5 . 0 ' 3 2 . 2 ' 1 1 5 . 5 ' 9 0 . 2 ' 9 . 9 ' 2 2 . 5 ' 1 3 . 5 ' 1 7 . 0 ' 2 3 . 2 ' 2 6 . 0 ' 7 . 8 ' 8 . 3 ' 5 . 0 ' 5 . 1 ' 9 . 4 ' 2 7 . 4 ' 1 3 9 . 8 ' 9 . 9 ' 7 0 . 0 '6 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 1 1 4 . 8 ' 1 1 4 . 8 ' 6 0 . 2 ' 1 1 4 . 4 ' 1 1 4 . 4 ' 7 2 . 9 ' 8 9 . 9 ' 9 4 . 6 ' 2 8 . 9 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 4124 652 669 671 675 680 674 672 670 668 666 664 662 660 656 654 673 686 684 4152 682 1099 644 650 648 646 10921090 41901065 1091 419 6 4198 415 1 4143 4152 416 2 4157415 3 687 685 4142 4138 683 681 679 4155 4149 4154 4162 4164 416 14157415 3414 9 414 6 415 0 415 6 414 2 4150 4132 677 4145 4139 4135 4131 4127 4120 4100 667 665 663 4120 4125 4128 4114 4108 4126 41934191 418 9 4195 4192418 84184418 0 676 418 7 417 5 416 9 416 5 4172 4176 4168 4160 4159 416 6 416 3 4167 417 1 417 3 4187 4177 419 0 4194 41864182417 8 417 0 682 680 4165 416 9 416 0 416 4 418 44176 417 0 419 2 417 7 4181 418 5 4173 4182 416 6 683 681 421 0 687 416 1 4129 4133 4137 4141 4168 698 4147 4152 4148 4140 4171 417 74167 418 5 4181 4189 41944188 4184 4178 4174 679 681 68368 5 4151 687 665 651 653 4156 669 4134 4190 4192 675 6734130 4162 4168 674 4211 4218 4225 4260 4250 4240 4206 4218 4228 4234 4238 4246 4250 4256 4260 4270 4280 666 660 4287 4277 4267 4257 4280 42 5 6 4200 685 655 4191 4196 4155 4161 4175 4183 4193 4167 4198 4197 4198 4194 419041864182647B 645 649 650 653 4211 4207 654 658 660 4227 4237 4247 641 657 651 647 4244 4248 4217 646 640 639 4272 4266 426 2 4252 4228 4234 4238 4220638 4158 75 0 4156 4168 4170 4160 4170 4186 4180 4182 41754179 4183 4169 73 0 72 4 78 0 693 689 4270 417 4 417 6 4172 4178 4180 695 4176 79 7 677 4192 4160 4230 4161 4000 694 72 6 74 0 465 475 476 466 460 461 459 45 5 456 815 845 873885 888 876 811 465 459 473 49 3 499501 519 520 516 506 494 48 4 472 816 832 848 847 833 815 800 788 829 837 76 0 691 MAYBELL AVENUE DONALD DRIVE WILLMAR DRIVE ARA S T R A D E R O R O A D YNIG O W A Y HUBBARTT DRIVE GEORGIA AVEN U E ARASTRADERO ROAD ARA S T R A D E R O R O A D POM O N A A V E N U E LOS PALOS AVENUE POMO N A A V E N U E ARASTR A D E R O R O A D MIR A N D A A V E N U E DONALD DRIVE WILL M A R D R I V E GE O R G I A A V E N U E HUBBARTT DRIVE CRO S B Y P L A C E GE O R G I A A V E N U E ARASTR A D E R O R O A D MAN U E L A A V E N U E FO O T H I L L E X P R E S S W A Y FO O T H I L L E X P R E S S W A Y FAI R M E D E A V E N U E DR I S C O L L C T WAL L I S C O U R T LOS PALOS P L A C E CHE RRY OAKS PLAC E KI NG AR THURS C T T E R M A N D R I V E GE O R G I A A V E N U E DONALD D R I V E A R A S T R A D E R O R O AD M A N U E L A A V E N U E LOSROBL E S A V E N U E A d o b e C r e e k A d o b e C r e e k R-2 PC-2 6 6 6 PC-2 6 6 6 RE RM-40 RM-30 R-1(10000) R-1 PF This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Park School Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels 689 - 693 Arastradero Road (Project Site) 0'337' 689 - 693 Arastradero Road16PLN-00089 Location Map CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O R AT E D C ALIFOR NI A P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1 894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto vhernan2, 2016-09-08 11:54:07Location Map 693 Arastradero (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\vhernan2.mdb) ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 693 Arastradero Road 16PLN-00089 ARB FINDINGS The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility criteria), and any relevant design guides. There are no coordinated area plans or relevant design guides applicable to the proposed project. The proposed project is, on balance, consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Title 18, Zoning Ordinance, of the PAMC. Policy H1.1 of the 2015-2023 Housing Element states “promote the rehabilitation of deteriorating or substandard residential properties using sustainable and energy conserving approaches.” Although removal of three housing units is not aligned with this policy, a policy consideration must be made in balancing the loss of these housing units and the project’s consistency with other goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the project is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: a. Policy L-12: Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. b. Policy L-17 “Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches, and other amenities that favor pedestrians.” c. Policy L-48: promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. d. Goal H2: Support the construction of housing near schools, transit, parks, shopping, employment and cultural institutions. Policy L-12 The proposed structures are modest in scale, and the site has been designed to be compatible with the neighborhood by concentrating the 26 foot tall gymnasium at the rear of the site, away from the street view. A color palette of muted tones is proposed throughout at the site, as most of the surrounding residences and buildings have muted tones. Given the scale of the proposed development and muted color palette, the proposal is compatible with the neighborhood and consistent with Policy L-12. Policy L-17 Arastradero Road is a local residential street with sidewalks that contain a planter strip with a variety of street trees on both sides of the street. Existing street trees in front of the project site will be removed and replaced with four new street trees along the Arastradero Road. The existing mature live oak at the front of the property will be retained and protected during construction. The site will also provide access to the Pedestrian Trail on the Hetch Hetchy right- of-way. Given these improvements to the street trees, the proposal is consistent with Policy L- 17. Policy L-48 The proposed project is designed to fit in with adjacent single-family residential developments as well as the adjacent church, providing smaller buildings that are mostly single-story and that are no taller than what would typically be allowed for a single-family residence. Therefore, the designed fits in well along the streetscape. The wood columns and other wooden accent features coordinate well with the adjacent park and bike pathway uses, highlighting these adjacent natural features. Goal H-2 Surrounding uses at the site include multi-family residential uses to the east and single-family residential uses to the west across Arastradero Road. Goal H2 encourages the location of housing and schools in close proximity. On balance the loss of three housing units, one of which is a non-conforming use, is de minimis and does not outweigh the benefits of the new school in this location. Therefore, the proposed project is, on balance, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan The proposed project requests a variance for the size of the below-grade patio, which is allowed in accordance with the variance process outlined in the Palo Alto Municipal code. With approval of the variance, the proposed project is consistent with the Title 18, Zoning Ordinance, of the PAMC. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass, and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, and e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project’s architecture has a unified coherent design in the use of colors, materials, and style. The project incorporates the open space areas of the site into the architectural design to celebrate and encourage their use. Appropriate open space is provided and the exterior pathways connect one building to another in an attractive way, creating a cohesive campus connection rather than treating each structure as an individual building. This creates an internal sense of order and a desirable environment for students, teachers, visitors and the general community. In addition, the proposed front landscaping and retention of the existing live oak preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site. The project complies with applicable design criteria for the R-1 zone district with the exception of the requested variance for the below-grade patio. The design is a reflection of the surrounding residential use and is designed to fit into the existing character of the streetscape through the use of primarily single-story buildings and the placement of the single larger building toward the rear of the lot. This provides a harmonious transition in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations. The design is compatible with the sidewalks, roadway, pedestrian trail and other existing improvements. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The building colors are neutral and complimentary to the environmental setting, including the immediately adjacent open space to the southeast of the site. The wood columns and other wooden accent features coordinate well with the adjacent park and bike pathway uses, highlighting these adjacent open space/recreational features. Outdoor areas also contribute to adding functioning space that is compatible with the buildings and natural features of the site. The Primary Play Area for the preschool is designed with the intention of directing the sound of young children away from adjacent buildings. The Sunken Learning Circle, set below grade and between buildings, creates an area for group gatherings or individual learning. At the rear of the site is the Garden providing space for the school’s gardening program. Exterior pathways connect one building to another and help complete the connection to entire campus. The proposed project is designed to fit in with adjacent single-family residential developments as well as the adjacent church, providing smaller buildings that are mostly single-story and that are no taller than what would typically be allowed for a single-family residence. Therefore, the designed fits in well along the streetscape. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project will provide infrastructure for safe and convenient circulation for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. Bicycle lanes are provided along Arastradero Road in both directions and are six feet wide. Bicycle parking is provided in a convenient location close to the school entrance. Pedestrian connectivity is provided by sidewalks on both sides of Arastradero Road with pedestrian crosswalks at Terman Drive and Arastradero Road. Bicycle and pedestrian access is also provided through the pedestrian trail in the Hetch Hetchy right-of-way, which connects to the front of the school. There will be one entry and one exit driveway for vehicles. The driveways will be limited to right turn access only. The school will provide greeters to ensure drivers do not need to exit the car during peak periods of loading and unloading to help ensure the safe loading and unloading of students, while minimizing any queuing of cars. Ingress/egress Alternative 1 provides appropriate Fire Access to and from the site. Both alternatives would provide appropriate fire access internally on site. All utilities would be easily accessible. Appropriate open space is provided and the exterior pathways connect one building to another in an attractive way creating a cohesive campus connection rather than individual buildings. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes regional indigenous drought- resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat, and that can be appropriately maintained. The proposed project celebrates the Valley Oak at the forefront of the property as a key feature of the design. This tree and other landscaping soften views of the site from adjacent residential units. Many of the trees proposed are indigenous to Palo Alto, including the quercus agrifolia, which is the species selected for many of the new trees on site. In addition, the majority of the shrubs and grasses selected are indigenous to the area. The one shrub species selected that is not indigenous was chosen specifically to attract hummingbirds. The use of this species across the site is extremely limited in comparison to all other species of shrubs and grasses selected (less than .02 percent). In addition, a couple of the smaller trees along the frontage that are not indigenous were selected to match existing street trees. All species selected provide desirable habitat, require low maintenance, and are compatible with low water and very low water requirements (using WUCOLS) for use in Palo Alto. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. The children’s house also includes rooftop solar panels and includes skylights and openings to lower levels, which optimize light to interiors. ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 693 Arastradero Road 16PLN-00089 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Bowman School, 689/693 Arastradero Road Palo Alto, CA,” stamped as received by the City on March 21, 2017, and as revised on Sheets MAR5 and MAR6.1 to include the Alternate Parking Layout, on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The approval letter, including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. The applicant and/or property owner will comply with the all mitigation measures outlined in the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 5. NOISE. All on-site activities shall be subject to the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC. 6. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 7. ADDITIONAL PARKING LAYOUT REFINEMENTS. Screening for the transformer location proposed in the Alternate Parking Layout must be reviewed and approved to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning prior to building permit issuance. In addition, the parking layout shall be revised to provide a 10 foot radius from the nearest parking stall to the trunk of the protected oak tree prior to building permit issuance. 8. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 9. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Estimated Development Impact Fees in the amount of $101,424 shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 10. REQUIRED PUBLIC ART. In conformance with PAMC 16.61, and to the satisfaction of the Public Art Commission, the property owner and/or applicant shall select an artist and received final approval of the art plan, or pay the in-lieu fee equivalent to 1% of the estimated construction valuation, prior to obtaining a Building permit. All required artwork shall be installed as approved by the Public Art Commission and verified by Public Art staff prior to release of the final Use and Occupancy permit. The proposed public art must be shown on the building permits plans and must comply with all applicable municipal code requirements, including but not limited to building code requirements. 11. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90- day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 12. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 13. PRELIMINARY PARCEL MAP. A preliminary parcel map with exceptions is required for the merger of two parcels APN: 167-04-011 and 167-04-012. The applicant will record the Final Parcel Map with Santa Clara County Prior to Issuance of a building or grading and excavation permit. 14. OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49060 is a copy of recently approved conceptual plans. Offsite improvements should be coordinated with building permit set. 15. DEMOLITION PLAN: Place the following note adjacent to an affected tree on the Site Plan and Demolition Plan: “Excavation activities associated with the proposed scope of work shall occur no closer than 10-feet from the existing street tree, or as approved by the Urban Forestry Division contact 650-496-5953. Any changes shall be approved by the same”. 16. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property that are broken, badly cracked, displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter strip. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650- 496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the inspector can determine the extent of replacement work. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work or include a note that Public Works’ inspector has determined no work is required. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 17. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’ arborist at 650-496- 5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’ arborist (650- 496-5953). 18. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 19. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. 20. DEWATERING: Basement excavations may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level. We recommend a piezometer to be installed in the soil boring. The contractor must determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using the piezometer or by drilling an exploratory hole if the deepest excavation will be within 3 feet of the highest anticipated groundwater level. If groundwater is found within 2 feet of the deepest excavation, a drawdown well dewatering system must be used, or alternatively, the contractor can excavate for the basement and hope not to hit groundwater, but if he does, he must immediately stop all work and install a drawdown well system before he continues to excavate. Public Works may require the water to be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for the contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. Applicant shall install a water station for the reuse of dewatering water. This water station shall be constructed next to the right-of-way and shall be accessible 24 hours a day for the filling of water carrying vehicles (i.e. street sweepers, etc.). The water station shall also be sued for onsite dust control. Applicant shall meet with Public Works to coordinate the design details. Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Street Work Permit. The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a street work permit prior to dewatering. Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. Public Works has a sample dewatering plan sheet and dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website. 21. WATER FILLING STATION: Due to the California drought, applicant shall install a water station for the non-potable reuse of the dewatering water. This water station shall be constructed within private property, next to the right-of-way, (typically, behind the sidewalk). The station shall be accessible 24 hours a day for the filling of water carrying vehicles (i.e. street sweepers, etc.). The water station may also be used for onsite dust control. Before a discharge permit can be issued, the water supply station shall be installed, ready for operational and inspected by Public Works. The groundwater will also need to be tested for contaminants and chemical properties for the non- potable use. The discharge permit cannot be issued until the test results are received. Additional information regarding the station will be made available on the City’s website under Public Works. 22. GROUNDWATER USE PLAN: A Groundwater Use Plan (GWUP) shall be submitted for review for any project which requires dewatering. The GWUP, a narrative that shall be included in or accompany the Dewatering Plan, must demonstrate the highest beneficial use practicable of the pumped groundwater. The GWUP shall also state that all onsite, non-potable water needs such as dust control shall be met by using the pumped groundwater. Delays in submitting the GWUP can result in delays in the issuance of your discharge permit as Public Works requires sufficient review time which shall be expected by the applicant. 23. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations and drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of 2%. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales. Grading will not be allowed that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from, neighboring properties. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan Guidelines for New Single Family Residences: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 24. Provide the following note on the Grading and Drainage Plan and/or Site Plan: “Contractor shall contact Public Works Engineering (PWE) Inspectors to inspect and approve the storm drain system (pipes, area drains, inlets, bubblers, dry wells, etc.) associated with the project prior to backfill. Contractor shall schedule an inspection, at minimum 48-hours in advance by calling (650)496- 6929”. 25. GRADING & EXCAVATION PERMIT: The site plan must include an earthworks table showing cut and fill volumes. If the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. An application and plans for a grading permit are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 26. Provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall including the following: pad elevation, basement elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, shoring for the proposed basement, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for the basement access, crane locations (if any), etc. Plans submitted for the Grading and Excavation Permit, shall be stand-alone, and therefore the plans shall include any conditions from other divisions that pertain to items encountered during rough grading for example if contaminated groundwater is encountered and dewatering is expected, provide notes on the plans based Water Quality’s conditions of approval. Provide a note on the plans to direct the contractor to the approve City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map, which is available on the City’s website. 27. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 28. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. 29. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 30. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project shall comply with the storm water regulations contained in provision C.3 of the NPDES municipal storm water discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (and incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11). These regulations apply to land development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface, and restaurants, retail gasoline outlets, auto service facilities, and uncovered parking lots that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. In order to address the potential permanent impacts of the project on storm water quality, the applicant shall incorporate into the project a set of permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to protect storm water quality, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. The applicant shall identify, size, design and incorporate permanent storm water pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape-based treatment controls such as bioswales, filter strips, and permeable pavement rather than mechanical devices that require long-term maintenance) to treat the runoff from a “water quality storm” specified in PAMC Chapter 16.11 prior to discharge to the municipal storm drain system. Effective February 10, 2011, regulated projects, must contract with a qualified third-party reviewer during the building permit review process to certify that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. The certification form, 2 copies of approved storm water treatment plan, and a description of Maintenance Task and Schedule must be received by the City from the third-party reviewer prior to approval of the building permit by the Public Works department. Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, third-party reviewer shall also submit to the City a certification for approval that the project’s permanent measures were constructed and installed in accordance to the approved permit drawings. 31. Bio-retention swales shall be designed to use the full swale length for treatment, place the bubbler (outlet) and catch basin (inlet) at the ends of the swale. 32. “NO DUMPING” LOGO: The applicant is required to paint the “No Dumping/Flows to Laurel Creek” logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to all onsite storm drain inlets. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. A deposit may be required to secure the return of the stencil. Include the directions to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. 33. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. The plan will be attached to a street work permit. 34. Any above grade structure such as private signs, backflow preventers, transformers, utility cabinets, irrigation equipment, charge stations, etc or below ground grease interceptors that serve the private development shall all be located completely within private property. Plot and clearly label these structures on the Site Plan and Utility Plan. 35. PAVEMENT: This section of Arastradero was resurfaced in 2010. Any cutting into the pavement will trigger additional pavement requirements. Add the following note to the Site Plan adjacent to the public right-of-way: “Applicant and contractor will be responsible for resurfacing portions of Arastradero Road based the roadway surface condition after project completion and limits of trench work. At a minimum pavement resurfacing of the full width of the street along the project frontage may be required.” Plot and label the area to be resurfaced as hatched on the site plan. 36. SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the building permit plan set that says, “The contractor using the city sidewalk to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians using the sidewalk. The work area must be coned or taped off while still leaving at least 4 feet of sidewalk for pedestrian use. If less than 4 feet of sidewalk is available for pedestrians, the contractor must obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works to close the sidewalk.” 37. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and Grading and Drainage Plan: “Contractor shall not stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of-way.” Construction phasing shall be coordinate to keep materials and equipment onsite. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT FINAL 38. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to the first building occupancy sign-off. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. There is currently a $350 C.3 plan check fee that will be collected upon submittal for a grading or building permit. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY CONDITIONS PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 39. A healthy mature coast live oak tree is prominently visible to the Arastradero Road frontage and neighborhood, contributing as an important visual, aesthetic and biological resource. Per the Comprehensive Plan, Map L-4, Primary Entry & Scenic Route of Palo Alto, abutting the Hetch Hetchy Trail system, Prominent site-defining natural tree feature [Zoning, 18.76.020 (d)(11)] and tree ordinance protected [PAMV 18.10). Designated oak #2 requires mitigation for protection and retention. Mitigation measures to preserve this tree resource include an updated tree preservation report, security deposit and a low impact final design requirement to maintain existing root grade within 25 feet of the tree with pervious surface material. 40. NEW STREET TREES. Plans shall show five new trees (Shumard Oak) installed 10’ clear of any underground lines per plans, leaving space for designated oak #2 to grow. Sidewalk base for the five new trees shall provide root channel material, Engineered Soil Mix of 800 cu.ft. per tree, as coordinated with project arborist and reflected on Grading and Improvement Plans (see New Trees below.) 41. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL--TREE APPRAISAL & SECURITY DEPOSIT AGREEMENT. (Reference: CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.25). Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall prepare and secure a tree appraisal and security deposit agreement stipulating the duration and monitoring program. The appraisal, condition and replacement value Designated Oak #2 shall consider the prominent visual location and function to the proposed development. For the purposes of a security deposit agreement, the monetary market or replacement value shall be determined using the most recent version of the “Guide for Plan Appraisal”, in conjunction with the Species and Classification Guide for Northern California. The appraisal shall be performed at the applicant’s expense, and the appraiser shall be subject to the Director’s approval. a. SECURITY DEPOSIT AGREEMENT. Prior to grading or building permit issuance, as a condition of development approval, the applicant shall post a security deposit for the 150% of the appraised replacement value of the Designated Oak #2 to be retained and protected. The security may be a cash deposit, letter of credit, or surety bond and shall be filed with the Revenue Collections/Finance Department or in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney. b. SECURITY DEPOSIT & MONITORING PROGRAM. The project sponsor shall provide to the City of Palo Alto an annual tree evaluation and photo report prepared by the project arborist or other qualified certified arborist, assessing the condition and recommendations to correct potential tree decline for trees remain and trees planted as part of the mitigation program. The monitoring program shall end five years from date of final occupancy, unless extended due to tree mortality and replacement, in which case a new five year monitoring program and annual evaluation report for the replacement tree shall begin. Prior to occupancy, a final report and assessment shall be submitted for City review and approval. The final report shall summarize the Tree Resources program, documenting tree or site changes to the approved plans, update status of tree health and recommend specific tree care maintenance practices for the property owner(s). The owner or project sponsor shall call for a final inspection by the Planning Arborist. c. SECURITY DEPOSIT DURATION. The security deposit duration period shall be five years from the date of final occupancy. Return of the security guarantee shall be subject to City approval of the final monitoring report. A tree shall be considered dead when the main leader has died back, 25% of the crown is dead or if major trunk or root damage is evident. A new tree of equal or greater appraised value shall be planted in the same area by the property owner. Landscape area and irrigation shall be readapted to provide optimum growing conditions for the replacement tree. The replacement tree that is planted shall be subject to a new five-year establishment and monitoring program. The project sponsor shall provide an annual tree evaluation report as originally required. 42. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL - PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b)* verified all his/her updated TPR mitigation measures and changes are incorporated in the plan set, (c) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (d) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. * (b above) other information. The Building Permit submittal set shall be accompanied by the project site arborist’s certification letter that the plans have incorporated said design changes and are consistent with City Tree Technical Manual Standards, Regulations and information: a. Provide a project arborist’s Updated Tree Protection Report (TPR) with building permit level mitigation measures, (e.g., resolve grading proximity issues with Public trees; exact TPZ scaled in feet). Provide plan revision directions to minimize root cutting conflicts that are obvious in the civil, basement, sidewalk improvement sheets. See TPR below. b. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual Construction Standards, Section 2.00 and PAMC 8.10.080. 43. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on relevant plan sheets: a. SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full-sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban Forestry/Contractor is mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: Insp. #1-7 applies) b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s updated construction level TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor, (Davey Consultants, March 1, 2016) shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc.) and added to the sheet index. Eliminate the conflict between the proposed Storm Drain and Designated Tree #1. c. Include a Tree Disposition Sheet. Plans to show protective tree fencing for retained trees and those removed. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must number all trees and delineate/show the correct configuration of Type I, Type II or Type III fencing enclosing each Regulated Tree, using a bold dashed line scaling the Tree Protection Zone (Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T-1; City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans); or by using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. 44. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS: In addition to showing TPZ fencing, add the following Notes on the specified Plan Sheets. a. Note #1. Apply to the site plan stating, "All tree protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations, watering and construction scheduling shall be implemented in full by owner and contractor, as stated on Sheet T-1, in the Tree Protection Report and the approved plans”. b. Note #2. All civil plans, grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans and relevant sheets shall add a note applying to the trees to be protected, including neighboring trees stating: "Regulated Tree--before working in this area contact the Project Site Arborist at 650-321-0202"; c. Note #3. Civil plans and landscape plans shall add note: “Designated Oak #1 to Remain. Maintain Existing Root Grade of 87.9+.” d. Note #4. Utility (sanitary sewer/gas/water/backflow/electric/storm drain) plan sheets shall include the following note: “Utility trenching shall not occur within the TPZ of the protected tree. Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that no trenching occurs within the TPZ of the protected tree by contractors, City crews or final landscape workers. See sheet T-1 for instructions.” 45. NEW RIGHT-OF-WAY TREES--PLAN REQUIREMENTS. New trees shall be shown on all relevant plans: site, utility, irrigation, landscape, etc. in a location 10’ clear radius from any (new or existing) underground utility or curb cut. a. Add note on the Planting Plan that states, “Tree Planting. Prior to in-ground installation, Urban Forestry inspection/approval required for tree stock, planting conditions and irrigation adequacy. Contact (650-496-5953).” b. Landscape Plans shall state the Urban Forestry approved species, size and include relevant Standard Planting Dwg. #603, #603a or #604 (reference which), and shall note the tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. c. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. d. Add note on the Planting & Irrigation Plan that states, “Irrigation and tree planting in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards.” e. Automatic irrigation shall be provided for each tree. Standard Dwg. #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. Bubblers mounted inside an aeration tube are prohibited. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. 46. NEW TREES—SOIL VOLUME. Unless otherwise approved, six new right-of-way trees each new tree shall be provided with 800 cubic feet of rootable soil area, utilizing Standard Dwg. #604/513. Rootable soil shall mean compaction less than 90% over the area, not including sidewalk base areas except when mitigated. Sidewalk or asphalt base underlayment [in lieu of compacted base rock] shall use an Alternative Base Material method such as Engineered Soil Mix (PW Standard Specification, Sec. 30). Design and manufacturer details shall be added to relevant civil and landscape sheets. Note: this expectation requires coordination with the engineer, arborist and landscape architect. a. Minimum soil volume for tree size growth performance (in cubic feet): Large: 1,200 cu.ft. Medium: 800 cu.ft. Small: 400 cu.ft. b. Landscape Plan. When qualifying for parking area shade ordinance compliance (PAMC 18.40.130) trees shall be labeled (as S, M or L). 47. LANDSCAPE PLANS a. Include all changes recommended from civil engineer, architect and staff, including planting specifications if called for by the project arborist, b. Provide a detailed landscape and irrigation plan encompassing on-and off-site plantable areas out to the curb. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for the project. A licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant will prepare these plans, to include: i. All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including street trees. ii. Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations. iii. Irrigation schedule and plan. iv. Fence locations. v. Landscape Plan shall ensure the backflow device is adequately obscured with the appropriate screening to minimize visibility (planted shrubbery is preferred, painted dark green, decorative boulder covering acceptable; wire cages are discouraged). vi. All new trees planted within the public right-of-way shall be installed per Public Works (PW) Standard Planting Diagram #603 or 604 (include on plans), and shall have a tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. vii. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. viii. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees. For trees, Standard Dwg. #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. Bubblers shall not be mounted inside an aeration tube. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Irrigation in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards. c. Add Planting notes to include the following mandatory criteria: i. Prior to any planting, all plantable areas shall be tilled to 12” depth, and all construction rubble and stones over 1” or larger shall be removed from the site. ii. A turf-free zone around trees 36” diameter (18” radius) required for best tree performance. d. Add note: “Mandatory Landscape Architect (LA) Inspections and Verification to the City. The LA shall verify the performance measurements are achieved with a letter of verification to City Planning staff, in addition to owner’s representative for the following: i. All the above landscape plan and tree requirements are in the Building Permit set of plans. ii. Percolation & drainage checks have been performed and are acceptable. iii. Fine grading inspection of all plantable areas has been personally inspected for tilling depth, rubble removal, soil test amendments are mixed and irrigation trenching will not cut through any tree roots. iv. Tree and Shrub Planting Specifications, including delivered stock, meets Standards in the CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.30-3.50. Girdling roots and previously topped trees are subject to rejection. DURING CONSTRUCTION 48. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to any site work a written verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Section (derek.sproat@cityofpaloalto.org). The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 49. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 50. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, (Davey resource Group, 650-475-5400), or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 51. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 52. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 53. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY 54. URBAN FORESTRY DIGITAL FILE & INSPECTION. The applicant or architect shall provide a digital file of the landscape plan, including new off-site trees in the publicly owned right-of-way. A USB Flash Drive, with CAD or other files that show species, size and exact scaled location of each tree on public property, shall be delivered to Urban Forestry at a tree and landscape inspection scheduled by Urban Forestry (650-496-5953). 55. LANDSCAPE CERTIFICATION LETTER. The Planning Department shall be in receipt of a verification letter that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. 56. PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to written request for temporary or final occupancy, the contractor shall provide to the Planning Department and property owner a final inspection letter by the Project Arborist. The inspection shall evaluate the success or needs of Regulated tree protection, including new landscape trees, as indicated on the approved plans. The written acceptance of successful tree preservation shall include a photograph record and/or recommendations for the health, welfare, mitigation remedies for injuries (if any). The final report may be used to navigate any correction issues, concerns or security guarantee return process, when applicable. 57. PLANNING INSPECTION. Prior to final sign off, contractor or owner shall contact the city planner (650-329-2441) to inspect and verify Special Conditions relating to the conditions for structures, fixtures, colors and site plan accessories. POST CONSTRUCTION 58. MAINTENANCE. The designated oak, all landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2008 or current version) and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.00. Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. UTILITIES ELECTRIC ENGINEERING CONDITIONS The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc.: 59. Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested. 60. A completed Utility Service Application and a full set of plans must be included with all applications involving electrical work. The Application must be included with the preliminary submittal. 61. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. 62. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 63. Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. 64. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be checked for underground facility marking shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 65. The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to California Electric Code requirements and no 1/2 – inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer’s expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. 66. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at the depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. 67. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. 68. For services larger than 1600 amps, a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility’s padmount transformer and the customer’s main switchgear may be required. See City of Palo Alto Utilities Standard Drawing SR-XF-E-1020. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Division for review and approval. 69. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct or x-flex cable must be used for connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of a transition cabinet will not be required. 70. The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the California Electric Code and the City Standards. 71. Meter and switchboard requirements shall be in accordance with Electric Utility Service Equipment Requirements Committee (EUSERC) drawings accepted by Utility and CPA standards for meter installations. 72. Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and greater) and associated hardware must be submitted for review and approval prior to installing the switchgear to: Gopal Jagannath, P.E. Supervising Electric Project Engineer Utilities Engineering (Electrical) 1007 Elwell Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 73. For 400A switchboards only, catalog cut sheets may be substituted in place of factory drawings. 74. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. 75. The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboards, conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and switch/transformer pads. 76. The follow must be completed before Utilities will make the connection to the utility system and energize the service:  All fees must be paid.  All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector.  All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant.  Easement documents must be completed. UTILITILES - WATER, GAS, WASTEWATER The following comments must be included on the building permit plans prior to issuance of the building permit: 77. Prior to demolition any water service, gas service, or wastewater lateral not in use must be disconnected and abandoned. 78. Each unit shall have its own water and gas meter. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service, and wastewater lateral connection. 79. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. 80. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. FIRE DEPARTMENT The following comments must be included on the building permit plans prior to issuance of the building permit: 81. Install a NFPA 13 Fire Sprinkler and NFP 72 voice notification fire alarm system. Overhangs and covered/partial covered areas will require fire sprinkler protection. 82. Install new public fire hydrant in front of 689 Arastradero Rd. GREEN BUILDING The following comments must be addressed prior to building permit issuance: 83. CALGreen Checklist: The project is a new nonresidential construction project greater than 1,000 square feet, therefore, the project must comply with California Green Building Standards Code Mandatory plus Tier 2 requirements, as applicable to the scope of work. PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. The submittal requirements are outlined here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/compliance.asp. 84. CALGreen Checklist: The project is a new nonresidential addition project greater than 1,000 square feet and therefore must comply with California Green Building Standards Code Mandatory plus Tier 2 requirements, as applicable to the scope of work. PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. The submittal requirements are outlined here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/compliance.asp. 85. Commissioning: If the project is a new building over 10,000 square feet, then the project must meet the commissioning requirements outlined in the California Building Code section 5.410.2 for Planning Approval. The project team shall re-submit the Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR) in accordance with section 5.410.2.1 with an updated Basis of Design (BOD) in accordance with 5.410.2.2 that reflects the design elements finalized between Planning Approval and Permit Submittal. The project shall also submit a Commissioning Plan in accordance with 5.410.2.3. 86. Energy Benchmarking: If the project is a nonresidential projects exceeding $100,000 valuation, then the project must acquire an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Rating and submit the rating to the City of Palo Alto once the project has been occupied after 12 months. PAMC 16.14.380 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The Energy Star Project Profile shall be submitted to the Building Department prior to permit issuance. Submittal info can be found at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/benchmarking_your_building.asp. 87. Recycled Water Infrastructure: If the project is greater than 100,000 square feet and is not within the boundaries of a recycled water project area, then the project must install dual plumbing for use of recycled water for toilet and urinal flushing. PAMC 16.14.300 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 88. Recycled Water Infrastructure for Landscape: If the project is outside the boundaries of the recycled water project area and is greater than 1,000 square feet, then the project must install recycled water infrastructure for irrigation systems. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 89. Recycled Water Infrastructure for Landscape: If the project is either a new construction or a rehabilitated landscape and is greater than 1,000 square feet, then the project must install a dedicated irrigation meter related to the recycled water infrastructure. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 90. Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance: If the new non-residential development project has an aggregate (combined) landscape area equal to or greater than 500 square feet, the project is subject to the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). See MWELO Submittal Guidelines. 91. Landscape: If the a nonresidential project is either a tenant improvement/renovation construction project with a landscape area greater than 1,000 square feet, then the project must comply with potable water elimination. PAMC 16.14.350 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. The submittal requirements are outlined on the Utilities Landscape Efficiency site: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/residents/resrebate/landscape.asp. 92. Construction & Demolition: If the project is a nonresidential new construction or renovation project and has a value exceeding $25,000, then the project must meet the Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction Tier 2. PAMC 16.14.240 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. 93. Construction & Demolition: If the project includes non-residential demolition, then the project must meet the Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction- Tier 2 Mandatory for all nonresidential construction include new construction, additions, and alteration, as long as the construction has a valuation exceeding $25,000. PAMC 16.14.370 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. https://www.greenhalosystems.com 94. Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment: If the project is a new non-residential structure, then the project must comply with the City of Palo Alto Electric Vehicle Charging Ordinance 5324. The project shall provide Conduit Only, EVSE-Ready Outlet, or EVSE Installed for at least 25% of parking spaces, among which at least 5% (and no fewer than one) shall be EVSE Installed. The requirements shall be applied separately to accessible parking spaces. See Ordinance 5324 for EVSE definitions, minimum circuit capacity, and design detail requirements. PAMC 16.14.430 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) See http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54976 for additional details. The following is required at Post-Construction after 12 months of occupancy: 95. Energy Benchmarking: If the project is a nonresidential projects exceeding $100,000 valuation, then the project must acquire an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Rating and submit the rating to the City of Palo Alto once the project has been occupied after 12 months. PAMC 16.14.250 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). Submittal info can be found at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/benchmarking_your_building.asp. Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 7251) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/17/2016 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 693 Arastradero Road (Bowman School annex) Title: QUASI-JUDICIAL MATTER / PUBLIC HEARING. 693 Arastradero Road [16PLN-00089]: Consideration of applicant's request for approval of an Architectural Review permit for the demolition of three existing single family homes and construction of a new preschool (60 children) and expansion of the Bowman School on Terman Drive. There is no proposed change to the existing enrollment limitation of 300 students. Three new structures will have a combined floor area of 17,132 square feet and will be used for the preschool, gymnasium and classrooms. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study is being prepared. No action from the ARB will be taken at this meeting. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Conduct a public hearing to provide comments on plans, receive public testimony, and continue the project to a date uncertain. Report Summary The applicant is proposing a satellite expansion of Bowman International School on Arastradero Road, approximately 500 feet south from the existing school site on Terman Drive. The project replaces three single family homes built circa 1960 with a single story classroom and administrative office building, a single story science lab and art building with a basement, and a single story gymnasium. The existing single family homes were once deemed potentially eligible for the California Registry of Historical Resources, however, after preparation of an historic resource evaluation, that conclusion is no longer supported. In addition to the Architectural Review request, the applicant seeks a conditional use permit to establish a private education facility at this location; a variance for more excavation than City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 allowed in the R1 zone; and a parcel map with a conditional exception to merge the two residential lots into one, in excess of the maximum allowed R1 lot size. The ARB may comment on these other applications, but only has purview over the Architectural Review findings. There are policy related considerations associated with the project, including the loss of three residential dwelling units from the city’s housing stock that must be balanced with other comprehensive plan objectives for schools in close proximity to residential neighborhoods. Additionally, this report highlights other issues for the Board’s consideration related to site access, queuing and site planning. Due to the pending environmental analysis, no action approving the project can be made at this time. Background Project Information Owner: Bowman International School Architect: Pacific Peninsula Architecture, Inc. Representative: Colleen Reilly Legal Counsel: Not Applicable Property Information Address: 689 – 693 Arastradero Road Neighborhood: Green Acres adjacent Lot Dimensions & Area: Approximately 231 ft. by 309 ft.; 54,894 sf Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Oak Tree located at the front of the property – to remain Historic Resource(s): An Historic Resources Evaluation has been prepared; the existing structures are not eligible for the California Registry of Historical Resources. Existing Improvement(s): Three single story single family homes: 689 Arastradero – house, detached garage, and accessory structure built circa 1948; 691 Arastradero – house built circa 1958, 693 Arastradero – house and detached garage built circa 1960 Existing Land Use(s): Single Family Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: R-1 (10,000) Single Family Residential Zoning (Church) West: R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning (Single Family Residential) East: RM-30 Multi Family Residential Zoning (Multi Family Residential) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 South: Public Facility Zoning/Open Space (Palo Alto – Los Altos Bike Path) Aerial View of Property: Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: R-1 (10,000) Comp. Plan Designation: Single Family Context-Based Design Criteria: Not Applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes, in a Residential Neighborhood City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: 15PLN-00254 Preliminary Architectural Review 10/15/2015 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49416 Project Description Bowman International School is a non-profit Montessori school currently serving K-8th grade students in multi-aged classrooms at 4000 Terman Drive. Bowman is a year-round school where students are taught individually or in small groups. The applicant is proposing to construct a new preschool campus at 693 Arastradero Road and to provide additional amenities for the upper grades. The project would include construction of a new 17,132 square foot private school campus including three school buildings, exterior play area, garden, sunken learning circle, associated landscaping, and a 21 space parking lot and driveway. The front setback area includes a large oak tree that would be preserved. The three new school buildings include an 11,350 square foot gymnasium/stage, a 2,399 square foot single story classroom building with a 2,312 square foot basement (IDEAlab), and a 3,384 square foot primary building for use by the Juniors program (preschool). Bowman is requesting capacity for up to 60 students in two classrooms, comprised of three to five year olds. Approximately 20 five year olds are currently enrolled in the Juniors program at the Terman site. Enrollment at the Bowman School is currently limited to 300 students. No change to the overall enrollment is proposed. Terman would have a maximum 240 students and the preschool would be limited to 60 preschoolers. The Arastradero Site would also include the IDEAlab, which will provide dedicated space for STEAM activities (Woodshop, Art, Science and Media), as well as a multi-purpose gymnasium for sports, PE, and all-school gatherings. These areas would be used by students from both the Terman and Arastradero sites, but would not add to the student population. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested:  Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Development Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B.  Conditional Use Permit – CUP: A CUP is required for a private educational facility in the Single Family Residential zone district (as noted above, a separate application is being processed separately for the existing site at 4000 Terman). The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. CUP applications are reviewed by the Planning and Community Environment Director. Action by the Director is appealable to the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. CUPs are evaluated against specific findings set forth in PAMC 18.76.010. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial.  Variance: A Variance is required for the below grade amphitheater, which exceeds the maximum allowable area for excavated features in the Single Family Zone District; the code limits sunken areas adjacent to a basement to 200 square feet and the project proposes 3,140 square feet. The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. Variance applications are reviewed by the Planning and Community Environment Director. Action by the Director is appealable to the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. CUPs are evaluated against specific findings set forth in PAMC 18.76.030. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial.  Preliminary Parcel Map: The process for evaluating a subdivision is set forth in PAMC 21.12.090. Preliminary Map applications are typically reviewed by the Planning and Community Environment Director. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision (as noted above, this application is being processed separately). This project, however, requires approval of a conditional exception to allow the combined parcels to exceed the maximum allowed site area of 19,999 square feet. The findings for the exception are set forth in PAMC 21.32.020 (b). Subdivision exceptions are reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission and acted upon by the City Council. (PAMC 21.32.030.) Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The project site is located in a predominately residential neighborhood, containing a variety of uses. Properties to the northeast along Arastradero Road are zoned Single-Family Residential (R-1(10,000)) and include the Palo Alto Christian Reformed Church, single family homes on Ynigo Way and the existing Bowman School Terman site. Properties to the southeast of the site, zoned PF and RE, include the Hetch Hetchy right-of-way/Pedestrian Trail and Alta Mesa 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Memorial Park. To the north of the site, across Arastradero, properties are zoned R-1 and are single-family residences. To the west is multi-family housing, zoned RM-40, and Gunn High School. To the east of the site (rear) is the Terman Apartments, multi-family, zoned RM-30. A variety of architectural styles are present in the neighborhood, including mid-century and more contemporary styles. The site would be constructed with small scale, residential style buildings at the front of the property. The taller 26-foot gymnasium building would be located towards the rear of the site where it is less visible from the street. Parking would be located at the front of the property along Arastradero, consistent with parking lot locations of the adjacent Palo Alto Christian Reformed Church and the existing Bowman School Terman site. Zoning Compliance2 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment C. The proposed project is seeking through the requested permits permission to deviate from certain code standards, in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Bowman School is proposing to merge two existing lots to create one parcel for the school site with a total lot are of 54,894 square feet, which exceeds the maximum allowable lot size of 19,999 square feet for the R-1(10,000) zone district. This will require a Preliminary Parcel Map with Exceptions application that will be reviewed by the City Council after a recommendation by the PTC and is outside the ARB’s purview. Bowman School is also proposing a Sunken Learning Circle with a stage, set below grade between the IDEAlab and the Gymnasium/Stage, to create a quiet area for group gatherings or individual learning. The below grade nature of this learning circle is designed to contain noise from the use of the area and would be screened from off-site views. Because the Sunken Learning Circle also serves as a way to provide light to the lower level of the IDEAlab, it is classified as a “below grade patio”. Zoning Code Section 18.12.090(c)(2) limits this below grade patio to a maximum of 200 square feet. Therefore, the proposed approximately 3,140 square feet Sunken Learning Circle would require a variance to exceed the maximum size limitation of 200 square feet. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 The 1998 Comprehensive Plan provides City-wide goals for land use and community design. For residential neighborhoods, Goal L-3 envisions “Safe, attractive residential neighborhoods, each with its own distinct character and within walking distance of shopping, services, schools, and/or other public gathering places.”. The proposed project site is located in a residential neighborhood, allowing for residents to walk to the proposed private school. 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Policy L-12 encourages development to “Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures.” The proposed structures appear modest in scale, and the site has been designed to be compatible with the neighborhood by concentrating the 26 foot tall gymnasium at the rear of the site, away from the street view. A color palette of muted tones is proposed throughout at the site, as most of the surrounding residences and buildings have muted tones. Policy L-17 encourages development to “Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches, and other amenities that favor pedestrians.” Arastradero Road is a local residential street with sidewalks that contain a planter strip with a variety of street trees on both sides of the street. New street trees will be planted in front of the project site along the Arastradero Road. The existing mature live oak at the front of the property will be retained and protected during construction. The site will also provide access to the Pedestrian Trail on the Hetch Hetchy right-of-way. Policy L-61 encourages development to “promote the use of community and cultural centers, libraries, local schools, parks, and other community facilities as gathering places. Ensure that they are inviting and safe places that can deliver a variety of community services during both daytime and evening hours.” The proposed project includes a gymnasium and below grade amphitheater/learning circle, which will also serve as gathering places for students and families. The project proposes approximately 40 special events to occur before and after school hours. Policy L-75 encourages development to “Minimize the negative physical impacts of parking lots. Locate parking behind buildings or underground wherever possible.” The project proposes a parking lot with 20 parking spaces toward the front of the property nearest Arastradero Road. The parking lot is located in front of the proposed school buildings, but located behind a 24-foot landscaped setback from Arastradero. The ARB has previously reviewed this design approach during the preliminary review and is encouraged to evaluate the proposed design relative this policy and as it relates to the circulation related concerns addressed below. The Housing Element includes Policy H1.1 to “promote the rehabilitation of deteriorating or substandard residential properties using sustainable and energy conserving approaches.” The project site contains three existing housing units that are currently vacated. The proposed project would remove the three housing units, which would be replaced by the proposed school. Parking and Transportation Vehicular Parking In accordance with Zoning Code Section 18.52, day care centers/preschools are required to have one parking space per 1.5 employees. Whereas, elementary schools are required to have two parking spaces per teaching station and office space requires one parking space per 250 square feet. To ensure there is sufficient parking, parking is being provided for all classrooms, even if Bowman intends these rooms to be used as breakout space for existing students. Based City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 on the applicant’s reported six employees for the daycare/preschool and a conservative application of the teaching station parking requirement for the buildings and outdoor learning area, a total of 20 parking spaces are required. The applicant is providing 20 spaces toward the front of the property nearest Arastradero. Bicycle Parking In accordance with Zoning Code Section 18.52, day care centers/preschools are required to have one bike parking space per 6 employees. As noted above, parking is being provided for all classrooms, even if Bowman intends these rooms to be used as breakout space for existing students. As shown on Sheet MAR1 in Attachment H, this comes to a total bicycle parking requirement of 14 spaces. The project proposes 16 bicycle spaces. Circulation Sheet MAR6 in Attachment H, shows the school’s proposed circulation plan. The applicant proposes a new one-way driveway and parking layout accessed by a right-turn only in driveway at the southwestern corner of the property and a right-turn only out driveway at the northeastern corner of the property. The right-turn only approach to the circulation pattern is necessitated by the City proposed median improvements for the portion of Arastradero Road fronting the property. The applicant reports that the proposed median improvements will prevent a left-turn in or out of the applicant’s property with the exception of bicycles utilizing the left turn bike lane. The student drop-off and pickup area would be for the school’s Junior/preschool program (3 to 5 year olds, maximum of 60 students), which are the only full time students on site. The applicant proposes to have a “greeter” at this area during morning and afternoon peak periods to assist students in and out of vehicles. This type of adult supervision is intended to allow drivers remain in their cars while greeters assist passengers, which minimizes the time required for each drop-off or pickup. Parents with older children will then take a right turn out of the Arastradero site and proceed northeast to the Terman site. During the school day, students visiting the site will be 1st – 8th grade students from the school’s existing Terman site, who will walk from the Terman site to the Arastradero site. The applicant has reported that queuing has not been problematic at the current school site. Staff does have concern about the circulation pattern and has requested additional information from the applicant regarding vehicle queuing. Staff is particularly concerned about the potential for queuing to extend onto Arastradero and possibly impede eastbound through traffic. Reversing the direction of the ingress/egress driveways may be a modest improvement, but requires further review. Another concept staff has considered is to require the preschool and IDEAlab/Learning Circle to adjust closer toward the street and relocate the parking, driveway and queuing behind these buildings. Clearly this creates programmatic challenges for the school and the applicant correctly notes that this issue was not previously addressed during the City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 prescreen review. Staff requests the Board’s feedback on the queuing concerns expressed above and whether relocating the buildings, driveway and queuing should be explored further. Traffic Bowman has stated that current enrollment at their Terman site is 237 students, where they have approvals for 300 students. With this application, Bowman is proposing that total enrollment at both sites would not exceed this currently permitted 300 students. To ensure this is the case, Bowman has proposed to limit enrollment on the Terman site to 240 students. The new campus will also require a Conditional Use Permit that will be conditioned to limit enrollment on this site to 60 students for a maximum of 300 students across both sites. While the CUPs are not subject to ARB purview, the Board is responsible for reviewing access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles (Finding 10) and that the planning and siting of various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order (Finding 7). The applicant is revising a traffic report that identified 100 percent of all trips would originate from the west. While the vast majority may, staff is concern about those instances when a motorist does not comply with this preferred approach. The ability to turn left into the project site from the east will be precluded by medians. Making a u-turn in front of the memorial park entrance is not desirable, located on a curve and there may be an insufficient turning radius to accommodate such a maneuver without making it a three-point turn. Staff is continuing to explore this issue and welcomes further perspective from the ARB. Special Events Bowman School proposes to host approximately 40 special events on both the Terman and Arastradero sites throughout the school year, from the months of August through June, a majority of which would occur at the Arastradero site. A table of existing and proposed special events has been included in Attachement F. Approximately 7 events would occur in the morning, between the hours of 8:30 am to 11:30 am, and approximately 33 events would occur in the evening, between the hours of 3:00 pm to 8:00 pm. The maximum estimated number of attendees at any one event is 300 attendees. Off-street parking for the events would be provided at the Terman site, Arastradero site, Terman Middle School, and the neighboring Palo Alto Christian Reformed Church per proposed parking agreements with Terman Middle School and the Church. Staff has requested additional information be included in the Traffic Impact Assessment to expand the analysis and discussion of projected parking demand for the event spaces based on the school’s programmed events and proposed capacity of the event facilities. Staff has requested the applicant provide the parking agreements and an alternative proposal in the event that the parking agreements cannot be upheld. The frequency of events will be evaluated as part of the requested conditional use permit, however, ARB comments on the special events as it relates to site design, planning, access and circulation are encouraged. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 Environmental Review The subject project is being assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The project will return for a recommendation once Environmental Review has been complete. A Traffic Impact Assessment has also been submitted by the applicant and peer reviewed by City staff and included as Attachment G. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on November 4, 2016, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on November 2, 2016, which is 15 in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, one written public comment in opposition of the proposed project was received and is included in Attachment D. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Victoria Hernandez, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2662 (650) 329-2575 victoria.hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Architectural Review Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Zoning Compliance Table (DOCX)  Attachment D: Public Comments (PDF)  Attachment E: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)  Attachment F: Special Events Table (PDF)  Attachment G: Traffic Impact Assessment with Appendix (PDF)  Attachment H: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org BOWMAN SCHOOL We inspire children to love learning in an academically challenging and internationally aware program that promotes respect, responsibility and independence 4 0 0 0 T E R MA N D R I V E • P A L O A L T O , C A • 9 4 3 0 6 P H O N E : 6 5 0 . 8 1 3 . 9 1 3 1 • FA X: 6 5 0 . 8 1 3 . 9 1 3 2 • W W W .B OW MA N S C H O O L . O R G Description of Daily Student Circulation at Bowman School – Arastradero Site Daily drop-off and pick-up:  The Bowman Children’s House opens at 7:30 am and closes at 6:00 pm.  Students in our Children’s House Program are dropped off between 7:30 am and 9:00 am Monday through Friday in a carpool lane system.  Students are picked up using the carpool lane between 3:30 pm and 4:00 pm.  Parents will not park for drop off during the peak hours.  Parents wishing to park and come in are encouraged to drop off and pick up outside of the 7:30- 9:00 and 3:30 to 4:00 time frames.  All parents will pull into our carpool lane and drop off their child according to our drop off system.  The site plan allows for 10 cars to be in line for drop off at any given time.  Over flow cars can pull up into the overflow line (to the left of the regular line). This system allows for 18 cars to be in the parking lot area/drop off lanes at a time.  Families with children at the Children’s House will enter Arastradero from Foothill and exit by turning right.  Families with children at both sites will enter Arastradero from Foothill and drop off at the Arastradero Site and then proceed to the Terman Site, by turning right.  There will be two adult greeters posted for greeting/exiting, helping students out and in to the cars, and directing of traffic from 8:30 am to 9:00 am and again from 3:30 pm to 4:00 pm (this is the same time as the Terman site).  Traffic cones will be placed at each parking stall during peak drop-off and pick-up times, 7:30- 9:00am and 3:30-4:00pm, to prevent visitors from parking in these stalls. Note: Due to the lengthy start time window, we do not see more than 5 cars lined up at a time at the 4000 Terman site. Students moving between Terman and Arastradero sites:  Students in Grades 1-8 will be assigned to classrooms at our Terman site. Those students will be picked up and dropped off at that site following our current procedure.  Students in Grades 1-6 will attend classes at the Arastradero site one day per week between the hours of 9:00 am and 3:30 pm. There are no more than 25 students in each class.  The class will walk to and from the site with a teacher via Arastradero (or the bike path behind Terman).  Students in Grade 7-8 with attend classes at the Arastradero site one day per week between the hours of 9:00 am and 3:30 pm AND be allowed to walk in limited pairs without supervision to and from each site during the hours of 9:00 am and 3:30 pm. 1/24/17  Students from the Terman Site will not be picked up / dropped off at the Arastradero Site on a regular basis.  Students from the Terman Site will not be present when pick up and drop off occur at the Arastradero Site.  Students with special needs who are unable to walk between sites will be transported appropriately.  Students from Terman visiting Arastradero will walk and use the side entrance and the gated entrance to visit the property from 3:30 pm-6:00pm. They will not be near or interfere with the Children’s House drop off at that time. Circulation of Students at the Arastradero Site:  The students enrolled in the Children’s House (ages 3-5) will attend classes and circulate on the site in the dedicated Children’s House area.  On occasion, the Children’s House will take a walking field trip to the Terman Site to visit the library, the music room, or attend a special event.  On occasion, the Children’s House will use the IDEA lab, gym, and other areas of the Arastradero Site, but their days will primarily be spent in the Children’s House area.  The Terman Site students will not enter the dedicated Children’s House area, unless there is a special event hosted at that location.  The students from the Terman Site will spend time with their class gardening, using the gym, and the four areas of the IDEA Lab at assigned times through out the week.  There are 8 designated areas at the Arastradero Site in addition to the Children’s House. 1. Gym 2. Learning Center 3. Gardens 4. Peace Area (memorial garden) 5. Idea Lab –woodshop 6. Idea Lab – art studio 7. Idea Lab- science lab 8. Idea Lab- media / tech lab  Small and large groups will be at the site daily engaging in lessons with the teachers in the various areas of the site. For ex: one group might be in the garden, while another is using the gym, and a third is in the woodshop. BOWMAN SCHOOL We inspire children to love learning in an academically challenging and internationally aware program that promotes respect, responsibility and independence 4 0 0 0 T E R MA N D R I V E • P A L O A L T O , C A • 9 4 3 0 6 P H O N E : 6 5 0 . 8 1 3 . 9 1 3 1 • FA X: 6 5 0 . 8 1 3 . 9 1 3 2 • W W W .B OW MA N S C H O O L . O RG Bowman School Bicycling and Carpool Program Bowman actively encourages families to carpool and to bike to school. In addition to the regular reminders at Parent evenings, in the handbook, and in our weekly and quarterly newsletters, Bowman also hosts two Walk/Ride to School Days and has an interactive carpool link on our website. 1. Bowman hosts Bike/Walk to School days two times per year. Families are encouraged to meet up at various locations and bike or walk to school on those days. Walk to School Day (an example from the school year 2016-2017) Help celebrate International Day of Peace by joining us for a walk to School on September 23, 2016. Although most families live too far away to walk to Bowman, we want to have a day to give the children an opportunity to walk to school with others. This year, groups of parents and kids will be leaving from two different locations, or you can take your own path. Option 1: Departs from the Sweet Shop in Los Altos (sweetshoplosaltos.com), which will open early just for us. They will have coffee, tea, and morning pastries available. Come around 8 am to get your morning nourishment. Departs at 8:15 am and 8:30 am. Distance – 0.6 mile walk to Bowman via the bike path. Bowman parents xxx and xxx will chaperone. Option 2: Departs from the Bol Park playground, Laguna Ave @ Laguna Court in Palo Alto. One group departs at 8:15 am promptly. Distance – 1 mile via the bike path. Bowman parents xxx and xxx will chaperone. For parents pressed for time, you may drop off your kids! We just ask that you let us know by signing up here at this link. RSVP deadline is 8 pm Thurs. Sept. 22. https://goo.gl/0iVUP4 No time to join the set groups? Make your own! How about parking just a bit farther away than usual? How about biking to school? All students who travel to the school from somewhere other than the school parking lot will receive a sticker showing they walked to school. Looking forward to seeing you there! 2. Bowman has a carpool link on our internal website and we encourage families to sign up and participate. We have approximately 10% of our families carpool on a regular basis. From the Carpool Link: Bowman collects data on parents who carpool- things like where people live, after school activities etc. so that it can be a resource for people looking to carpool. 1/24/17 If you are interested, please fill out the form at http://goo.gl/forms/pOzjctciI8 We’ve been talking about the best way to share this data, and currently we have visualized it on a google map. By clicking on each “pin” on the map shows the schedule for each child, as well as the contact information for the parent. In case you have multiple children you may need to fill it out twice, especially if they have different after school schedules. Comments: We give incentive to those who take public transit. We have 5% of staff who ride their bikes to work. We have 5 % of staff who take public transportation, We have 11 % of staff who carpool. We have 25% of staff who have their own children attend Bowman. Attachment G Environmental Analysis Directions to review Environmental Analysis online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “693 Arastradero” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “2017-04 Final IS/MND” for the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 6. Open the attachment named “2017-04 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan” for the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan From:Hanwant Singh To:Hernandez, Victoria Cc:lydiakou@gmail.com Subject:Re: 693 Arastradero Project; File number 16PLN-00089 Date:Thursday, July 28, 2016 9:23:55 AM Dear Ms. Hernandez, Thank you very much for providing much useful information. It addresses some of my concerns and I will attempt to stay abreast of future developments. Sincerely, Hanwant Singh On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Hernandez, Victoria <Victoria.Hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Dear Mr. Singh, Thank you for your comment on the proposed project. I would like to provide some details on the proposed project. The project request for File number 16PLN-00089 is not a zone change, rather a Conditional Use Permit, as schools are Conditionally Permitted in the Single Family Residential zone district. The Project requests a Conditional Use Permit for 689-693 Arastradero Road to allow up to 60 students at this site, and a modification to the current Conditional Use Permit for the existing site at 4000 Terman under File number 16PLN-00088. The modification for the current Conditional Use Permit at 4000 Terman is to reduce the number of students from 300 to 240 students at the Terman site. The current total number of 300 students will be maintained, however the request divides the students among two sites (only 60 allowed at the Arastradero Site). Also, the project at 689-693 Arastradero requests a Variance to allow a below grade amphitheater, which exceeds the maximum square footage allowed for excavated features in the Single Family Residential zone district. In addition, there is also a request for a Preliminary Parcel Map with Exceptions under File number 16PLN-00228 to combine the existing two lots, 689 Arastradero and 693 Arastradero. The exception is required as the total lot size will exceed the maximum allowed lot size in this Single Family Residential zone district. The Preliminary Parcel Map with exceptions must be reviewed by the Planning and Transportation and a decision must be made by the City Council. The proposal for the new buildings at 689-693 Arastradero will also go to public hearing with the Architectural Review Board. Once hearing dates are set, notice cards will be mailed out to let you know of the hearing and you are welcome to provide comments at the public hearings. I am also available to answer any questions you may have at any point in the application process. Please let me know if you have any questions, or would like to provide additional comments on the project. Your concerns and comments will be included in the project file and included during the planning review of the project. Thank you, Victoria Hernandez | Associate Planner | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2662 |E: victoria.hernandez@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you! From: Hanwant Singh [mailto:hanwant.b.singh@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, July 18, 2016 1:59 PMTo: Hernandez, VictoriaCc: lydiakou@gmail.comSubject: 693 Arastradero Project; File number 16PLN-00089 Dear Ms. Hernandez, I am a long time resident of Palo Alto with a single family one story house on 681 Arastradero Road. Changing zoning on a small single family home at 693 Arastradero Road to accommodate Bowman School expansion is a terrible idea. First of all Bowman, a private school, already has a very large building on Arastradero road that already creates a big mess. We currently have Gunn high school, Bowman school, and Terman school on Arastradero and Juana Briones is only a block away. The portion of Arastradero between El Camino and Foothill has already been hugely adversely impacted with congestion beyond belief. Exiting from Ynigo drive it is often impossible to make a left or a right turn due to the bumper to bumper traffic. Changing zoning to convert a single family home at 693 Arastradero Road to a 60 student school structure is wholly unacceptable and a very poor idea. This place should remain a single family home. I strongly oppose this project and recommend that this zoning request be denied. Sincerely, Hanwant B. Singh 681 Arastradero Road Palo Alto, CA 84306 -- Dr. Hanwant B. Singh -- Dr. Hanwant B. Singh 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Hodgkins, Claire Sent:Tuesday, May 02, 2017 2:14 PM To:'Penny Ellson' Subject:RE: Bowman Comments on DMND & Application Penny, I wanted to follow up on your comments regarding 693 Arastradero Road for the new Bowman School campus. I’ve provided my thoughts on your responses below in blue (your comments in black). As appropriate your comments have been considered in the Final IS/MND but many of your comments related to conditions of approval of the CUP so I wanted to also provide a comprehensive response to your comments in this e-mail. I wanted to also make you aware of two hearings: the first is a May 8th hearing in front of Council at 6pm to discuss only the preliminary parcel map portion of the project. The second is a hearing in front of the Architectural Review Board on May 18, 2017 starting at 8:30 a.m. Because the hearing in front of the ARB is tied to the application for the Condition Use Permit, the findings and conditions will be included in the draft findings and conditions of approval prepared for that hearing. I am still working with transportation on the language of the conditions and keeping your comments below in mind as we finalize those. The Staff report for the ARB hearing, which will include an attachment with these proposed draft conditions of approval will be available next Thursday. I’m happy to remind you/send you a link when that report becomes available online. The circulation plan in the 1/9/2017 Fehr and Peers Memorandum in the DMND Appendix (p.342 or 328) does not show the island at the 689/693 Arastradero driveway exit that was shown in the circulation plan we sat at the CSTSC. Which version is current? I prefer the version that was reviewed at the 2/9/2017 CSTSC meeting because it controls turning movements at the exit driveway better and provides better protection for left turns. The plan shown at the CSTSC meeting includes the Charleston/Arastradero corridor project median changes. The concept plan for that project has been approved by Council and final engineering revisions are currently under review. The project plans were updated to reflect the fact that the median will be there. The drop-off area is very short. Drop-off/pick-up delays could cause spillback onto Arastradero. Cars stacking into the public ROW would exacerbate congestion because there is only a single auto lane at that location. Further, a single backed up car would obstruct the bike plane, forcing bicyclists to merge with motor vehicle traffic, creating an unacceptable safety hazard. The most likely cause of driveway backups will be human behavior which Bowman has said they will manage by leveraging their “strong relationship with parents.” Dropping off very young children can take time. Children are learning how to separate from parents and are not always cooperative. What, specifically, will staff do to facilitate drop-off and pick-up flow at the new campus driveway in order to minimize spillback on Arastradero. I would like to understand better how this will work the IS/MND did not and does not identify mitigation measures that rely on Bowman’s strong relationships. The traffic impact analysis uses reasonable assumptions based on existing traffic patterns and student arrivals and departures at its existing site to determine the approximate number of students that would likely arrive and depart during peak periods for this project. The traffic impact assessment analyzed that up to 9 cars are anticipated to queue in any given 15 minute period. The applicant proposed a driveway that allows for queueing for up to 13 cars in one lane and provides a wide enough entrance/exit/driveway isle to allow for cars to move around each other within the parking lot to allow for other cars to move in and out without having to wait for the car at the very front to leave. 2 That said, other measures are being taken to avoid the potential for queue spillback into the Arastradero right-of-way. For example, staff has requested a change to the driveway circulation to ensure that, if all other measures fail, eastbound through traffic on Arastradero could move around any potential queue while Bowman staff takes actions to clear space on-site. Staff is also still discussing other conditions to further encourage the applicant to ensure that traffic does not backup into the right-of-way. Any measures proposed would be measureable and enforceable. Bowman’s document asks us to rely on their ‘strong relationship’ with parents This is something we have heard from every private school the CSTSC has ever worked with. We know from experience with other schools and with Bowman parent’s current use of Terman parking lot that it is not a reliable mitigation. Mitigations are measurable and enforceable. Bowman used the term ‘strong relationship’ as it related to trip distribution. Staff has required revisions to the trip distribution to address a more realistic distribution of how trips are coming to and from the site based on the locations of complementary land uses, existing travel patterns, and population distribution rather than on Bowman’s strong relationship with their parents. See below for additional notes about use of the Terman parking lot. A CUP should detail exactly what the protocols for drop-off and pick up will be. Challenger school has some good measures built into their CUP (and they also have a preschool program) that might provide a helpful model. However, Challenger’s CUP failed to provide adequate measurable goals and enforcement mechanisms. A bowman CUP should outline specifically how school staff and parents will be required to assist safe drop off/pick-up without delays that cause spillback onto the public ROW. It should include goals, performance measures with incentives and robust enforcement mechanisms for compliance. The CUP conditions will specify that greeters will be available to meet the parents at drop-off and pick-up. It will clarify that parents can’t park for drop-off or pick-up to avoid parents from interrupting the flow/causing safety issues by backing up during drop-off and pick-up. According to the Terman Assistant Principal, Bowman parents are presently using the Terman Parking lot. He has said there are regularly more than nine Bowman parents in the Terman lot. They compete with buses and Terman families for parking spaces during peak times. How will Bowman address this problem and ensure it is not made worse with the school’s expansion. The City is discussing a condition to disallow the use of the Terman Middle school parking lot during drop off and pick up for students at 4000 Terman Drive and will discuss what we can do to make sure that’s more enforceable. We do not anticipate that the drop off and pick up of the additional students in this new Bowman School location along Arastradero Road is going to intensify the effect of any drop off and pick up happening at 4000 Terman Drive since these would all be preschool students (3-5 years of age) and a parent would be unlikely to drop them off at Terman Middle School and allow them to walk from there to 693 Arastradero. Nevertheless, we do agree that students at the existing main Bowman school campus at 4000 Terman Drive shouldn’t be dropped off at the Terman middle school and we are discussing a condition to address that. Forty special events will be added to the Bowman Arastradero sites’ schedules. I see that one page 14 of 17 in the report that 120 Terman parking spaces are counted as available for Bowman use for many of these events. Has permission been requested and granted from PAUSD for this significantly increased use? What protocols will be in the CUP for management of parking needs for special events? To be clear, many of these 40 events are already occurring, including the majority of the larger attendance events. The events in bold outline the new events for the school (of which there are three per year) and the events underlined would be events occurring somewhere offsite currently but would now occur on site (of which there are 14 per year---2 theatre events, 4 band events, and 8 sports games). These underlined events are being considered new events since they are not accounted for currently in this area. None of these new events are anticipated to exceed the total available parking between the two campuses. However, we are considering a 3 condition that would require a temporary use permit be filed for any events exceeding the available secured parking in order to show at the time of the event that they have coordinated and secured parking for their event. Specific information is not given about: time of day, days of week, how these events will be coordinated around events at nearby schools. With 45-50 attendees (24% of am peak) these events will create surges of traffic. Consider protcols for controlling the timing of special events around traffic peaks, public school commute times, and special events of other nearby schools. Again, use goals, performance measures, incentives and enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance. Only one new event would occur twice a year during the AM peak hour (starting at 9am). Note that this event also starts ½ hour to an hour after Terman middle school and Gunn high school start times. All other new events are occurring well after the timing of typical school pickups. There are only 17 added events per year, most of which have fewer than 30 attendees and are occurring during off peak hours. I will think about a condition though related to the addition of any events beyond what they have outlined in their analysis. We will, at a minimum, have a condition of approval limiting the total number of events that can be held each year. As noted above, certain larger events would require a temporary use permit. In addition to showing parking as we analyze the TUP we would consider any other events nearby that may be occurring. The cemetery entrance is not an intersection, it is a driveway that is very infrequently used, not a street. Studying Gunn HS, Donald and Willmar intersections might be more helpful. The intersections discussed in the report were more focused on potential u-turn areas for those traveling westbound or eastbound that needed to turn around and how people would be entering and exiting the site. Since the proposed project is not increasing the number of trips above what was originally approved, the transportation impact analysis focused on capacity impacts to intersections immediately adjacent to the new site. Donald and Wilmar are not streets that the project anticipates using to access the 693 Arastradero site that is being analyzed and Gunn High school would be too far south of the site and south of larger intersections; therefore it would not make sense to include these intersections. VTA88 is cited as mitigation. VTA has proposed a service reduction for next year. Se the proposed 288 bus route replacement. The VTA88 is not cited as mitigation. No mitigation is required to reduce impacts to less than significant given the limited number of anticipated peak hour trips (31 inbound and 26 outbound during the Am peak hour and 15 inbound and 20 outbound during the PM peak hour). While the project provides bike racks and bike lanes, what percentage of Bowman students/staff come from a location/distance that is bikable? Has origin/destination analysis been done? Where are the Bowman families coming from? How many bike parking spaces are at the original Bowman site and how many of those are used? That might be a good indicator of potential for mode shift at the new site. Does Bowman offer in-school bike/pedestrian safety education and encouragment? Does Bowman currently have a TDM? How is it working? Do they currently have a carpool matching program? Is it opt-in? What specifically are they willing to do to reduce car trips? Although we do not yet know the exact address of future potential students staff did request any available information on the existing Bowman School commuting/biking programs. The existing school provides incentives to staff who take alternate transportation to work. They indicated that 5% of staff ride their bikes to work, 5% take public transportation, and 11% carpool. Bowman provides carpool matching information on their internal website to help student’s parents find carpools. They indicated that 10% of their families carpool on a regular basis. Note that the students at the new Bowman school annex site at 693 Arastradero would all be preschoolers so for this site we would be more focused on encouraging teachers to bike to work. The applicant is already providing more bike parking than the total number of staff on site. 4 The original Bowman Site has 38 spaces and the new site will have 16 spaces. The existing Bowman site does not have TDM program. The proposed addition of peak hour trips is less than significant without any mitigation. Therefore, the city is not currently exploring trip reduction requirements. Bowman School provided the following information with respect to what kind of encouragement they provide for walking/biking at their current site: “Bowman actively encourages families to carpool and to bike to school. In addition to the regular reminders at Parent evenings, in the handbook, and in our weekly and quarterly newsletters, Bowman also hosts two Walk/Ride to School Days and has an interactive carpool link on our website. 1. Bowman hosts Bike/Walk to School days two times per year. Families are encouraged to meet up at various locations and bike or walk to school on those days. Walk to School Day (an example from the school year 2016‐2017)  Help celebrate International Day of Peace by joining us for a walk to School on September 23, 2016. Although  most families live too far away to walk to Bowman, we want to have a day to give the children an opportunity to  walk to school with others.    This year, groups of parents and kids will be leaving from two different locations, or you can take your own path.  Option 1: Departs from the Sweet Shop in Los Altos (sweetshoplosaltos.com), which will open early just for us.  They will have coffee, tea, and morning pastries available.  Come around 8 am to get your morning nourishment.  Departs at 8:15 am and 8:30 am.  Distance – 0.6 mile walk to Bowman via the bike path. Bowman parents xxx  and xxx will chaperone. Option 2: Departs from the Bol Park playground, Laguna Ave @ Laguna Court in Palo Alto. One group departs  at 8:15 am promptly. Distance – 1 mile via the bike path. Bowman parents xxx and xxx will chaperone. For parents pressed for time, you may drop off your kids! We just ask that you let us know by signing up here at  this link. RSVP deadline is 8 pm Thurs. Sept. 22. https://goo.gl/0iVUP4 No time to join the set groups? Make your own! How about parking just a bit farther away than usual? How  about biking to school? All students who travel to the school from somewhere other than the school parking lot  will receive a sticker showing they walked to school. Looking forward to seeing you there!” TDM should be included in the CUP with goals, performance measures, incentives, and enforcement mechanisms. A TDM plan is not required since the proposed project would not increase the total enrollment between the two sites above the current approved level for the existing main Bowman school campus; because the new annex site would not result in a new traffic impact; and because the site provides more than the required number of parking spaces based on the proposed use. p.67 says that Bowman has “more control over peak drop-offs and pick-ups.” How does the flexible bell provide greater control? This is not clear. A flexible bell schedule means that cars are potentially more dispersed upon their arrival. We are assessing the project in conjunction with nearby bell schedules to determine if a condition related to timing might be appropriate and if so, what that would look like. Please feel free to call if you have any questions. 5 Regards, Claire       Claire Hodgkins, Associate Planner 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301  O: 650-329-2116 | E: claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org      From: Penny Ellson [mailto:pellson@pacbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 9:44 AM To: Hodgkins, Claire Cc: Safe Routes; 'Jim Pflasterer'; 'Keri Wagner'; barbarabest@gmail.com; crohrbach@pausd.org; 'Cathy Mak'; 'Robert Golton' Subject: Bowman Comments on DMND & Application Hi Claire, Here are my individual comments on the Bowman Expansion—in addition to comments I made at the City School Traffic Safety Committee meeting on February 9. I am submitting as an individual because there is no time for PTA review before deadline. However, I am copying reps at Terman and Gunn’s PTAs and PAUSD for their information. Please see attachment. Thank you for considering my comments. Penny Ellson (650) 856-0736 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Architectural Review Board Sent:Tuesday, May 09, 2017 10:27 AM To:Lew, Alex; Kim, Kyu; Baltay, Peter; Gooyer, Robert; Furth, Wynne Cc:Hodgkins, Claire; Gerhardt, Jodie; Lait, Jonathan Subject:FW: Support for Bowman School Site Process From: Nan Zhong [mailto:nanzhong1@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 9:47 AM To: Architectural Review Board Cc: Yun Luo Subject: Support for Bowman School Site Process Dear Palo Alto City Architectural Review Board, My name is Nan Zhong, resident on McKellar Lane in Palo Alto. I am writing to express my strong support for Bowman International School's campus expansion plan. Both of my kids go to Bowman. They love the school and their friends there. After hearing about Bowman's campus expansion plan, we are excited how their education at Bowman will be further enriched. Both my wife and I would appreciate your support for the expansion in the upcoming meeting on May 18. Thanks, Nan 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Architectural Review Board Sent:Tuesday, May 09, 2017 4:18 PM To:Lew, Alex; Kim, Kyu; Baltay, Peter; Gooyer, Robert; Furth, Wynne Cc:Hodgkins, Claire; Lait, Jonathan; Gerhardt, Jodie Subject:FW: ARB and CUP approval of Bowman School project - Arastradero Road Importance:High From: Christina Hildebrand [mailto:younghildebrand@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 4:02 PM To: Architectural Review Board Subject: ARB and CUP approval of Bowman School project - Arastradero Road Importance: High   Dear Palo Alto Architectural Review Board members  I ask each of you to vote to pass the CUP, with no additional restrictions vs current, and to move the Bowman School  project forward with no objections when it comes before you.      I am a resident of Palo Alto and my children have attended Bowman School for coming up to 7 years.  I have also been a  part of the Bowman Site Search Committee and now am the Chair of the Bowman Capital Campaign Committee.  So yes,  I am biased in my ask for you to approve the CUP and to move this project forward this Thursday when it comes before  you, but I am only in this position because I have seen the amazing commitment of Mary Beth (principal) and her staff to  ensuring the growth of Bowman School is done in a manageable and extremely well thought out way, being fiscally,  environmentally and community focused, to ensure it has the least amount of negative impact and the greatest amount  of positive impact on the community.  If it were not for these things, I would not have volunteered a significant amount  of my time to Bowman to ensure this project is a success.  If allowed to pass through the ARB with no objections and  without additional restrictions on the CUP, the city of Palo Alto will be one significant step closer to being able to boast  that they have one of the top Montessori Schools in the world in their front yard.  Bowman School is already recognized  as one of the top 7 Montessori schools in the US, and the addition of a gym, Design thinking lab, gardens and preschool  will take it to leading that pack.      Unlike other private schools in the area, Bowman is not looking to expand their CUP beyond what it currently holds, and  so will not add additional stress on the local community with respect to parking, traffic and people in the  community.  This is also eased by their extended drop off and pick up times, ensuring that there is no mad rush to drop  off or pick up at a particular time.  Bowman has been an extremely responsible steward of its CUP thus far, and  therefore I would ask that you do not put any additional restrictions on it beyond what is has today, so that Bowman can  continue to do what it does best.  The new campus addition, will also significantly improve the visual esthetics of the  current two parcels of land which include two derelict, unsightly houses, in a way that is in line with the neighborhood.      Again I urge each of you to vote to pass the CUP, with no additional restrictions vs current, and to move the Bowman  School project forward with no objections.      Thank you for your consideration.  Christina Hildebrand  411 Brassinga Court  Palo Alto CA 94306    1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Architectural Review Board Sent:Wednesday, May 10, 2017 12:03 PM To:Lew, Alex; Kim, Kyu; Baltay, Peter; Gooyer, Robert; Furth, Wynne Cc:Hodgkins, Claire; Lait, Jonathan; Gerhardt, Jodie Subject:FW: Bowman School Project From: Melissa Della Gatta [mailto:melissadellagatta@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2017 9:55 AM To: Architectural Review Board Subject: Bowman School Project Dear ARB, I have taught at Bowman for almost six years and will be relocating for family reasons in just a few months. I wish to relay my confidence that Bowman will be an asset on multiple levels to the neighborhood in which the school is expanding. I have seen, from an insider's view how cooperative the leaders are with neighbors, how aware and informed they are with respect to city ordinances and regulations, and how the values of the school and the families who attend it are conducive to a smooth transition into building and occupying this space. While somewhat subjective, but also with a unique perspective as a member of staff, I have seen Bowman do incredible things not just for families, but for the community. They are both globally and community minded, with a focus on educating toward responsible and empathetic citizenship. I have seen this in the educational model, as well as in the students who attend the school. I personally would welcome Bowman into my neighborhood. Please let me know if you have any questions as you consider moving the school's permit process to the next stage. -- Melissa Attachment J Hardcopies of Project plans and Alternate Parking Layout to ARB Members Project plans may be reviewed online at: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning Directions to review Project plans and the Alternate Parking Layout online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “693 Arastradero” and open the record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “2017-0321 Bowman Project Plans Resubmittal” for the full set of project plans. 6. Open the attachment named “Alternate Parking Layout” to view staff’s preferred Alternate to the Ingress/egress design. ATTACHMENT J Draft Conditional Use Permit and Variance Findings and Conditions 693 Arastradero Road 16PLN-00088 and 16PLN-00089 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS Conditional Use Permit approval is based on the findings indicated under PAMC Section 18.76.010: 1. The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. Bowman International School has an existing use permit that allows for up to 300 students at the existing school site located 167 feet north of the proposed project at 4000 Terman Drive. The proposed project includes 60 students at the new project site located on Arastradero, but was applied for in conjunction with an application for a conditional use permit amendment that would reduce enrollment at the 4000 Terman site. Therefore the project would result in a total of 300 students at both sites. Although up to 300 students are currently allowed to enroll at the 4000 Terman Drive site, there are currently only 237 students attending. Therefore, the environmental analysis conservatively assumed a total of approximately 63 additional vehicle trips. The transportation impact analysis and Initial Study for the project, prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, concluded that there would be a less than significant impact associated with traffic and transportation. In addition, staff has added conditions of approval and asked for revisions to the ingress/egress (ingress/egress Alternative 1) to further verify that impacts from queueing onto Arastradero would not be an issue and that traffic would not be impacted a result of the addition of drop-off and pick-up at the new site along Arastradero Drive. The proposed project includes sufficient parking for the school use but staff notes that special events could be detrimental to the safety, general welfare, or convenience of adjacent residents if conditions of approval were not required by the City to limit the number and timing of these events and ensure that appropriate parking is provided. The school is sited in a location that is simultaneously close to residences, consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals to site these in close proximity in order to help limit the need for vehicle trips. However, it is also separated enough from these residences that it provides a noise buffer to reduce impacts to adjacent single and multi-family residential uses. Specific features of the property are designed to further reduce noise and shadows on adjacent properties. The school has proposed small- scale residential style buildings along the streetscape, which blend well with the streetscape and provide harmonious transitions in scale and mass between adjacent uses. Therefore, with the addition of the conditions outlined below, the proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. 2. The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. The zoning code identifies schools as conditionally permitted uses in the R-1 Zone District. With the exception of the requested variance, which meets the findings outlined below, the proposed project is consistent with all applicable zoning code standards for development. The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2015-2023 Housing Element Goal H-2 encourages the siting of housing and schools in close proximity. Given the adjacent residential and multi-family residential uses in this area, the use of this site for a school is consistent with this Comprehensive Plan goal. Policy H1.1 of the 2015-2023 Housing element states “promote the rehabilitation of deteriorating or substandard residential properties using sustainable and energy conserving approaches.” Although removal of the existing housing units on site is not aligned with this policy, a policy consideration has been made in balancing the loss of these housing units and the project’s consistency with other goals of the Comprehensive Plan, including Goal H-2 as well as Policy L-12, which states, “Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures.” The City specifically, and the region generally, has a significant housing shortage. In the case of this proposed site, one of the three existing residences is nonconforming and would not be allowed under current zoning. The City’s zoning code seeks to have nonconforming uses abated and there is nothing in the City’s local regulations that would require the nonconforming home to remain. The loss of two or three single family housing units is noteworthy, but is also de minimis in terms of overall housing production and for housing affordability. If the proposed school use were denied, redevelopment of the site would likely include two new large single family homes that would likely be sold at prices not generally accessible to most home buyers. Given the close proximity of the school’s existing primary campus and adjacent uses, the subject site is a beneficial location for families attending eh school and the school’s academic pursuits. Therefore, the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance VARIANCE FINDINGS Variance approval is based on the findings indicated under PAMC Section 18.76.030(c): 1. Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title substantially deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. The proposed project is located on a unique, triangle shaped lot which limits the design of improvements while still meeting setback and daylight plane requirements outlined in the municipal code for the R-1 zone as well as meeting other applicable requirements outlined in the municipal code such as fire code requirements to maintain a 20 foot clearance access to the rear of site. In addition, because of the proposed use of the site as a school in the R-1 zone district, the use of outdoor spaces needs to be designed in a manner that more carefully addresses potential noise impacts to adjacent uses as it may be utilized by more people than a typical below-grade patio for a single-family residence. The proposed below grade patio is located to avoid impacts to adjacent residences, is hidden from view from existing two-story residences located across Arastradero Road, and allows for a 20 foot access to be maintained for fire to the rear of the project site. The strict application of the below-grade patio size deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity because the irregular shape of the lot and the need for fire truck clearance, which is more restrictive that for a single-family residential use, further restrict the design of this property and limit the location of the buildings and the Learning Circle. Further, the surrounding uses and the proposed use require further consideration of noise impacts and the below-grade patio is designed to reduce those impacts. 2. The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the regulations or constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. Other than the requested exception, the project complies with all other City regulations. The granting of these exceptions is not considered a special privilege, but rather is based upon the unique circumstances of the parcel as explained above. 3. The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. Policy L-48 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan encourages high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Although the project could have designed a second story for the IDEAlab, the placement of the IDEAlab below grade reduces impacts along the streetscape for adjacent residences. Appropriate ingress/egress to below grade areas is required and the design allows for this space to be provided without an encroachment into the side setbacks, as allowed under the municipal code, in order to reduce impacts on the neighboring property. The design reduces privacy impacts to the adjacent residences as well as reducing noise impacts to adjacent residences ensuring that the site is compatible with adjacent development, including the church and neighboring residences. Therefore, the granting of this variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Because the learning circle also serves as a way to provide light to the lower level of the IDEAlab building, it is classified as a below-grade patio. The regulations in the R-1 Zone District restrict the maximum size of below-grade patios. The intent of this requirement is primarily to ensure that sufficient space is still provided to allow for at grade landscaping, particularly for privacy screening, and so that soil volume can be maintained for trees both on site and on adjacent sites. The proposed project would still allow for sufficient at grade landscaping and would not reduce soil volume in a manner that could impacts trees on adjacent residences In addition, the proposed Learning Circle is intended to reduce noise impacts to surrounding properties while still providing quality open space for children to use. Therefore, approval of the variance is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. 4. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. Bowman International School has an existing use permit that allows for up to 300 students at the existing school site located 167 feet north of the proposed project at 4000 Terman Drive. The proposed project includes 60 students at the new project site located on Arastradero, but was applied for in conjunction with an application for a conditional use permit amendment that would reduce enrollment at the 4000 Terman site. Therefore the project would result in a total of 300 students at both sites. Although up to 300 students are currently allowed to enroll at the 4000 Terman Drive site, there are currently only 237 students attending. Therefore, the environmental analysis conservatively assumed a total of approximately 63 additional vehicle trips. The transportation impact analysis and Initial Study for the project, prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, concluded that there would be a less than significant impact associated with traffic and transportation. In addition, staff has added conditions of approval and asked for revisions to the ingress/egress (ingress/egress Alternative 1) to further verify that impacts from queuing onto Arastradero would not be an issue and that traffic would not be impacted a result of the addition of drop-off and pick-up at the new site along Arastradero Drive. The proposed project includes sufficient parking for the school use but staff notes that special events could be detrimental to the safety, general welfare, or convenience of adjacent residents if conditions of approval were not required by the City to limit the number and timing of these events and ensure that appropriate parking is provided. Therefore conditions of approval have been included to ensure that special events would not be impactful to adjacent residents. The school is sited in a location that is simultaneously close to residences, consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals to site these in close proximity in order to help limit the need for vehicle trips. However, it is also separated enough from these residences that it provides a noise buffer to reduce impacts to adjacent single and multi-family residential uses. Specific features of the property are designed to further reduce noise and shadows on adjacent properties. The school has proposed small- scale residential style buildings along the streetscape, which blend well with the streetscape and provide harmonious transitions in scale and mass between adjacent uses. Therefore, with the addition of the conditions outlined below, the proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. Draft Conditional Use Permit Conditions of Approval (16PLN-00088 and 16PLN-00089) 1. For the main Bowman School campus at 4000 Terman Drive Conditional Use Permit 16PLN-00088 shall supersede Conditional Use Permit 03-CUP-07. 2. ATTENDANCE. No more than 60 students shall be enrolled at any given time at the Bowman School annex campus located at 693 Arastradero Road and no more than 240 students shall be enrolled at any given time at the main Bowman School campus located at 4000 Terman Drive, for a total enrollment of 300 students between both sites. 3. Students from the main Bowman School Campus located at 4000 Terman Drive may walk to the Bowman School campus annex to utilize the provided classroom breakout space during the day but shall not be dropped off or picked up at the annex campus on Arastradero Road. Similarly, parents of students attending the daycare at the Bowman School annex campus shall drop off and pick up their students from the annex campus at 693 Arastradero Road. 4. HOURS OF OPERATION. The school’s hours of operation at both campuses shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. School employees, administrators and minor activity involving one on one or small group (under 30) consultation, meetings or classes may occur between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m. 5. SPECIAL EVENTS. A special event is a school-related function or activity that occurs outside of the permitted hours of operation or has more than 125 attendees, including school employees, volunteers, guests, students and parents. The two campuses together are limited to nine (9) special events in a calendar year and no more than two (2) special events within 30 days. A Special Event requires approval of a Temporary Use Permit, which must be filed with the City no less than 45 days from the date of the event. The Temporary Use Permit may include conditions to address traffic, circulation, parking, noise, litter, event timing, duration or other conditions deemed appropriate to mitigate potential nuisances to area residents, nearby businesses and institutions, and traffic. 6. SCHOOL PARKING. No Bowman School parking for either campus shall be allowed on Arastradero Road or in the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Parking of vehicles shall not occur within the school drop-off and pick-up times. Off street parking shall be required for special events in accordance with Condition 17 above. 7. SCHOOL DROP-OFF and PICK-UP BOWMAN SCHOOL ANNEX. At least 75% of Bowman’s students shall arrive and depart at least 15 minutes before or after Gunn High School and Terman Middle School start and end times. If drop-off or pick-up at the Bowman School annex campus is occurring outside of these time frames the City will require additional conditions, including restrictions on start or end times in order to achieve compliance with this requirement to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. At least two adult greeters will be stationed in the student drop-off and pick-up area between 8:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 3:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. to help students safely and quickly enter and exit vehicles. At no time shall drivers be allowed to exit the vehicle during these drop-off/pick- up timeframes. 8. SCHOOL DROP-OFF and PICK-UP MAIN BOWMAN SCHOOL. At least one adult greeter will be stationed in the student drop-off and pick-up area between 8:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 3:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. for the main Bowman School site on Terman Drive. Parking for student drop-off or pick-up shall not occur between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 9 a.m. or between 3:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. Parking, pick-up, and drop-off of Bowman students at the Terman Middle School Campus is not allowed. 9. SCHOOL DROP-OFF and PICK-UP. If drop-off or pick-up of Bowman students is occurring outside of these parameters, the City shall require drop-off or pick-up improvements, including but not limited to additional greeters, restrictions on school hours and/or reduced enrollment to eliminate queueing to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 10. BOWMAN SCHOOL MAIN CAMPUS BIKE PARKING. A minimum of 38 parking spaces and 20 bicycle spaces (Class III) shall be provided in front of the school building. The school shall reserve space for up to 100 bicycle spaces (Class III) and shall increase the number of bicycle spaces if there is a documented need in the future for these spaces. 11. QUEUEING ON ARASTRADERO ROAD. Vehicle queueing on Arastradero Road is prohibited at all times. Applicant shall ensure on-site vehicle circulation and student pick up or drop off does not block or impede the free movement of pedestrians, bicyclists or vehicular travel on the sidewalk, bike path or roadway on Arastradero Road. For any violation of this condition, the Director of Planning and Community Environment may impose additional conditions related to student enrollment, drop-off or pick-up restrictions, site improvements, or operational changes to ensure compliance with this condition. 12. COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. The applicant shall at all times be in compliance with the conditions of approval, the project plans, and documentation describing the school’s operation. If school operations result in unanticipated impacts that negatively impact the general welfare, the Director of Planning and Community Environment may impose additional conditions to mitigate those impacts. Any changes by the Director to this approval or imposition of new or modified conditions shall be in writing and subject to the city’s appeal procedures for conditional use permits. 13. COST RECOVERY ENFORCEMENT. The applicant shall be responsible for city expenses related to the enforcement of this approval, including but not limited to inspections, responding to complaints, preparing written determinations and reports, and direct costs for any consultant work. City time shall be billed at the hourly rate established in the City’s Municipal Fee Schedule. 14. NOISE. All on-site activities shall be subject to the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC. Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8024) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/18/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Preliminary Architectural Review: Verizon/Vinculums Small Cell Deployment Project Cluster 1 Title: STUDY SESSION. 250 Hamilton Avenue [17PLN-00033]: Preliminary Architectural Review of Location and Design Options for the Deployment of Verizon Small Cell Wireless Communication Equipment on Utility Poles in the Public Right- of Way. The Proposed 18 Small Cell Node Locations in this Preliminary Architectural Review Application are Considered a Cluster of Nodes Within the Proposed Overall Deployment of 92 Small Cell Locations. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. Formal Application will be Subject to CEQA Review. Zoning District: Varies. For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Rebecca Atkinson at rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Review and provide comments. Report Summary The subject application is a request for preliminary review. No formal direction is provided to the applicant and Boardmembers should refrain from forming and expressing opinions either in support or against the project. As this is a preliminary review application, the Planning and Community Environment department has only performed a cursory review of the project for compliance with the zoning code. A comprehensive review of the project in relation to applicable codes, including context- based design criteria and other standards, would follow the submittal of a formal application. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Accordingly, there may be aspects of this preliminary review application that do not comply with municipal regulations or require additional discretionary applications beyond architectural review. Similarly, there has been no comprehensive review of the project in relation to the comprehensive plan or other policy documents. Such review will occur upon the filing of a formal application. The purpose of this meeting is to provide an applicant an opportunity to present a conceptual project to the Board and receive initial comments. Boardmembers may identify aspects of the project that are appropriate given the neighborhood context and consistent with city policies or areas of concern that the applicant may want to reconsider in a formal submittal. Community members are also encouraged to provide early input to the project. Background Project Information Owner: City of Palo Alto (Owner of Utility Poles in the Right-of-Way) Applicant Vinculums on behalf of GTE Mobilnet dba Verizon Wireless Representative: Mary Diesch (Vinculums) and Jennifer Haas (Verizon) Legal Counsel: Not Applicable Property Information Address: 18 Various Utility Poles in the Right-of-Way Neighborhood: Generally, Mid-Town, South of Mid-Town, St. Claire Gardens, and Palo Verde Neighborhoods Lot Dimensions & Area: Not Applicable Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes Historic Resource(s): No Existing Improvement(s): 18 Various Utility Poles in the Right-of-Way Existing Land Use(s): Residential Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: Various, R-1 Single Family Residential District, Special Residential Building Site R-1 Subdistrict (7,000) and (8,000), and RM-30 Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence District Location Map: City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Various, R-1 Single Family Residential District, Special Residential Building Site R-1 Subdistrict (7,000) and (8,000), and RM-30 Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence District Comp. Plan Designation: Various, Predominantly Single Family Residential Context-Based Design Criteria: Not Applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not Applicable Located w/in Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 City Council: June 27, 2016 Master License Agreement GTE Mobilnet dba Verizon Wireless (http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52893) PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None Staff Level Architectural Review: 17PLN-00063 - Minor Architectural Review of a proposed mock, non- operational installation of small cell wireless communication facility equipment. The project purpose is to provide an example installation though which to promote receipt of public comments on Preliminary Architectural Review application 17PLN-00033 and the design of the forthcoming Vinculums/Verizon Wireless 92-node Small Cell Deployment project. Pole #: 7423 (Adjacent to 1350 Newell Road). Project Description The proposed eighteen (18) small cell deployment node locations in this Preliminary Architectural Review application represent one cluster of small cell wireless communication facility nodes and are located generally within the Mid-Town, South of Mid-Town, St. Claire Gardens, and Palo Verde neighborhoods.1. In total, Verizon Wireless proposes to install ninety- two (92) small cell deployment nodes in various neighborhoods and commercial areas within the City and these additional locations will be identified and clustered together in future applications. The applicant has provided a detailed project description in Attachment C. The project plans provide information on three equipment configurations for preliminary public and Architectural Review Board consideration and comment. Proposed configurations contain some or all of the following equipment: 1 antenna, 3 radios, 0- 1 emergency battery backup cabinet units, 1-2 electrical disconnect boxes, associated conduit, and fiber/power would be provided from above via an aerial drop from the pole. Additional background information can be found on the applicant’s project website (www.improveyourwireless.com/paloalto/). The proposed eighteen (18) small cell deployment node locations are identified in the Table 1 below: 1 The address for this application 17PLN-00033 is listed in the City’s permit tracking system under 250 Hamilton Avenue because the utility poles that are proposed to host the small cell deployment nodes are identified by unique pole numbers and do not have specific property addresses. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Table 1: Preliminary Eighteen (18) Small Cell Deployment Node Locations: Node City Verified Adjacent Address Pole Type Proposed Config CPAU Pole # Adjacent APN Adjacent APN Zoning Class SF PALO ALTO 127 820 WARREN WAY Wood Utility Config 3 3112 12730045 R-1 SF PALO ALTO 129 2490 LOUIS RD Wood Utility Config 1 3121 12730062 R-1 SF PALO ALTO 130 2802 LOUIS RD Wood Utility Config 3 2461 12728046 R-1 SF PALO ALTO 131 3120 LOUIS 891 ELBRIDGE WY Wood Utility Config 2 3315 12726067 12726067 R-1 SF PALO ALTO 133 925 LOMA VERDE AVE Wood Utility Config 3 2857 12724023 R-1 SF PALO ALTO 134 3409 KENNETH DR Wood Utility Config 3 2964 12709028 R-1 (7000) SF PALO ALTO 135 795 STONE LN Wood Utility Config 2 3610 12747001 R-1 (8000) SF PALO ALTO 136 3191 MANCHESTER CT Wood Utility Config 3 3298 12758024 R-1 SF PALO ALTO 137 795 STERN 3090 ROSS RD Wood Utility Config 3 3351 12752031 12752031 R-1 SF PALO ALTO 138 836 COLORADO AVE Wood Utility Config 3 2479 12727063 R-1 SF PALO ALTO 139 752 COLORADO 2793 RANDERS CT Wood Utility Config 3 2489 12734115 12734115 R-1 SF PALO ALTO 140 450 LOMA VERDE AVE Wood Utility Config 3 3971 13215077 R-1 SF PALO ALTO 141 2801 SOUTH CT Wood Utility Config 3 2669 13214023 R-1 SF PALO ALTO 143 3299 WAVERLEY OR 419 EL VERANO AVE Wood Utility Config 1 3867 13215017 R-1 SF PALO ALTO 144 201 LOMA VERDE AVE Wood Utility Config 3 1506 13248015 RM-30 SF PALO ALTO 145 733 LOMA VERDE AVE Wood Utility Config 3 3288 12764001 R-1 (7000) SF PALO ALTO 146 2901 MIDDLEFIELD RD OR 705 ELLSWORTH Wood Utility Config 1 7647 12735194 R-1 RM-15 SF PALO ALTO 147 181 EL VERANO AVE Wood Utility Config 3 1494 13227072 R-1 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Anticipated Entitlements: The following discretionary applications are anticipated:  Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permit, as outlined in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.42.110. This will be processed as a Major Architectural Review and a Conditional Use Permit application. The applications will need to comply with the development standards in PAMC Section 18.42.110(i), the conditions of approval in PAMC Section 18.42.110(j), the Architectural Review findings in PAMC Section 18.76.020(d), and the Conditional Use Permit findings in PAMC Section 18.76.010(c). Discussion Preliminary review applications receive a cursory review for compliance with zoning regulations and consistency with the comprehensive plan or other applicable policy documents. This information was previously transmitted to the applicant during Development Review Committee meetings and site walks. Staff has attached the relevant Comprehensive Plan policies (Attachment A) and the Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.42.110 pertaining to Wireless Communication Facilities (Attachment B). A more comprehensive review will occur upon formal submittal, which may reveal other code or policy concerns. Small Cell Deployment in Other Cities Other cities have already evaluated and developed guidelines for small cell deployment applications in the right of way. While Palo Alto is unique in that it owns or jointly owns many of the utility structures, these examples are instructive. Following are a few links showing how other cities are approaching the siting and design of small cell projects:  City of San Francisco “Design Preferences for Personal Wireless Service Facilities for DISTRIBUTED ANTENNA SYSTEMS, “DAS” OR SMALL CELLS ON WOODEN UTILITY POLES & WOODEN STREET LIGHT POLES” - August 2015 (http://www.sf- planning.org/ftp/files/currentplanning/wireless/wireless_Design_Preferences_for_Wireless_Fac ilities_August2015.pdf)  City of San Diego – “Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) Guidelines” - January 4, 2016, Page 16 (https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/development- services/pdf/industry/telecomguide.pdf)  City of Berkeley – “Wireless Telecommunications Program Guidelines for Projects Requiring Telecommunications Encroachment/Excavation Permits” – March 15, 2011 (http://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/Public_Works/Level_3_-_Sidewalks,_Streets_- _Utility/Aesthetic%20Guidelines%20for%20PROW%20Permits%20Under%20BMC%20Chapter% 2016_10.pdf) Location/Siting Criteria, Configuration Design Criteria, and Configuration Design Options The primary purpose for this Preliminary Architectural Review application is to receive public and Architectural Review Board feedback on the preliminary location/siting criteria, design criteria, and design options for the proposed small cell deployment nodes. The applicant has presented their key questions within their project description in Attachment C. Members of the City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 public and the ARB are encouraged to provide feedback to the applicant. Staff also requests feedback and further development of the following preliminary location/siting criteria, configuration design criteria, and configuration design options for the deployment of small cell wireless communication equipment in the right-of-way. From site walks with the applicant, it was determined that not all criteria can be achieved in some cases. Consequently, prioritization of these criteria is also welcomed. Location and Siting Criteria 1. Locate small cell nodes on poles in the right-of-way only. 2. Disfavor poles that are in a proposed undergrounding district area. 3. Identify poles with the following items in the descending order of precedence: a. Guy stubs, b. Poles with overhead secondary conductors only, c. Primary dead-end poles, d. Primary poles with no transformers downstream to end of line, and e. Primary poles with no electric utility equipment on either side of the proposed pole. 4. Encourage placement away from intersections in order to reduce visibility of the project. 5. Encourage poles with significant tree screening in order to reduce visibility of the project. 6. Favor poles that do not interfere with bikeway clearances either physically or visually 7. Favor poles away from first and second story windows in order to reduce visibility of the project. 8. Confirm the project adheres to ADA clearances, as well as conformance with the Pedestrian Shopping Combining District requirements where applicable. 9. Confirm the project provides adequate vehicle clearances and site triangles when in proximity of intersections and driveways, addresses proximity to on-street parking spaces, and provides vehicle door clearance if ground mounted equipment is proposed. 10. Identify the pros/cons of increasing or decreasing the number of proposed nodes including coverage, different sizes and heights of antennas (ex. deployment of a four foot high antenna versus a two foot high antenna) 11. Confirm if there are any additional factors that may prevent above-grade facilities, such as: a. Conflicts with future transportation improvements, and b. Conflicts with transit facilities or other areas which generate pedestrian activity 12. For projects with ground mounted equipment and/or trenching: a. Favor poles with little or no surrounding tree roots to reduce tree impacts. Ground mounted cabinet locations shall strive to improve existing tree conditions and avoid or limit taking valuable root area from existing tree sites. b. Favor poles with little to no underground utilities to reduce conflicts. c. identify if the project requires any trenching and disfavor projects where adjacent road surfacing has recently occurred or is planned within the next 1-2 years. d. Encourage them to remain clear of street and driveway sight lines as required by Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) 18.54.050(b). Configuration Design Criteria City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 1. Design for the minimization of equipment sizes. 2. Design for streamlining of equipment views from the sidewalk and driver view angles. 3. Limit the use of ground mounted equipment to the greatest extent possible. 4. Place emphasis on ensuring the project design is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood context - consider the various neighborhood styles and character (ex. historic, modern, etc.). 5. In areas with Design Guidelines, ensure the project responds to these guidelines. For example: Professorville Historic District Design Guidelines (§7.0-7.43, Guidelines for Site Improvements: Landscape, Accessory Buildings & the Streetscape). 6. In commercial or mixed-use areas, encourage either pole mounting back-up battery equipment or placing it below grade to ensure a clear sidewalk for pedestrians. 7. Power shall come from the nearest utility box and equipment must have a protective device (i.e. fuse or circuit breaker) for isolating the circuit to avoid affects on City of Palo Alto equipment or circuits. Configuration Design Options 1. Utilize passive cooling or other methods to prevent or reduce noise. 2. Design the project to visually soften the deployment by providing landscaping or trees next to the pole. 3. Design for stealth and concealment of equipment. Examples: use shrouds, blend the bayonets by utilizing similar shapes and widths as the underlying pole, paint all equipment to match the pole, conceal all wires, provide a continuous installation instead of allowing gaps for light to pass through in the installation, and mount equipment as close to the pole surface as possible. 4. If soil is lost in response to any ground mounted equipment installation, pursuant to the Urban Forestry Master Plan (Policy 1.A, 1.E.), the project shall provide an equal square footage of pervious soil to street trees in the immediate area. 5. Paint or artistically wrap all ground mounted equipment at minimum. Otherwise, pursue stealth strategies through the provision of street furniture that supports pedestrian activity and/or prevents visual clutter. 6. Emphasize stealth, concealment, and painting strategies that require low maintenance or otherwise present a maintenance schedule. Photo Simulations and Non-Live Mock-Up Installation Photo simulations of the three proposed design configurations are included within the applicant project description in Attachment C. The applicant will also install a non-live mock-up of Configuration 1 near the Palo Alto Art Center, adjacent to 1350 Newell. It is anticipated this installation would be completed by May 17, 2017. The City granted this non-live mock-up installation for the purposes of providing an opportunity for members of the public to see the proposed equipment first hand. The City received a performance bond to guarantee the mock site would be up for 1 year or less. Collocation City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Where it makes sense, the City encourages the collocation of wireless facilities to reduce visual clutter. None of the proposed small cell nodes is proposed as a collocation. The applicant indicated that the following factors contributed toward the proposed siting criteria:  RF Design – Carriers do not necessarily need small cells at the same pole locations because each carrier has its own coverage and capacity criteria.  Interference – antennas, and frequencies used, of some carriers need significant separation to avoid interference and most poles in the right of way do not provide enough vertical space to allow for this separation.  Equipment – poles in the right of way are small and can only support limited equipment. Placing additional equipment to a pole may exceed the structural limits of the pole.  Aesthetics – multiple carriers on a single pole would lead to more equipment and boxes on the pole and could potentially result in a less streamlined design. Once a wireless facility is placed on a given pole, the Federal Spectrum Act allows for a streamlined process should a second carrier choose to collocate. The applicant will provide a study of the maximum build out permissible by the Act when they submit their formal Major Architectural Review/Conditional Use Permit applications. Next Steps The applicant may elect to file formal Major Architectural Review/Conditional Use Permit applications, which would then be followed by staff analysis and a public hearing(s) before the ARB. Environmental Review The Preliminary Architectural Review discussion involves no discretionary action and is therefore not a project and not subject to review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If a formal application is filed, an analysis of the project under CEQA will be performed. Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) Radio Frequency Emission Standards As part of a formal application, the applicant will submit a detailed report that discusses the small cell deployment node designs at each location in comparison with the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) radio frequency emission standards. The City will utilize an independent peer review process during the analysis of the formal application to address questions regarding radio frequency emissions/health and safety. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code does not require any particular form of notice for a Preliminary Architectural Review application. Nonetheless, as a practice, the City publishes notice of the review in a local paper and mails owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on May 5, 2017, which is thirteen (13) days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on May 8, 2017. As some notices were returned, a second mailing occurred on May 9, 2017, which is nine (9) days in advance of the meeting. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 Public Comments Staff received comments and inquiries from members of the public over email and by phone. Multiple members of the public preferred to gather more information before commenting. Staff received comments expressing both support and opposition. Supporters generally cited a desire for improved wireless coverage. Opposition generally cited aesthetic concerns and radio frequency emissions/health and safety concerns. Email correspondence up to May 9, 2017 is included in Attachment D. Copies of any additional correspondence received will be provided to the ARB at the May 18, 2017 meeting. Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Rebecca Atkinson, AICP, Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2596 (650) 329-2575 Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs (DOC)  Attachment B: Municipal Code Section 18.42.110 - Wireless Communication Facilities (DOC)  Attachment C: Applicant Project Description (PDF)  Attachment D: Public Correspondence (Received to 5/9/17) (PDF)  Attachment E: Project Plans (DOCX) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES File No. 17PLN-00033 Land Use and Community Design Element GOAL L-3: Safe, Attractive Residential Neighborhoods, Each With Its Own Distinct Character and Within Walking Distance of Shopping, Services, Schools, and/or other Public Gathering Places. POLICY L-17: Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches, and other amenities that favor pedestrians. GOAL L-4: Inviting, Pedestrian-scale Centers That Offer a Variety of Retail and Commercial Services and Provide Focal Points and Community Gathering Places for the City’s Residential Neighborhoods and Employment Districts. POLICY L-23: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as the central business district of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character.  PROGRAM L-19: Support implementation of the Downtown Urban Design Guide. POLICY L-24: Ensure that University Avenue/Downtown is pedestrian-friendly and supports bicycle use. Use public art and other amenities to create an environment that is inviting to pedestrians. POLICY L-40: Revitalize Midtown as an attractive, compact Neighborhood Center with diverse local- serving uses, a mix of one- and two-story buildings, adequate parking, and a network of pedestrian- oriented streets, ways and gathering places. Encourage retention of Midtown’s grocery stores and encourage a variety of neighborhood retail shops and services.  PROGRAM L-40: Make improvements to Middlefield Road in Midtown that slow traffic, encourage commercial vitality, make the street more pedestrian-friendly, and unify the northeast and southwest sides of the commercial area, with consideration given to traffic impacts on the residential neighborhood. POLICY L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces.  PROGRAM L-48: Use the Zoning Ordinance, design review process, design guidelines, and Coordinated Area Plans to ensure high quality residential and commercial design.  PROGRAM L-49: In areas of the City having a historic or consistent design character, design new development to maintain and support the existing character. POLICY L-49: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing. 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 2 of 3 GOAL L-9: Attractive, Inviting Public Spaces and Streets that Enhance the Image and Character of the City. POLICY L-66: Maintain an aesthetically pleasing street network that helps frame and define the community while meeting the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. POLICY L-69: Preserve the scenic qualities of Palo Alto roads and trails for motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and equestrians. POLICY L-70: Enhance the appearance of streets and other public spaces by expanding and maintaining Palo Alto’s street tree system. POLICY L-74: Use the work of artists, craftspeople, architects, and landscape architects in the design and improvement of public spaces. POLICY L-79: Design public infrastructure, including paving, signs, utility structures, parking garages and parking lots to meet high quality urban design standards. Look for opportunities to use art and artists in the design of public infrastructure. Remove or mitigate elements of existing infrastructure that are unsightly or visually disruptive. Capital improvement projects represent substantial public investments. Areas of high pedestrian traffic, especially Centers, should have priority for infrastructure repair. While the purpose of infrastructure is usually utilitarian or functional, attention to design details can add beauty to the City or even remedy an urban design defect. For example, replacing a sidewalk can provide an opportunity to create larger tree wells and provide new street trees.  PROGRAM L-79: Undertake a coordinated effort by the Public Works, Utilities, and Planning Departments to establish design standards for public infrastructure and examine the effectiveness of City street, sidewalk and street tree maintenance programs.  PROGRAM L-80: Continue the citywide undergrounding of utility wires. Minimize the impacts of undergrounding on street tree root systems and planting areas.  PROGRAM L-81: Encourage the use of compact and well-designed utility elements, such as transformers, switching devices, and backflow preventers. Place these elements in locations that will minimize their visual intrusion. Transportation Element Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling. POLICY T-22: Improve amenities such as seating, lighting, bicycle parking, street trees, and interpretive stations along bicycle and pedestrian paths and in City parks to encourage walking and cycling and enhance the feeling of safety. POLICY T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details. Natural Environment Element GOAL N-8: An Environment That Minimizes the Adverse Impacts of Noise. POLICY N-40: Evaluate the potential for noise pollution and ways to reduce noise impacts when reviewing development and activities in Palo Alto and surrounding communities. POLICY N-42: The City may require proposals to reduce noise impacts of development on adjacent properties through appropriate means including, but not limited to, the following: • Construct noise 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 3 of 3 walls when compatible with aesthetic concerns. • Screen and control noise sources such as parking, outdoor activities and mechanical equipment. • Increase setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings. • Whenever possible, retain fences, walls or landscaping that serve as noise buffers although design, safety and other impacts must be addressed. • Use soundproofing materials and double-glazed windows. • Control hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup, to minimize noise impacts. Business Element GOAL B-1: A Thriving Business Environment that is Compatible with Palo Alto’s Residential Character and Natural Environment. POLICY B-1: Use a variety of planning and regulatory tools, including growth limits, to ensure that business change is compatible with the needs of Palo Alto neighborhoods. In addition to growth limits, the City will use zoning, development review, environmental review, coordinated area plans, and other planning tools, to maintain compatibility between residential and nonresidential areas. POLICY B-2: Support a strong interdependence between existing commercial centers and the surrounding neighborhoods as a way of encouraging economic vitality. POLICY B-3: Recognize that Palo Alto’s street tree system is an economic asset to the City. GOAL B-3: New Businesses that Provide Needed Local Services and Municipal Revenues, Contribute to Economic Vitality, and Enhance the City’s Physical Environment. POLICY B-13: Support the development of technologically-advanced communications infrastructure and other improvements that will facilitate the growth of emerging telecommunications industries. POLICY B-15: Allow the creative use of City utilities and rights-of-way to ensure competition among networks in providing information systems infrastructure. Infrastructure POLICY L-79: Design public infrastructure, including paving, signs, utility structures, parking garages and parking lots to meet high quality urban design standards. Look for opportunities to use art and artists in the design of public infrastructure. Remove or mitigate elements of existing infrastructure that are unsightly or visually disruptive. PROGRAM L-79: Undertake a coordinated effort by the Public Works, Utilities, and Planning Departments to establish design standards for public infrastructure and examine the effectiveness of City street, sidewalk and street tree maintenance programs. PROGRAM L-80: Continue the citywide undergrounding of utility wires. Minimize the impacts of undergrounding on street tree root systems and planting areas. PROGRAM L-81: Encourage the use of compact and well-designed utility elements, such as transformers, switching devices, and backflow preventers. Place these elements in locations that will minimize their visual intrusion. Page 1 of 6 ATTACHMENT B PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 18.42.110 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES File No. 17PLN-00033 18.42.110 Wireless Communication Facilities (a) Purpose and Interpretation The purpose of this section is two-fold: (A) to implement within the jurisdictional boundaries of the city the applicable zoning, land use and other laws, rules, regulations and policies and procedures applicable to siting applications filed with the city by wireless communications facilities infrastructure owners and operators and wireless communications service providers, which seek to install or attach their facilities at locations in Palo Alto; and (B) to accommodate new wireless technologies and continued improvements to existing wireless communications facilities while minimizing their adverse visual and structural health and safety impacts. Consistent with that purpose, the provisions of this section are to be construed in a manner that is consistent with (1) the interest of consumers in receiving the benefits of the deployment of ultra-high-speed and -capacity broadband wireless communication facilities technology and innovations and the delivery of ultra-high-speed and -capacity broadband wireless communications facilities services, (2) the interest in safeguarding the environment, preserving historic properties, and addressing aesthetics and other local values, and (3) the interest in promoting the public health, safety and welfare in Palo Alto. A wireless communications facility is permitted to be sited in Palo Alto subject to applicable requirements imposed by this chapter, which may include an architectural review process, a conditional use permit application process, or both. These processes are intended to permit wireless communications facilities that blend with their existing surroundings and do not negatively impact the environment, historic properties, or public safety. The procedures prescribed by this chapter are tailored to the type of wireless communication facility that is sought. Building-mounted wireless communications facilities and collocation of facilities are preferred and encouraged, subject to all other provisions of this section. (b) Definitions The following abbreviations, phrases, terms and words shall have the meanings assigned in this section or, as appropriate, in Section 18.04.030 and Section 1.04.050 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as may be amended from time to time, unless the context indicates otherwise. Words that are not defined in this section or other chapters or sections of the Palo Alto Municipal Code shall have the meanings as set forth in Chapter 6 of Title 47 of the United States Code, Part 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and, if not defined therein, their common and ordinary meaning. (1) "Antenna" means a wireless antenna and its associated equipment. The term includes a macrocell antenna and a microcell antenna. (2) "Associated equipment" means any and all on-site equipment, including, without limitation, back-up generators and power supply units, cabinets, coaxial and fiber optic cables, connections, shelters, radio transceivers, regular power supply units, and wiring, to which a wireless antenna is attached in order to facilitate mobile broadband service and personal wireless service delivered on mobile broadband devices. (3) "Base Station" means a structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communications between user equipment and a communications network. The term does not encompass a tower as defined herein or any equipment associated with a tower. Base Station includes, without limitation: (i) Equipment associated with wireless communications services such as private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul. Page 2 of 6 (ii) Radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and backup power supplies, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration (including Distributed Antenna Systems ("DAS") and small-cell networks). (iii) Any structure other than a tower that, at the time the relevant application is filed with the city under this section, supports or houses equipment described in paragraphs (i)-(ii) above and has been previously reviewed and approved by the city. (4) "Collocation" means the mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes. (5) "Eligible Facilities Request" means any request for modification of an existing tower or base station that, within the meaning of the Spectrum Act, does not substantially change the physical dimensions of that tower or base station, and involves (a) the collocation of new transmission equipment, (b) the removal of transmission equipment, or (c) the replacement of transmission equipment. (6) "Eligible Support Structure" means any existing tower or base station that exists at the time the application is filed with the city. (7) "Existing" for a constructed tower or base station, means that the tower or base station has been previously reviewed and approved under the applicable city zoning or siting process, or under another applicable state or local regulatory review process, provided that a tower that has not been reviewed and approved because it was not in a zoned area when it was built, but was lawfully constructed, is "Existing" for purposes of this definition. (8) "FCC" means the Federal Communications Commission or successor agency. (9) "Project" means a WCF to be located in Palo Alto for which a permit is required by the city. (10) "RF" means radio frequency on the radio spectrum. (11) "Spectrum Act" means Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief Act and Job Creation Act of 2012, 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a) (providing, in part, "… a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any Eligible Facilities Request for a modification of any existing wireless Tower or Base Station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such Tower or Base Station."). (12) "Substantially Changes" means, in the context of an eligible support structure, a modification of an existing tower or base station where any of the following criteria is met: (i) For a tower not located in the public rights-of-way: (a) The height of the tower is increased by (I) more than ten (10) percent, or (II) by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty (20) feet, whichever is greater; or (b) There is added an appurtenance to the body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower by (I) more than twenty (20) feet, or (II) more than the width of the tower at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater. (ii) For a tower located in the public rights-of-way and for all base stations: (a) The height of the tower or base station is increased by more than ten (10) percent or ten (10) feet, whichever is greater; or (b) There is added an appurtenance to the body of that structure that would protrude from the edge of that structure by more than six (6) feet; or (c) It involves the installation of ground cabinets that are more than ten (10) percent larger in height or overall volume than any other ground cabinets associated with the structure; or (d) It involves the installation of any new equipment cabinets on the ground if there is no pre-existing ground cabinet associated with that structure. (iii) For any eligible support structure: (a) It involves the installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed four (4) cabinets; or Page 3 of 6 (b) There is entailed in the proposed modification any excavation or deployment outside of the current site of the tower or base station; or (c) The proposed modification would cause the concealment/camouflage elements of the tower or base station to be defeated; or (d) The proposed modification would not comply with the conditions associated with the prior siting approval of construction or modification of the tower or base station, unless the non-compliance is due to an increase in height, increase in width, addition of cabinets, or new excavation that does not exceed the corresponding thresholds in this section. (iv) To measure changes in height for the purposes of this section, the baseline is: (a) For deployments that are or will be separated horizontally, measured from the original support structure; (b) For all others, measured from the dimensions of the tower or base station, inclusive of originally approved appurtenances and any modifications that were approved by the city prior to February 22, 2012. (v) To measure changes for the purposes of this section, the baseline is the dimensions that were approved by the city prior to February 22, 2012. (13) "Tower" means any structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting any FCC-licensed or - authorized antenna, including any structure that is constructed for wireless communications service. This term does not include a base station. (14) "Transmission Equipment" means equipment that facilitates transmission of any FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communication service. (15) "Wireless Communications Facility" or "WCF" means any antenna, associated equipment, base station, small cell system, tower, and/or transmission equipment located in Palo Alto. (16) "Wireless Communications Service" means, without limitation, all FCC-licensed back-haul and other fixed wireless services, broadcast, private, and public safety communication services, and unlicensed wireless services. (c) Types of WCF Permits Required (1) A Tier 1 WCF Permit shall be required for an eligible facilities request, as defined in this section. (2) A Tier 2 WCF Permit shall be required for: (i) Any modification of an eligible support structure, including the collocation of new equipment, that substantially changes the physical dimensions of the eligible support structure on which it is mounted; or (ii) Any collocation not eligible for a Tier 1 WCF Permit. (3) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be required for the siting of any WCF that is not a collocation subject to a Tier 1 or 2 WCF Permit. (d) WCF Application Requirements All applications for a WCF Permit shall include the following items: (1) Any applicant for a WCF Permit shall participate in an intake meeting with the Planning and Community Environment Department to file an application; (2) The applicant must specify in writing whether the applicant believes the application is for an eligible facilities request subject to the Spectrum Act, and if so, provide a detailed written explanation as to why the applicant believes that the application qualifies as an eligible facilities request; (3) The applicant shall complete the city's standard application form, as may be amended from time to time; (4) The applicant shall include a completed and signed application checklist available from the city, including all information required by the application checklist; (5) Payment of the fee prescribed by the Municipal Fee Schedule; Page 4 of 6 (6) The application must be accompanied by all permit applications with all required application materials for each separate permit required by the city for the proposed WCF, including a building permit, an encroachment permit (if applicable) and an electrical permit (if applicable); (7) For Tier 2 and 3 WCF Permits, the applicant must host a community meeting at a time and location designed to maximize attendance by persons receiving notice under this subparagraph to provide outreach to the neighborhood around the project site. The applicant shall give notice of the community meeting to all residents and property owners within 600 feet of the project site at least 14 days in advance of the community meeting. The applicant shall provide a proof of notice affidavit to the city that contains: (i) Proof that the applicant noticed and hosted the community meeting before filing the application; (ii) A summary of comments received at the community meeting and what, if any, changes were made to the application as a result of the meeting; (8) For Tier 3 WCF Permits, the plans shall include a scaled depiction of the maximum permitted increase in the physical dimensions of the proposed project that would be permitted by the Spectrum Act, using the proposed project as a baseline; and (9) Satisfy other such requirements as may be, from time to time, required by the Planning and Community Environment Department Director ("Director"), as publically stated in the application checklist. (e) Permit Review ("Shot Clock") Time Periods (1) City review of application materials. The timeframe for review of an application shall begin to run when the application is submitted, but shall be tolled if the city finds the application incomplete and provides notice of incompleteness that delineates the missing information in writing. Such requests shall be made within 30 days of submission of the application. After submission of additional information, the city will notify the applicant within 10 days of this submission if the additional information failed to complete the application. If the city makes a determination pursuant to Section 18.42.110(e)(2)(i) that an application submitted as a Tier 1 eligible facilities request should be processed as a Tier 2 or Tier 3, then the Tier 2 or Tier 3 processing time, as applicable, shall begin to run when the city issues this decision. (2) Tier 1 processing time. For Tier 1 WCF Permit applications, the city will act on the WCF application, together with any other city permits required for a proposed WCF modification, within 60 days, adjusted for any tolling due to requests for additional information or mutually agreed upon extensions of time. (i) If the city determines that the application does not qualify as a Tier 1 eligible facilities request, the city will notify the applicant of that determination in writing and will process the application as a Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF Permit application, as applicable. (ii) To the extent federal law provides a "deemed granted" remedy for Tier 1 WCF Permit applications not timely acted upon by the city, no such application shall be deemed granted until the applicant provides notice to the city, in writing, that the application has been deemed granted after the time period provided in Section (e)(2) above has expired. (iii) Any Tier 1 WCF Permit application that the city grants or that is deemed granted by operation of federal law shall be subject to all requirements of Section 18.42.110(i)(3), (5), (6) and (7) and 18.42.110(j)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6). (3) Tier 2 processing time. For Tier 2 WCF Permit applications, the city will act on the application within 90 days, adjusted for any tolling due to requests for additional information or mutually agreed upon extensions of time. (4) Tier 3 processing time. For Tier 3 WCF Permit applications, the city will act on the application within 150 days, adjusted for any tolling due to requests for additional information or mutually agreed upon extensions of time. (5) Denial of application. If the city denies a WCF application, the city will notify the applicant of the denial in writing of the reasons for the denial. Page 5 of 6 (f) Tier 1 WCF Permit Process and Findings (1) A Tier 1 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be final and shall not be appealable pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapters 18.77 or 18.78; (2) The Director shall grant a Tier 1 WCF Permit provided that the Director finds that the applicant proposes an eligible facilities request; (3) The Director shall impose the following conditions on the grant of a Tier 1 WCF Permit: (i) The proposed collocation or modification shall not defeat any existing concealment elements of the support structure; and (ii) The proposed WCF shall comply with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i)(3), (5), (6) and (7), and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j). (g) Tier 2 WCF Permit Process and Findings (1) A Tier 2 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070. (2) The Director, or Council on appeal, shall grant a Tier 2 WCF Permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i) and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) can be made. (3) The Director, or Council on appeal, shall deny a Tier 2 WCF Permit if the above findings cannot be made. (h) Tier 3 WCF Permit Process and Findings (1) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070 and the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060. (2) The Director or Council on appeal shall grant a Tier 3 WCF Permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i) and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) and the conditional use permit findings in Section18.76.010(c) can be made. (3) The Director, or Council on appeal, shall deny a Tier 3 WCF Permit if the above findings cannot be made. (i) Development Standards Except as otherwise provided in this section, a proposed WCF Project shall comply with the following standards: (1) Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible; (2) Shall be designed to minimize the overall height, mass, and size of the cabinet and enclosure structure; (3) Shall be screened from public view; (4) Shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site; (5) Shall be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the Zoning Code; (6) An antenna, base station, or tower shall be designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area; (7) A building-mounted antenna, base station, or tower shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building on which the antenna, base station, or tower is attached; (8) For any Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF proposed to be attached on an historic structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49, historic review shall also be required; (9) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend fifteen (15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the zone district; Page 6 of 6 (10) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF Project shall not exceed sixty-five (65) feet in height; and (11) A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. (j) Conditions of Approval In addition to any other conditions of approval permitted under federal and state law and this Code that the Director deems appropriate or required under this Code, all WCF Projects approved under this chapter, whether approved by the Director or deemed granted by operation of law, shall be subject to the following conditions of approval: (1) Permit conditions. The grant or approval of a WCF Tier 1 Permit shall be subject to the conditions of approval of the underlying permit, except as may be preempted by the Spectrum Act. (2) As-built plans. The applicant shall submit to the Director an as-built set of plans and photographs depicting the entire WCF as modified, including all transmission equipment and all utilities, within ninety (90) days after the completion of construction. (3) Applicant shall hire a radio engineer licensed by the State of California to measure the actual radio frequency emission of the WCF and determine if it meets FCC's standards. A report, certified by the engineer, of all calculations, required measurements, and the engineer's findings with respect to compliance with the FCC's radio frequency emission standards shall be submitted to the Planning Division within one year of commencement of operation. (4) Indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the city, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties") from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the city for its actual attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The city may, in its sole discretion and at Applicant's expense, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. (5) Compliance with applicable laws. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Code, any permit issued under this Code, and all other applicable federal, state and local laws (including without limitation all building code, electrical code and other public safety requirements). Any failure by the City to enforce compliance with any applicable laws shall not relieve any applicant of its obligations under this code, any permit issued under this code, or all other applicable laws and regulations. (6) Compliance with approved plans. The proposed Project shall be built in compliance with the approved plans on file with the Planning Division. (k) Removal of Abandoned Equipment A WCF (Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3) or a component of that WCF that ceases to be in use for more than ninety (90) days shall be removed by the applicant, wireless communications service provider, or property owner within ninety (90) days of the cessation of use of that WCF. A new conditional use permit shall not be issued to an owner or operator of a WCF or a wireless communications service provider until the abandoned WCF or its component is removed. (l) Revocation The Director may revoke any WCF Permit if the permit holder fails to comply with any condition of the permit. The Director's decision to revoke a Permit shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070 and the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060. (Ord. 5340 § 1 (part), 2015) Summary of Questions for the ARB Design Configurations Is there a preference between a pole mounted or ground mounted cabinet for the emergency battery backup? Verizon Wireless is seeking feedback on the configuration of the pole mounted equipment: what does the ARB prefer for the alignment of the radios on the pole (vertical as in Config 1&3 or horizontal as in Config 2), even if no battery exists on the pole? Verizon Wireless is seeking feedback from the Architectural Review Board on a final shade of brown paint for equipment attached to wood poles. Additionally, should all pole mounted equipment including mounts, cabling and conduits be painted? Ground Cabinet If a ground based cabinet is used, does the ARB prefer a cabinet painted to blend in with surroundings or the use of street furniture to “stealth” the emergency battery backup? If the ground cabinet is to be painted, Verizon Wireless is seeking feedback from the Architectural Review Board on a shade of green paint to be used for ground based emergency battery equipment. Is street furniture preferred over an art wrap for the ground based emergency battery cabinet? If street furniture is preferred, is there a favored design? If an art wrap is preferred, are there suggestions for ways to incorporate the community into the design? Model Small Cell Verizon Wireless is seeking the feedback of the Architectural Review Board on the design for the ground cabinet at the proposed model small cell (Permit 17PLN-00063). If a wrap is chosen, it may create a unique opportunity for a community art project in collaboration with the City Art Department. Verizon Wireless – Project Description Verizon Wireless is seeking a Preliminary Review for the design of proposed small cell attachments on wood poles owned and operated by the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU). A brief overview is provided of Verizon Wireless’ citywide efforts to provide more robust wireless service to the City of Palo Alto through the colocation of small cells on existing city-owned infrastructure. Small cells are currently proposed in three (3) configurations that are dependent on whether emergency battery backup is needed at a location, as well as the design opportunities and constraints of specific pole locations. Details of the design options for the proposed three (3) configurations are presented here for consideration and feedback by the Architectural Review Board. Project Overview Verizon Wireless has entered a Master License Agreement (“MLA”) with the City of Palo Alto allowing the attachment of antennas and other equipment (“small cells”) on city owned infrastructure in the right-of-way (ROW). Based on the need to provide network coverage and capacity, Verizon Wireless Radio engineers identify locations throughout the city that require service. Ninety-two (92) such wireless communication facility (“WCF”) installations are currently planned to be co-located on wood utility poles and metal streetlights. Eighty (80) of these small cells are proposed to be co-located on existing wood utility poles; only twelve (12) small cells are proposed to be installed on existing city streetlights. Verizon Wireless and CPAU are still working out the specifics for streetlight locations, so their design is not addressed in this application. These small cells will provide the City of Palo Alto much needed improvements in network capacity and coverage. Submissions for formal review by the ARB will be in groupings of applications or “clusters”, the first of which (Cluster 1) contains eighteen (18) proposed small cells. Cluster 1 contains only wood utility poles, therefore at this time Verizon Wireless is seeking design feedback from the Architectural Review Board exclusively for the configuration and design of only small cells located on wood poles. Additionally, of the ninety-two (92) currently anticipated citywide small cell locations, eighty (80) are conceived on wood poles, so this design warrants an in-depth discussion. Community Need for Small Cells The unprecedented current and future demand for wireless service requires the densification of existing cellular networks. As a result, wireless communication facilities are diminishing in height and being located closer to the user to meet both daily needs as well as provide essential coverage for emergency personnel. While terrain is relatively flat, the dense foliage of the tree canopy combined with difficulty in permitting macro wireless communication facilities presents unique challenges in the provision of coverage to the City of Palo Alto. Verizon Wireless must increase both coverage and capacity throughout the city to meet current and future customer demand. Attachment A – Coverage Maps contains coverage maps that depict this need for coverage in the city. As the map demonstrates, there are significant gaps in the coverage area where Verizon Wireless has proposed the eighteen (18) Cluster 1 small cells. Small Cells are the least visually intrusive method to provide the City of Palo Alto the required capacity and coverage. The miniaturization of the equipment used for cellular communications allows for these small cells to be located on existing infrastructure, reducing the need for new WCF structures and minimizing visual impact to the surrounding community. Additionally, these small cells are able to be located in areas where traditional “macro” wireless communication facilities cannot be located, so that essential communication services can be provided to critical areas all while co-locating on existing infrastructure. Furthermore, the addition of these small cells will both meet the current coverage and capacity needs, as well as provide the road map to future technologies for the next generation of wireless capability to the community in Palo Alto. Siting Guidelines Small cells differ from traditional “macro” cells in that their miniature quality dictates that they cover only a very small area and therefore can only move a short distance (measured in feet) within an identified area of need. In selecting a specific pole to serve an area, Verizon Wireless performs a thorough analysis of the existing infrastructure utilizing the Siting Guidelines from Attachment B – Siting Guidelines to determine the most appropriate location. The standards contained in the Small Cell Siting Guidelines working document have been developed by compiling the criteria and constraints of various regulating agencies. In siting small cells, Verizon Wireless is required to adhere to the standards of the California Public Utilities Commission (General Order 95 Requirements, Rule 94); the engineering and real estate requirements of property owner City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU); Development Standards for wireless communication facility (WCF) locations from PAMC §18.42.110(i); and the Architectural Review Findings of PAMC §18.76.020. Criteria have been further adjusted as city staff from Planning, Urban Forestry, CPAU, and the Art Department have all made time to attend site walks with Verizon Wireless real estate, engineering and construction teams in their fielding efforts. Additionally, previous small cell and DAS installations in the City of Palo Alto were analyzed to take into account previous findings and recommendations by staff, the public and reviewing bodies. Pole Selection / Alternative Site Analysis Based on the need to provide network coverage and capacity, Verizon Wireless Radio Frequency engineers identify locations or “nodes” throughout the city to improve and optimize network performance. Each proposed node is then visited by a team to identify existing city-owned structures available for colocation within the proposed coverage area. During this fielding walk, criteria and constraints are applied by City of Palo Alto Utilities Engineering, as well as Verizon Wireless Engineering, Real Estate and Construction to determine the most suitable pole, subsequently identified as the “primary” location. Additional poles within the coverage area are either designated as viable alternatives or eliminated for the various reasons outlined in the guidelines. These criteria have been compiled into the Small Cell Siting Guidelines previously mentioned and contained in Attachment B – Siting Guidelines. Beyond the Engineering Criteria, pole selection is based on a thoughtful consideration of the surrounding environment in which the proposed small cell is located. Poles with existing favorable site features such as landscaping and tree foliage are prioritized to provide natural screening to reduce the visual impact of small cell attachments. Poles are selected to reduce the impact on views from streets as well as adjacent residences. Site selection was further constrained to avoid poles located in private residential easements (e.g. backyards) and close proximity to second story windows. Because small cells have less flexibility in where they can be located, they can only be moved a short distance while maintaining the required performance. In Attachment C – Prelim ARB Alternative Siting Analysis, Verizon Wireless has prepared three (3) examples for the Architectural Review Board to demonstrate some of the opportunities and constraints that determine which pole has been selected for a particular small cell location. For each node, a map of poles considered has been provided, along with a detailed table outlining the reasons why the alternate poles were not feasible. As those alternative site analyses demonstrate, many seemingly suitable poles must be eliminated for engineering or other reasons. Quite often, as these three (3) examples demonstrate, there is only one suitable pole for a small cell within a designated coverage area. Small Cell Node Design Requirements Verizon Wireless has engineered these small cells utilizing the most streamlined equipment available to meet the capacity and coverage requirements. For each small cell, Verizon Wireless network engineering requires one (1) antenna, three (3) radios, one (1) small electrical disconnect box, in some cases a battery backup unit located either on the pole or on the ground adjacent to the pole, and associated conduit for RF and electrical cabling. Details of how this equipment is attached to wood poles are depicted in Attachment D – Proposed Configurations. Further specifications of each piece of equipment are outlined on the detail pages (D-1, D-2) of the site plans contained in Attachment D – Configurations 1, 2, and 3. Much of the pole-mounted equipment design has been determined by regulatory agencies, such as the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). It would be impossible within the scope of this document to cover the breadth, but in its General Order 95, the CPUC outlines a set of standards relating to attachments meant to ensure safety for the public, workers and equipment. To maintain the required clearance from power distribution, the antenna is mounted on a GO95 approved seven-foot (7') pole- top bayonet mount. Placement of the radios and associated equipment is also fairly constrained. All pole mounted equipment must be located a minimum seven-foot (7') clearance from the ground. The required minimum four-inch (4") horizontal clearance from the pole is maintained using a sled-style mount. Radios and associated equipment are attached to this mount as flush as is possible, given existing pole conditions, and in no case, is the distance greater than twelve inches (12"). This equipment must also be arranged on the pole in a manner that will preserve climbing space, ensuring that utility workers have safe and reliable access. Required small cell equipment specifications further constrain the way equipment can be attached. For example, the coaxial cable used to connect radios to the antenna must maintain a minimum bend radius of six inches (6"); anything less would cause damage to the cable compromising the performance. To further its commitment to provide essential communications during a disaster resulting in loss of power, Verizon Wireless has proposed four (4) hours of battery backup on the most essential small cell nodes. Battery backup will provide critical network coverage for First Responders and users should power be lost. The City of Palo Alto Emergency Management Services uses the Verizon Wireless network for their cellular communication. Verizon Wireless Engineering has a strong preference to have emergency battery back up on all eighteen (18) nodes in Cluster 1. However, Verizon Wireless recognizes the increased visual effect of additional batteries and to reduce that impact, has selected only the most essential locations. For each site with battery back up the small cell will also require either one (1) ground mount battery cabinet or one (1) pole mount battery backup with an additional disconnect, and the additional associated cabling to the cabinet. Is there a preference between a pole mounted or ground mounted cabinet for the emergency battery backup? Required equipment has been arranged into the three (3) aforementioned proposed configurations, with selection dependent on the engineering requirements of a small cell coverage area, as well as the constraints of a particular pole location. If the location is suitable for a ground box, then that is the preferred method of providing critical battery backup and radios are then arranged vertically on the pole. If emergency battery backup is required, but the pole location is not suitable for a ground based cabinet, then the battery unit is placed on the pole and the radios are arranged horizontally. It is assumed that both fiber and power will be provided via an aerial drop from above on the pole. The assignment of configurations for each proposed small cell in Cluster 1 is provided in Attachment D – Cluster 1 Configurations; a map is provided in Attachment G –Map of Cluster 1 Configurations. Verizon Wireless is seeking feedback on the configuration of the pole mounted equipment: what does the ARB prefer for the alignment of the radios on the pole (vertical as in Config 1&3 or horizontal as in Config 2), even if no battery exists on the pole? As currently conceived, wood pole designs would require all pole mounted equipment to be painted brown to blend with the pole. Paint samples (Kelly Moore: Railroad Ties KMA67, Log Cabin KMA76 and Clay Bath KM4595) are included in Attachment H – Proposed Paint Samples. Verizon Wireless is seeking feedback from the Architectural Review Board on a final shade of brown paint for equipment attached to wood poles. Additionally, should all pole mounted equipment including mounts, cabling and conduits be painted? Configuration 1: Emergency battery backup critical The proposed Configuration 1 is designed with one (1) antenna, three (3) radios, and one (1) disconnect arranged vertically on the pole and the emergency battery backup cabinet installed on the ground adjacent to the pole. This is the Verizon Wireless Engineering preferred design as it contains emergency battery backup to maintain coverage for all three (3) radios for a total of four (4) hours, in case of a disaster resulting in loss of power. It is assumed that both fiber and power will be provided via an aerial drop from above on the pole minimizing the ground disturbance to a small (approximately five (5) to ten (10) feet) trench for this scenario. For Configuration 1 only, the ground box is placed on a 32" x 32" concrete pad, with a 54" tall cabinet, and is currently conceived to be painted a green color to blend in with surrounding landscaping. If natural screening does not exist, it will be proposed. Paint samples (Kelly Moore: Lone Pine KM4798 and Acanthus Leaf KM4796) are included in Attachment H – Proposed Paint Samples and Verizon Wireless is seeking feedback from the Architectural Review Board on a final selection. In addition to paint Verizon Wireless has engineered some street furniture options to provide further stealthing in areas where deemed necessary. Available street furniture options include benches, a green relay mailbox or trash can. The emergency battery cabinet also creates a unique opportunity for public art projects such as art wraps. All options are outlined in Attachment I – Proposed Ground Cabinet Stealth Options. Verizon Wireless is seeking feedback from the Architectural Review Board for the street furniture as well as the art wrap concept. Three (3) nodes of Cluster 1 are designed with Configuration 1. For reference, these locations are shown in Attachment G –Map of Cluster 1 Configurations and Attachment D – Configuration 1, contains more details of the design. Node 143 is the example provided for this configuration and detailed site plans are contained in the plan set. Verizon Wireless is seeking feedback on the configuration of the pole mounted equipment: what does the ARB prefer for the alignment of the radios on the pole (vertical as in Config 1&3 or horizontal as in Config 2), even if no battery exists on the pole? Verizon Wireless is seeking feedback from the Architectural Review Board on a final shade of brown paint for equipment attached to wood poles. Additionally, should all pole mounted equipment including mounts, cabling and conduits be painted? If a ground based cabinet is used, does the ARB prefer a cabinet painted to blend in with surroundings or the use of street furniture to “stealth” the emergency battery backup? If the ground cabinet is to be painted, Verizon Wireless is seeking feedback from the Architectural Review Board on a shade of green paint to be used for ground based emergency battery equipment. Is street furniture preferred over an art wrap for the ground based emergency battery cabinet? If street furniture is preferred, is there a favored design? If an art wrap is preferred, are there suggestions for ways to incorporate the community into the design? Configuration 2: Emergency battery backup essential, but no space The proposed Configuration 2 is designed with one (1) antenna, three (3) radios, two (2) disconnects, and emergency battery cabinet, all located on the pole. Verizon Wireless selects this scenario for locations where battery is required, but there is insufficient space for a ground cabinet. The radios are arranged horizontally on the pole, so there is space for the battery cabinet. The modification from a ground cabinet to a pole mounted design for the emergency does entail a significant concession in the capability. Configuration 2 will provide four (4) hours of battery backup for only one (1) radio on the small cell. In comparison, the ground mounted cabinet from Configurations 1 will provide a full four (4) hours of battery backup for all three (3) radios. As a result, when Configuration 2 is installed, in case of a disaster resulting in loss of power, there would be reduction in network capacity at this particular location. It is assumed that both fiber and power will be provided via an aerial drop from above on the pole. Two (2) nodes of Cluster 1 are designed with Configuration 2. For reference these locations are shown in Attachment G –Map of Cluster 1 Configurations and Attachment D – Configuration 2, contains more details of the design. Node 135 is the example provided for this configuration and detailed site plans are contained in the plan set. Verizon Wireless is seeking feedback from the Architectural Review Board on a final shade of brown paint for equipment attached to wood poles. Additionally, should all pole mounted equipment including mounts, cabling and conduits be painted? Configuration 3: Emergency battery backup currently not proposed The proposed Configuration 3 is designed with one (1) antenna, three (3) radios, and one (1) disconnect installed. Battery backup is not proposed in this design. As previously mentioned, Verizon Wireless Engineering prefers emergency battery backup at all small cell locations. However, given the potential visual impact, Verizon has decided at this time not to request the additional equipment required to provide backup battery service. While the pole mounted battery in Configuration 2 represents a significant concession in emergency battery capability, it is critical to emphasize that Configuration 3 provides absolutely no emergency battery backup and in case of a disaster resulting in loss of power, there would be a significant reduction in network capacity and coverage at this particular location. It is assumed that both fiber and power will be provided via an aerial drop from above on the pole. Thirteen (13) nodes of Cluster 1 are designed with Configuration 3. For reference, these locations are shown in in Attachment G –Map of Cluster 1 Configurations and Attachment D – Configuration 3, contains more details of the design. Node 139 is the example provided for this configuration and detailed site plans are contained in the plan set. Verizon Wireless is seeking feedback on the configuration of the pole mounted equipment: what does the ARB prefer for the alignment of the radios on the pole (vertical as in Config 1&3 or horizontal as in Config 2), even if no battery exists on the pole? Verizon Wireless is seeking feedback from the Architectural Review Board on a final shade of brown paint for equipment attached to wood poles. Additionally, should all pole mounted equipment including mounts, cabling and conduits be painted? Submission in Clusters Based on detailed discussions with the city, Verizon Wireless will submit its Conditional Use and Architectural Review (CUP/ARB) applications for consideration in five separate “clusters”, easing the burden on staff so that they may prepare one staff report per cluster. The currently planned small cells have been divided based on geography and therefore these groupings by neighborhood will aid Verizon Wireless in their community outreach for the project. Even though these proposed small cells will be submitted in clusters and are linked to the greater Verizon Wireless network, it is important to note that each wireless communication facility (WCF) acts independently of any other small cell. The utility of each node is not dependent on a neighbor or any other node. Model Small Cell To make transparent for staff and the community how a small cell will look in the real world, Verizon Wireless has applied for Architectural Review (Permit #17PLN-00063) to locate a mock-up on the CPAU wood pole adjacent to 1350 Newell Road. Both pole mounted equipment and the ground mounted emergency battery backup cabinet are proposed to be located here (Configuration #1). The equipment would not be operational while the pole is used for a model small cell. The proposed location as well as a photo simulation of the model small cell are shown in a photo in Attachment J – Proposed Model Small Cell. Verizon Wireless is seeking the feedback of the Architectural Review Board on the design for the ground cabinet at the proposed model small cell (Permit 17PLN-00063). Because there is already a park bench at this location, it may be more suitable to a ground box. If a wrap is chosen for the box, it may create a unique opportunity for a community art project in collaboration with the City Art Department. Attachment A – Coverage Maps Existing coverage area – small cells in Cluster 1 turned OFF. Proposed Coverage – small cells in Cluster 1 turned ON. Attachment B – Small Cell Siting Guidelines Vinculums Services has created this working document, a compilation of criteria and constraints of various regulating agencies, on behalf of Verizon Wireless in its efforts to site small cells in Palo Alto. Verizon Wireless is required to adhere to the standards of the California Public Utilities Commission (General Order 95 Requirements); the engineering and real estate requirements of property owner City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU); City of Palo Alto Development Standards for wireless communication facility (WCF) locations from PAMC §18.42.110(i); and the Architectural Review Findings of PAMC §18.76.020. Engineering Criteria Nature of Small Cells--small cells differ from traditional “macro” cells in that their miniature quality dictates that they can only move a very small distance (measured in feet) and still serve their intended purpose. Verizon Wireless engineering proposed locations are fielded using the criteria below to select a utility pole or streetlight from existing city infrastructure: City of Palo Alto Utility (Pole Owner) Pole Attachment Mandates  All Attachments must meet California Public Utilities General Order 95 o Climbing space o Clearances between power and/or other attachments o Required distances for separation between pole and equipment o Required distances for separation between equipment  City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) prioritizes the provision of service to its customers. The siting of attachments on poles is secondary and therefore: o No attachments allowed on poles with primary power risers o No attachments allowed on poles with transformers or other special equipment o Primary Line and Buck (primary power lines attaching to the pole at 90 degrees or in perpendicular fashion) situations have a modified climbing space requirement, requiring more pole real estate than otherwise required under State Public Utility Code o Various other situations where the provision of electrical service would be compromised by attachment City of Palo Alto Utility Preferences (in order of importance) 1. Guy stubs - Poles that do not have any electrical or communications; they simply provide a structural tie point for a guy wire for a neighboring pole 2. Poles with overhead secondary power conductors only – Secondary power (typically) being the second from the top level of power on the pole and which provides residential power (120/240 Volts AC) 3. Primary dead-end poles – A pole at the end of a line of poles which no poles further down the line 4. Primary poles with no transformers downstream on the poles to end of line of poles 5. Primary poles with no electric utility equipment on the poles on either side of the proposed pole Development Criteria Development Standards from PAMC §18.42.110(i)  Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible  Shall be designed to minimize the overall height, mass, and size of the cabinet and enclosure structure  Be screened from public view  Be architecturally compatible with the existing site  Be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the Zoning Code  An Antenna, Base Station, or Tower shall be designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the Antenna, Base Station, or Tower into the surrounding area Planning and Residential Considerations  Only poles located in the right-of-way (ROW) are selected. Poles on private property are not selected for attachment.  Prioritize poles which have tree foliage close to help camouflage the pole mounted equipment  Prioritize poles that are located near evergreen trees, rather than deciduous trees  Select a location for ground based emergency battery equipment that meets standards identified in Tree Technical Manual  Face the pole mounted equipment away from direct views of the adjacent home, toward the street when no foliage is present to hide the equipment  Consolidate equipment to reduce the visual clutter; move the ground mounted equipment onto the pole when there is not enough right-of-way or deemed too obtrusive to the residents  In general, prefer locations mid-block instead of at more visible corners/intersections  Determine the most advantageous height that is least disruptive to views from both pedestrian and the adjacent residences Attachment C – Prelim ARB Alternative Siting Analysis Prelim ARB - Proposed Small Cell Nodes Alternative Site Analysis follows for each of the following proposed nodes: SF PALO ALTO 143 – Alternative Siting Analysis - Map and Details SF PALO ALTO 135 - Alternative Siting Analysis - Map and Details SF PALO ALTO 139 - Alternative Siting Analysis - Map and Details Attachment D – Proposed Configurations Below is a simplified elevation drawing of all proposed equipment Configurations 1, 2 and 3. See plan set provided for examples of each proposed configuration on wooden poles. Configuration #1 Configuration #2 Configuration #3 Attachment D – Configuration 1 Wood Utility Pole with Ground Mounted Emergency Battery Backup Verizon Wireless requires emergency battery backup the proposed small cell located near 419 El Verano Ave. (Node 143). The emergency battery equipment is currently proposed to be located in existing landscape strip located within the right-of-way. See attached site plan with pole elevations and equipment detail. The photo simulation for this small cell can be found in Attachment E. See plan set provided for design details of Configuration 1. Verizon Wireless is seeking feedback on the configuration of the pole mounted equipment: what does the ARB prefer for the alignment of the radios on the pole (vertical as in Config 1&3 or horizontal as in Config 2), even if no battery exists on the pole? Verizon Wireless is seeking feedback from the Architectural Review Board on a final shade of brown paint for equipment attached to wood poles. Additionally, should all pole mounted equipment including mounts, cabling and conduits be painted? If a ground based cabinet is used, does the ARB prefer a cabinet painted to blend in with surroundings or the use of street furniture to “stealth” the emergency battery backup? If the ground cabinet is to be painted, Verizon Wireless is seeking feedback from the Architectural Review Board on a shade of green paint to be used for ground based emergency battery equipment. Is street furniture preferred over an art wrap for the ground based emergency battery cabinet? If street furniture is preferred, is there a favored design? If an art wrap is preferred, are there suggestions for ways to incorporate the community into the design? Attachment D – Configuration 2 Wood Utility Pole with Pole Mounted Emergency Battery Backup The proposed small cell located near 795 Stone Lane (Node 135) is located on a Santa Clara Valley Water District canal. Verizon Wireless requires emergency battery backup in this location. However, location of ground mounted equipment cabinet could interfere with the Water District’s operation. Therefore, Verizon Wireless has proposed a pole mounted location for this scenario. See attached site plan with pole elevations and equipment detail. The photo simulation for this small cell can be found in Attachment E. See plan set provided for design details of Configuration 2. Verizon Wireless is seeking feedback from the Architectural Review Board on a final shade of brown paint for equipment attached to wood poles. Additionally, should all pole mounted equipment including mounts, cabling and conduits be painted? Attachment D – Configuration 3 Wood Utility Pole without Emergency Battery Backup The proposed small cell located near 2793 Randers Court (Node 139) is located within a residential area. As such, Verizon Wireless has proposed only pole mounted equipment at this location. See attached site plan with pole elevations and equipment detail. The photo simulation for this small cell can be found in Attachment E. See plan set provided for design details of Configuration 3. Verizon Wireless is seeking feedback on the configuration of the pole mounted equipment: what does the ARB prefer for the alignment of the radios on the pole (vertical as in Config 1&3 or horizontal as in Config 2), even if no battery exists on the pole? Verizon Wireless is seeking feedback from the Architectural Review Board on a final shade of brown paint for equipment attached to wood poles. Additionally, should all pole mounted equipment including mounts, cabling and conduits be painted? Attachment E – Photo Simulations of Configurations Configuration 1: Ground mounted emergency battery Configuration 1: Ground mounted emergency battery – Detail View Configuration 2: Pole mounted emergency battery Configuration 2: Pole mounted emergency battery – Detail View Configuration 3: Pole mounted equipment only. No emergency battery. Configuration 3: Pole mounted equipment only. No emergency battery. Attachment F – Cluster 1 Configurations Cluster 1 contains 18 proposed small cell nodes. Node 1A Verified Adjacent Address Pole Type Config CPAU Pole # 1A Verified Adjacent APN Adjacent APN Zoning Class SF PALO ALTO 127 820 WARREN WAY Wood Utility Config 3 3112 12730045 R-1 SF PALO ALTO 129 2490 LOUIS RD Wood Utility Config 1 3121 12730062 R-1 SF PALO ALTO 130 2802 LOUIS RD Wood Utility Config 3 2461 12728046 R-1 SF PALO ALTO 131 3120 LOUIS 891 ELBRIDGE WY Wood Utility Config 2 3315 12726067 R-1 SF PALO ALTO 133 925 LOMA VERDE AVE Wood Utility Config 3 2857 12724023 R-1 SF PALO ALTO 134 3409 KENNETH DR Wood Utility Config 3 2964 12709028 R-1 (7000) SF PALO ALTO 135 795 STONE LN Wood Utility Config 2 3610 12747001 R-1 (8000) SF PALO ALTO 136 3191 MANCHESTER CT Wood Utility Config 3 3298 12758024 R-1 SF PALO ALTO 137 795 STERN 3090 ROSS RD Wood Utility Config 3 3351 12752031 R-1 SF PALO ALTO 138 836 COLORADO AVE Wood Utility Config 3 2479 12727063 R-1 SF PALO ALTO 139 752 COLORADO 2793 RANDERS CT Wood Utility Config 3 2489 12734115 R-1 SF PALO ALTO 140 450 LOMA VERDE AVE Wood Utility Config 3 3971 13215077 R-1 SF PALO ALTO 141 2801 SOUTH CT Wood Utility Config 3 2669 13214023 R-1 SF PALO ALTO 143 3299 WAVERLEY OR 419 EL VERANO AVE Wood Utility Config 1 3867 13215017 R-1 SF PALO ALTO 144 201 LOMA VERDE AVE Wood Utility Config 3 1506 13248015 RM-30 SF PALO ALTO 145 733 LOMA VERDE AVE Wood Utility Config 3 3288 12764001 R-1 (7000) SF PALO ALTO 146 2901 MIDDLEFIELD RD OR 705 ELLSWORTH Wood Utility Config 1 7647 12735194 R-1 RM-15 SF PALO ALTO 147 181 EL VERANO AVE Wood Utility Config 3 1494 13227072 R-1 Attachment G –Map of Cluster 1 Configurations Eighteen (18) proposed nodes from Cluster 1 are identified, along with their proposed Configurations 1, 2 and 3. Config 1: Emergency battery backup critical, placed in ground mounted box adjacent to pole. Config 2: Emergency battery backup essential, but no space; small battery placed on pole. Config 3: Emergency battery backup currently not required. No emergency battery. Attachment H – Proposed Paint Samples Pole Mounted Equipment (all Kelly Moore durable metal paint) Railroad Ties (KMA67) Log Cabin (KMA76) Clay Bath (KM4595) Ground Mounted Equipment (all Kelly Moore durable metal paint) Lone Pine (KM4798) Acanthus Leaf (KM4796 Attachment I – Proposed Ground Cabinet Stealth Options Landscaping Ground mounted emergency battery equipment with landscaping. Street Furniture Options Concrete Bench Relay Mailbox Metal Bench Garbage Can Art-Wrapped Cabinets Ground mounted emergency battery cabinet without wrap. Examples of Existing Art Wraps (located Downtown Walnut Creek) Please note that these cabinets may differ in size than the proposed emergency battery cabinet, which is placed on a 32" x 32" concrete pad, with a 54" tall cabinet. Attachment J – Proposed Model Small Cell Location 1 Atkinson, Rebecca From:DUANE <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 25, 2017 9:56 PM To:Support Wireless; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: DUANE KALAR <dkalar@pacbell.net>  Phone number: 650/804.0500  City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94301  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.  Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.  Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto.  ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)  Attachment D - Public Correspondence (Received to 5/9/17) 2 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Rita <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Wednesday, April 19, 2017 6:40 PM To:Support Wireless; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Rita Allison <rallison48@sbcglobal.net> Phone number:   City: Menlo Park  ZIP code: 94025  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  Or create your own message:  Though I live in Menlo Park and have experienced dropped calls and poor cell phone reception at my residence, I do  visit, shop, and dine in Palo Alto and support better wireless service for our communities.  It is important not only for  emergency services but to connect with family, which in my case is all out of state.  Please support Verizon's small cell  proposals for Palo Alto.    Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)    3 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Anastacia <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 18, 2017 4:06 PM To:Support Wireless; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Anastacia Kasmer <anastacia@greenride.eu.com> Phone number:   City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94301  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  Or create your own message:  Dear City of Palo Alto,    We are developing a cutting edge electric mode of transportation called the INU, that will be initially deployed in world  class cities such as Tel Aviv, London, New York and Palo Alto.  Our product, and others like it that are on the forefront of  technology, depend on data connectivity in order to function at their fullest potential.    Please approve this network of small cell antennas, and ensure that Palo Alto continues as a global leader in innovation,  helping companies like ours improve lives all over the world.    Thank you,    Anastacia    Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)    4 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Greg <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 18, 2017 2:18 PM To:Support Wireless; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto. Greg Bell" From: Greg Bell <gxbell@gmail.com>  Phone number: 6508665456  City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94306  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.  Greg Bell    Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.  Place a Verizon Small Cell on my street please, 3000 Cowper Street.        Greg Bell    Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto., I would consider attending a public  hearing. Please send me more information.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)    5 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Richard <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Sunday, April 16, 2017 11:02 PM To:Support Wireless; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I DO NOT support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Richard Simoni <rtsimoni@gmail.com> Phone number:   City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94306  Subject: I DO NOT support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  Or create your own message:  A few years ago it was AT&T's small cells.  Now it's Verizon's.  Next it will be T‐Mobile's.  Please tell these providers to  get their act together and collaborate on a multi‐tenant solution (more than one provider sharing the same hardware, to  minimize the number of these horrible looking pole extensions, with loud fans in the pole boxes they somehow never  get around to mentioning) rather than shoving more stuff onto all the poles.  As I recall from the AT&T plan, the only  leverage the City really has is on the aesthetics, but that can be used to force multi‐tenant.    The other problem with the use‐the‐existing‐poles plan is it more or less eliminates the prospect of ever undergrounding  the utilities (again, aesthetic impact).    Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto., I would consider attending a public  hearing. Please send me more information.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)    6 Atkinson, Rebecca From:David <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 11, 2017 12:24 PM To:Support Wireless; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: David Gurle <david@gurle.me>  Phone number:   City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94306  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  My schedule may not allow me to attend a public hearing. Please accept this email as a show of my strong support for  Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.          ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)    7 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Suzy <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 11, 2017 12:24 PM To:Support Wireless; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Suzy Crammond <suzy.cram@gmail.com> Phone number:   City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94306  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.      Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)    8 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Josh <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Tuesday, April 11, 2017 11:15 AM To:Support Wireless; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Josh Banko <jbanko@gmail.com>  Phone number:   City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 9430‐  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.      Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)    9 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Vincent Gurle <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Sunday, April 02, 2017 9:58 AM To:Support Wireless; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I strongly support the improvement and buildout of Verizon's network in Palo Alto" From: Vincent Gurle Gurle <vince@gurle.me> Phone number: 6507964738  City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94306‐1034  Subject: I strongly support the improvement and buildout of Verizon's network in Palo Alto    Message Body:  Or create your own message:  As a citizen of Palo Alto, I strongly support Verizon improving the cellular service quality, speed and reception in our city.  The connection is suffering from ever increasing demand in the area, and having this excellent option of many micro‐cell  towers is an ideal solution.     Please support this, and help Verizon grow this!    Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)    1 Atkinson, Rebecca From:John <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Friday, March 31, 2017 8:27 AM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: John Carey <pacificjack@earthlink.net> Phone number: 650‐380‐6280  City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94301  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.  Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.  Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto.  ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)  2 Atkinson, Rebecca From:John <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Thursday, March 30, 2017 2:32 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: John Carey <pacificjack@earthlink.net> Phone number: 650‐380‐6280  and 650‐380‐2380  City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94301  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  My schedule may not allow me to attend a public hearing. Please accept this email as a show of my strong support for  Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.      Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      3 Atkinson, Rebecca From:John <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Thursday, March 30, 2017 2:22 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: John Carey <pacificjack@earthlink.net> Phone number: 650‐380‐6280  City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94301  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.  Message Body:  Or create your own message:  I live at 325 Kingsley Ave.  I have Verizon Wireless cell phone service. I cannot use my cell phone in my house;  I have  only one Bar.  I have to go outside when phone rings.  C'mon this is Silicon Valley!  Please support better wireless service in Palo Alto. This is important for my family and friends. We want to be able to  use our cell phones during emergencies and for 911 calls.  Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto.  ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)  4 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Cornelia <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Thursday, March 30, 2017 12:14 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Cornelia Davis <neli@audiofederation.com> Phone number:   City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94303  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  Or create your own message:  Hi Folks,  My husband and I recently relocated to Palo Alto. We strongly support Verizon Wireless' small cell proposasls to improve signal strength and capacity in Palo Alto. It has been a huge surprise to find that coverage in the heart of Silicon Valley is  so much worse than at our previous homes in rural New Mexico and the mountains west of Boulder, Colorado. The small  cells look unobtrusive. Mobile usage and bandwidth requirements continue to increase. Thanks for helping!  Kind regards,  Cornelia Davis  3301 Kenneth Drive  Palo Alto CA 94303    Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      5 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Paul <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 28, 2017 12:53 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Paul Rosario <paul.rosario@gmail.com> Phone number: 631‐873‐9883  City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94301  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.  Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.  ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)  6 Atkinson, Rebecca From:ibrahim okuyucu <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 28, 2017 11:56 AM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: ibrahim okuyucu okuyucu <okuyucu@gmail.com> Phone number: 4155301015  City: PALO ALTO  ZIP code: 94301  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.      I would consider attending a public hearing. Please send me more information.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      7 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Dan <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 21, 2017 12:22 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "Problems with Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto" From: Dan Kuokka <kuokka@computer.org>  Phone number:   City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94303  Subject: Problems with Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto  Message Body:  Or create your own message:  I am unable to attend this meeting, but have concerns based on an AT&T small cell installation which is right next to our  house (looks identical to Verizon configuration 2).  It has three problems:  First, it rendered our AT&T service unusable for close to a year.  The small cell was unreliable (going down for a few  seconds every few minutes), yet it prevented our cell phones from using the more distant but reliable tower.   Second, the fan in the battery cabinet is noisy, emitting a constant hiss audible from more than 60 feet away.  Third, neither the City of Palo Alto nor AT&T will take any responsibility for problems.  Each points to the other when an  issue is raised.  These issues should be publicized and addressed before any vote.  Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto., I would consider attending a public  hearing. Please send me more information.  ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)  8 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Michael <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Sunday, March 19, 2017 10:38 AM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Michael Iannuzzi <iannuzzi.michael@gmail.com> Phone number: 6509317273  City: Palo alto  ZIP code: 94306  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  Please support better wireless service in Palo Alto. This is important for my family and friends. We want to be able to  use our cell phones during emergencies and for 911 calls.      Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      9 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Dennis Reinhardt <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Saturday, March 18, 2017 4:34 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Dennis Reinhardt Reinhardt <DennisR@dair.com> Phone number: 6504947081  City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94303  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.  I think it is important for cell phone service for *all companies* be strong to protect competition and keep citizens  connected.    Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      10 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Charles <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Saturday, March 18, 2017 3:32 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Charles McCoy <c.mccoy2502@att.net> Phone number: 6504004750  City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94306  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.      Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      11 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Masoud <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 15, 2017 12:33 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Masoud Tavazoei <masood_tavazoei@yahoo.com> Phone number:   City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94135  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.      Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto., I would consider attending a public  hearing. Please send me more information.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      12 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Christopher Kantarjiev <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Monday, March 13, 2017 6:22 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Christopher Kantarjiev Kantarjiev <cak+vzw@dimebank.com> Phone number:   City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94306  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.      Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto., I would consider attending a public  hearing. Please send me more information.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      13 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Michael <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Monday, March 13, 2017 6:13 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Michael Lyzwa sr <michaellyzwa@concast.net> Phone number: 650/380‐2025  City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94301  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.      Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      14 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Carl <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Monday, March 13, 2017 12:01 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I DON'T Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Carl Cimilluca <carlcimilluca@gmail.com> Phone number: 6506445413  City: Palo alto  ZIP code: 94301  Subject: I DON'T Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  Or create your own message:  I ""don't "" support Verizon's plan.  My wireless is fine. I don't want a noisy box on utility poles near me!  Put boxes by businesses and on already noisy roads(Oregon exp, embarcadero road). They should not be near  residences.        ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      15 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Carl <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Saturday, March 11, 2017 2:10 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Carl Darling <cdarling@sbcglobal.net> Phone number: 6608566075  City: Palo alto  ZIP code: 94306  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.      Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto., I would consider attending a public  hearing. Please send me more information.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      16 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Darryl <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Saturday, March 11, 2017 1:06 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Darryl Celkupa <sunraydcc@gmail.com> Phone number:   City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94303  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.      Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      17 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Brian <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Friday, March 10, 2017 5:19 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Brian Beckwith <brilaw@pacbell.net> Phone number: 4154123900  City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94301  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.      Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto., I would consider attending a public  hearing. Please send me more information.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      18 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Christopher <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Friday, March 10, 2017 9:11 AM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Christopher Ream <ream@reamlaw.com> Phone number: 6504240821  City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94301  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.      Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto., I would consider attending a public  hearing. Please send me more information.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      19 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Roberta <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Friday, March 10, 2017 8:56 AM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Roberta Conway <conwayr7@msn.com>  Phone number: 303‐941‐1103  City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: California  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.      Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      20 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Marian <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Friday, March 10, 2017 8:41 AM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Marian Richart <mj.leary@comcast.net> Phone number:   City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94303  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.          ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      21 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Leon <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Friday, March 10, 2017 8:23 AM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Leon Lipson <leonwlipsonmd@gmail.com> Phone number: 6508233803  City: Palo alto  ZIP code: 94306  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  My schedule may not allow me to attend a public hearing. Please accept this email as a show of my strong support for  Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.          ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      22 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Patty Irish <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Friday, March 10, 2017 7:04 AM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Patty Irish Irish <Irishpw@gmail.com> Phone number: 6502453906  City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94301  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.      Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      23 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Michael <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Thursday, March 09, 2017 10:55 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Michael Hodos <mehodos@mac.com>  Phone number: 650.557.6588  City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94301‐2710  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  Or create your own message:  I support Verizon's proposal for better wireless service in Palo Alto via small cell installations. This is important for my  family,friends and neighbors. We want to be able to use our cell phones during emergencies and for 911 calls.        ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      24 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Pierre <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Thursday, March 09, 2017 10:17 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Pierre Tronik <pierre.tronik@yahoo.com> Phone number: 650 546 6009  City: Palo alto  ZIP code: 94301  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.  Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.  I support all the issues presented  Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto.  ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)  25 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Marie <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Thursday, March 09, 2017 9:58 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Marie Pence <pence.marie@gmail.com> Phone number: 650‐799‐8700  City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94303  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  My schedule may not allow me to attend a public hearing. Please accept this email as a show of my strong support for  Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.          ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      26 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Eswar <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Thursday, March 09, 2017 8:49 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Eswar Subramanian <eswars@yahoo.com> Phone number:   City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94301  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  My schedule may not allow me to attend a public hearing. Please accept this email as a show of my strong support for  Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.          ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      27 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Joe <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Thursday, March 09, 2017 8:17 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Joe Coenenberg <jcoenenberg@comcast.net> Phone number:   City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94306  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.      Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      28 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Lianghuey <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Thursday, March 09, 2017 8:00 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Lianghuey Leu <lianghuey@yahoo.com> Phone number:   City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94306  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.          ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      29 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Sally <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Thursday, March 09, 2017 7:58 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Sally Rench <srench10321032@comcast.net> Phone number: 510‐791‐1032  City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94301  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.      Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto., I would consider attending a public  hearing. Please send me more information.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      30 Atkinson, Rebecca From:James <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Thursday, March 09, 2017 7:40 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: James Little <jglittle64@alumni.rice.edu> Phone number:   City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94301  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  Please support better wireless service in Palo Alto. This is important for my family and friends. We want to be able to  use our cell phones during emergencies and for 911 calls.          ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      31 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Luis <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Thursday, March 09, 2017 7:40 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Luis Castillo <lcmando05@gmail.com> Phone number: 6503849787  City: East Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94303  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.      Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      32 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Bo Phil <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Thursday, March 09, 2017 7:28 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Bo Phil Choi <choi.bophil@gmail.com> Phone number: 408 933 8759  City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94303  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.      Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      33 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Hassan <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Thursday, March 09, 2017 7:16 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Hassan Kamgar <hkamgar@msn.com>  Phone number: 4088963176  City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94303  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.      Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto., I would consider attending a public  hearing. Please send me more information.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      34 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Jeffrey Peters <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Thursday, March 09, 2017 7:15 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Jeffrey Peters Peters <jeffreypeters@sbcglobal.net> Phone number: 6506565805  City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94303  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.      Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      35 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Jason <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Thursday, March 09, 2017 7:10 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Jason Cieply <cieplyj@gmail.com>  Phone number: 4159855350  City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94306  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.      I would consider attending a public hearing. Please send me more information.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      36 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Bharati <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Thursday, March 09, 2017 7:07 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Bharati Taktawala <btaktawala@gmail.com> Phone number: 6507761106  City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94303  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.      Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      37 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Kaveri <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Thursday, March 09, 2017 7:06 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Kaveri Patel <wisdominwaves@gmail.com> Phone number: 6507764110  City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94303  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.      Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      38 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Satyadev <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Thursday, March 09, 2017 7:05 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Satyadev Patel <satyadevpatel@hotmail.com> Phone number: 6509067042  City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94303  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.  Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.  Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto.  ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)  39 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Murphy <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Thursday, March 09, 2017 7:03 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Murphy Reyes <reyesmurphy@me.com>  Phone number: 650‐621‐0452  City: East Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94303  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.      Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      40 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Jennifer <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Thursday, March 09, 2017 7:01 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Jennifer Schindler <jls94303@yahoo.com> Phone number:   City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94303  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.          ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      41 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Cathie <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Thursday, March 09, 2017 7:01 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Cathie Foster <princesscathie@comcast.net> Phone number:   City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94301  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  I understand the Palo Alto Fire Department uses Verizon Wireless service. It is essential that our first responders  maintain reliable communications for our public safety. Please support Verizon Wireless’s proposal.      Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      42 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Jennifer <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Thursday, March 09, 2017 7:00 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Jennifer Kim <sshseoul@yahoo.com>  Phone number: 650‐248‐9110  City: Palo alto  ZIP code: 94306  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.  Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.  Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto.  ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)  43 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Uisik <wordpress@riefmedia.com> Sent:Thursday, March 09, 2017 7:00 PM To:supportwireless@verizonwireless.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon "I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto." From: Uisik Ro <uro@sbcglobal.net>  Phone number: 408‐858‐8711  City: Palo Alto  ZIP code: 94306  Subject: I Support Verizon Wireless's Small Cell Network for Palo Alto.    Message Body:  I support improved coverage for everyday use and emergencies. I have personally experienced dropped calls, data  delays or poor cell phone reception. Please support Verizon Wireless’s small cell proposals for Palo Alto.      Keep me informed of issues that impact the Verizon Wireless network in Palo Alto.    ‐‐  This e‐mail was sent from a contact form on Verizon (http://verizon:8888)      1 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Atkinson, Rebecca Sent:Thursday, February 09, 2017 6:26 PM To:Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:17PLN-00033 - Preliminary Architectural Review Application - Small Cell Wireless Deployment Project Copy  From: Atkinson, Rebecca Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 3:49 PM To: 'sukiroo@hotmail.com' Subject: 17PLN-00033 - Preliminary Architectural Review Application - Small Cell Wireless Deployment Project Hello Natalie,  Thank you for your call and email today, much appreciated.  FYI 1 ‐ I have contacted the project applicant to clarify that they didn’t post the correct contact and other information  shown below – they will go out and update all of the notice boards.   FYI 2‐ The project plans, maps, and a detailed/expanded project description are uploaded to  https://aca.accela.com/paloalto/ ‐ search with the file number 17PLN‐00033. Let me know if you have any questions on  these materials.  This is an informal, non‐binding Preliminary Architectural Review application and the purpose for this application is to  disseminate information and receive feedback from the public and the Architectural Review Board before the applicant  submits formal Major Architectural Review and Conditional Use Permit applications.  As the Project Planner for this application, I’ll be going out to all of the proposed deployment locations in the near term  in order to start my staff analysis and to help in preparation of a forthcoming Architectural Review Board staff report.  Notice of the Architectural Review Board meeting date will be posted in the newspaper and mailed out to neighbors  ahead of the hearing following standard City practices. The Architectural Review Board agenda and staff report will be  posted on the City’s website a week before the meeting.  You and neighbors are welcome to comment on the Preliminary Architectural Review application at the meeting or  beforehand.      Thank you again.  Regards,  Rebecca  2        Rebecca Atkinson, PMP, AICP, LEED Green Associate | Planner | P&CE Department   250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301  T: 650.329.2596 | F: 650.329.2154 |E: rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org    Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!        From: Nat Fisher [mailto:sukiroo@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2017 1:07 PM To: Atkinson, Rebecca Subject: cell phone towers   Thank you for talking with me this morning. I have sent your phone # and email address to NextDoor, my neighbors and the Midtown Residents' Assoc. Natalie Fisher 736 Ellsworth Place 326-6359   1 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Atkinson, Rebecca Sent:Thursday, February 09, 2017 7:59 PM To:'nguyenhonghanh@gmail.com' Subject:17PLN-00033 - Preliminary Architectural Review Application – Vinculums/Verizon Proposed Cluster 1 Small Cell Deployment - Re the cellphone pole at 2902 middlefield road Hello Hanh,  Thank you for your email, much appreciated.   The project plans, maps, and a detailed/expanded project description are uploaded to https://aca.accela.com/paloalto/  ‐ search with the file number 17PLN‐00033.  Please let me know if you have any further questions on these materials.  This is an informal, non‐binding Preliminary Architectural Review application and the purpose for this application is to  disseminate information and receive feedback from the public and the Architectural Review Board before the applicant  submits formal Major Architectural Review and Conditional Use Permit applications.  As the Project Planner for this application, I’ll be going out to all of the proposed deployment locations in the near term  in order to start my staff analysis and to help in preparation of a forthcoming Architectural Review Board staff report.  I won’t learn some information, such as in regard to radiation emission at each specific location, until the formal  applications are filed. In the meantime, I did request that the applicant provide me more information about the antenna  power, frequency bands, and anything else that would be helpful, such as a weblink to an emission report from  elsewhere for the same technology.    I will try to answer your questions in my staff report or beforehand.  Notice of the Architectural Review Board meeting date will be posted in the newspaper and mailed out to neighbors  ahead of the meeting following standard City practices. The Architectural Review Board agenda and staff report will be  posted on the City’s website a week before the meeting.  You and neighbors are welcome to comment on the Preliminary Architectural Review application at the meeting or  beforehand.       Thank you for your comments that you already shared below.  Regards,  Rebecca  2         Rebecca Atkinson, PMP, AICP, LEED Green Associate | Planner | P&CE  Department   250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301  T: 650.329.2596 | F: 650.329.2154 |E: rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org    Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!        ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Hanh Nguyen [mailto:nguyenhonghanh@gmail.com]   Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 3:17 PM  To: Atkinson, Rebecca  Subject: Re the cellphone pole at 2902 middlefield road    Hi Rebecca,  I was fwd your contact from my neighbor Ms. Natalie Fisher regarding the cellphone pole at the above address.  We are home owners of 706 Ellsworth Pl, the first house on Ellsworth Pl and the closest household on Ellworth to that  pole.   I am very concerned about the distance from the pole to my residence, we have kids in the house and also I have  frequent headache, I think the pole will pose a risk to our health. I would oppose to have a pole built that close to my  house.  Thanks and please keep us updated,  Hanh    Sent from my iPhone  1 Atkinson, Rebecca From:RK Parthasarathy <rkpartha@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 09, 2017 7:20 PM To:Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Re: 17PLN-00033 - Preliminary Architectural Review Application – Vinculums/Verizon Proposed Cluster 1 Small Cell Deployment Rebecca, thank you so much for the prompt recover and the follow up with information about the project. We'll be in touch with any questions. Best RK On Feb 9, 2017 7:13 PM, "Atkinson, Rebecca" <Rebecca.Atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello RK, Thank you for your call, much appreciated. The project plans, maps, and a detailed/expanded project description are uploaded to https://aca.accela.com/paloalto/ - search with the file number 17PLN-00033. Let me know if you have any questions on these materials. This is an informal, non-binding Preliminary Architectural Review application and the purpose for this application is to disseminate information and receive feedback from the public and the Architectural Review Board before the applicant submits formal Major Architectural Review and Conditional Use Permit applications. As the Project Planner for this application, I’ll be going out to all of the proposed deployment locations in the near term in order to start my staff analysis and to help in preparation of a forthcoming Architectural Review Board staff report. Notice of the Architectural Review Board meeting date will be posted in the newspaper and mailed out to neighbors ahead of the hearing following standard City practices. The Architectural Review Board agenda and staff report will be posted on the City’s website a week before the meeting. You and neighbors are welcome to comment on the Preliminary Architectural Review application at the meeting or beforehand. Thank you again. Regards, Rebecca 2 Rebecca Atkinson, PMP, AICP, LEED Green Associate | Planner | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2596 | F: 650.329.2154 |E: rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you! 1 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Atkinson, Rebecca Sent:Thursday, February 09, 2017 7:41 PM To:'chen wang'; janetlipingding1120@gmail.com Subject:17PLN-00033 - Preliminary Architectural Review Application – Vinculums/Verizon Proposed Cluster 1 Small Cell Deployment - Verizon tower Hello Chen and Janet,  Thank you for your email, much appreciated.   It looks like you might have already found the project plans, maps, and a detailed/expanded project description that are  uploaded to https://aca.accela.com/paloalto/.   Please let me know if you have any further questions on these materials.  This is an informal, non‐binding Preliminary Architectural Review application and the purpose for this application is to  disseminate information and receive feedback from the public and the Architectural Review Board before the applicant  submits formal Major Architectural Review and Conditional Use Permit applications.  As the Project Planner for this application, I’ll be going out to all of the proposed deployment locations in the near term  in order to start my staff analysis and to help in preparation of a forthcoming Architectural Review Board staff report.  I won’t learn some information, such as in regard to radiation emission at each specific location, until the formal  applications are filed. In the meantime, I did request that the applicant provide me more information about the antenna  power, frequency bands, and anything else that would be helpful, such as a weblink to an emission report from  elsewhere for the same technology.    I will try to answer your questions in my staff report or beforehand.  Notice of the Architectural Review Board meeting date will be posted in the newspaper and mailed out to neighbors  ahead of the meeting following standard City practices. The Architectural Review Board agenda and staff report will be  posted on the City’s website a week before the meeting.  You and neighbors are welcome to comment on the Preliminary Architectural Review application at the meeting or  beforehand.      Thank you again.  Regards,  Rebecca  2 Rebecca Atkinson, PMP, AICP, LEED Green Associate | Planner | P&CE  Department   250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301  T: 650.329.2596 | F: 650.329.2154 |E: rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org  Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!  From: chen wang [mailto:wangchenhzh@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2017 12:51 PM To: janetlipingding1120@gmail.com; Atkinson, Rebecca Subject: Fw: Verizon tower Rebecca,  For the attached proposed project, can we get some data on how much power the small cell tower will  transmit, and in which frequency bands?  Thanks,  Chen  1 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Eric K <chiro.kang@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 10, 2017 1:42 PM To:Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Re: 17PLN-00033 - Preliminary Architectural Review Application – Vinculums/Verizon Proposed Cluster 1 Small Cell Deployment Hi Rebecca, It was nice meeting you yesterday. I look forward to talking more with you at the meeting. Thank you. Eric Kang On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 7:18 PM, Atkinson, Rebecca <Rebecca.Atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello Eric, Thank you for your call and for coming by City Hall today, much appreciated. The project plans, maps, and a detailed/expanded project description are uploaded to https://aca.accela.com/paloalto/ - search with the file number 17PLN-00033. Let me know if you have any further questions on these materials. I’ve attached the project description to this email per your request. This is an informal, non-binding Preliminary Architectural Review application and the purpose for this application is to disseminate information and receive feedback from the public and the Architectural Review Board before the applicant submits formal Major Architectural Review and Conditional Use Permit applications. As the Project Planner for this application, I’ll be going out to all of the proposed deployment locations in the near term in order to start my staff analysis and to help in preparation of a forthcoming Architectural Review Board staff report. Notice of the Architectural Review Board meeting date will be posted in the newspaper and mailed out to neighbors ahead of the hearing following standard City practices. The Architectural Review Board agenda and staff report will be posted on the City’s website a week before the meeting. You and neighbors are welcome to comment on the Preliminary Architectural Review application at the meeting or beforehand. Thank you again. Regards, Rebecca 2 Rebecca Atkinson, PMP, AICP, LEED Green Associate | Planner | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2596 | F: 650.329.2154 |E: rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you! 1 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Atkinson, Rebecca Sent:Monday, February 27, 2017 2:45 PM To:'choonmarykim@me.com' Subject:17PLN-00033 - Preliminary Architectural Review Application – Vinculums/Verizon Proposed Cluster 1 Small Cell Deployment - Verizon cell top Hello Choon Kim,   Thank you for your email ‐  much appreciated.   From your email below, it sounds like you already saw the project plans, maps, and detailed/expanded project  description which are uploaded on our Accela permit tracking system https://aca.accela.com/paloalto/ (search with the  file number 17PLN‐00033).   17PLN‐00033 is an informal, non‐binding Preliminary Architectural Review application.  The purpose for this application is to disseminate information and receive feedback from the public and the  Architectural Review Board before the applicant submits formal Major Architectural Review and Conditional Use Permit  applications and asks for approval.  The applicant undertook their own separate analysis to determine which poles they wanted to propose.  It would be possible for you to contact the applicant to learn more about their analysis, preliminary siting criteria,  nearby alternatives that they considered.  You could also make your request directly to them.  Notice of the forthcoming Architectural Review Board meeting date for 17PLN‐00033 will be posted in the newspaper  and mailed out to neighbors ahead of the hearing following standard City practices.   The Architectural Review Board agenda and staff report will be posted on the City’s website a week before the meeting.  You and neighbors are welcome to comment on the Preliminary Architectural Review application at the meeting or  beforehand.      As the Project Planner for this application, I’ll be going out to all of the proposed deployment locations in the near term  in order to start my staff analysis and to help in preparation of a forthcoming Architectural Review Board staff report.  Please let me know if you have any further questions.  Thank you again.  Regards,  Rebecca  Rebecca Atkinson, PMP, AICP, LEED Green Associate | Planner | P&CE Department   2 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301  T: 650.329.2596 | F: 650.329.2154 |E: rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org  Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!  ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Choon Kim [mailto:choonmarykim@me.com]   Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 10:30 AM  To: Atkinson, Rebecca  Subject: Verizon cell top  Hi   This is Choon kim. 925 Loma Verde Ave.  Palo Alto. I don't want to support this so please find another place.   Thank you.   Choon  Sent from my iPad  1 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Atkinson, Rebecca Sent:Monday, February 27, 2017 2:26 PM To:'ajna@maui.net' Subject:17PLN-00033 - Preliminary Architectural Review Application – Vinculums/Verizon Proposed Cluster 1 Small Cell Deployment - project number: 17PLN-00033, Hello Steve Lewis,  Thank you for your email ‐  much appreciated.   From your email below, it sounds like you would like to know how to find the project plans, maps, and  detailed/expanded project description.   You can find them uploaded on our Accela permit tracking system https://aca.accela.com/paloalto/ (search  with the file number 17PLN‐00033).   I didn’t see that any of the poles were proposed for backyard locations, but I will include this inquiry in my  analysis of the project plans.  To clarify some background ‐ 17PLN‐00033 is an informal, non‐binding Preliminary Architectural Review  application and the purpose for this application is to disseminate information and receive feedback from the  public and the Architectural Review Board before the applicant submits formal Major Architectural Review  and Conditional Use Permit applications.  17PLN‐00033 is in regard to 18 small cell nodes within the overall 92 small cell nodes proposed by  Vinculums/Verizon. The remaining nodes will come in under other application numbers.    I won’t learn some information, such as in regard to radiation emission at each specific location, until the  formal applications are filed.   In the meantime, I did request that the applicant provide me more information about the antenna power,  frequency bands, and anything else that would be helpful, such as a weblink to an emission report from  elsewhere for the same technology.   Notice of the forthcoming Architectural Review Board meeting date will be posted in the newspaper and  mailed out to neighbors ahead of the hearing following standard City practices.   The Architectural Review Board agenda and staff report will be posted on the City’s website a week before the  meeting.  You and neighbors are welcome to comment on the Preliminary Architectural Review application at the  meeting or beforehand.      As the Project Planner for this application, I’ll be going out to all of the proposed deployment locations in the  near term in order to start my staff analysis and to help in preparation of a forthcoming Architectural Review  Board staff report.  Please let me know if you have any further questions.  Thank you again.  Regards,  Rebecca  2 Rebecca Atkinson, PMP, AICP, LEED Green Associate | Planner | P&CE Department   250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301  T: 650.329.2596 | F: 650.329.2154 |E: rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org  Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!  From: ajna@maui.net [mailto:ajna@maui.net] Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2017 5:47 PM To: Atkinson, Rebecca Subject: project number: 17PLN-00033, HI Rebecca I just found out about Verizons preliminary project proposal to the City planning commission to install 92 small cells on utility poles around Palo Alto I am very concerned about it. We have a pole 18 feet from our bedroom window in our back yard I haven't found any plans or proposals as to where and what poles will be in used. Please, WE DO NOT want the pole in our back yard used for this adding additional radiation and energy from the cell. Please, if possible, put me on the update list, meetings etc. Thank you Steve Lewis 3470 Kenneth Dr. Palo Alto, CA. 94303 650-494-6818 3 Project Manager: REBECCA ATKINSON - rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org ________________________ Request by Mary Diesch of Vinculums, on behalf of GTE Mobilnet dba Verizon Wireless, for Preliminary Architectural Review of location/siting criteria, configuration design criteria, and configuration design options for the deployment of small cell wireless communication equipment on utility poles and streetlights in the public right-of-way. The proposed 18 small cell node locations in this Preliminary Architectural Review application are considered a cluster of nodes within the proposed overall deployment of 92 small cell locations. The project plans provide information on three equipment configurations for preliminary public and Architectural Review Board consideration and comment. Configurations contain some or all of the following equipment: 1 antenna, 3 radios, 0-1 emergency battery backup cabinet units, 1-2 electrical disconnect boxes, associated conduit, and fiber/power would be provided from above on the pole via an aerial drop. For further background information, please refer to the Vinculums/Verizon project website (improveyourwireless.com/paloalto/), the City’s website (aca.accela.com/paloalto/ - search under the project file number 17PLN- 00033), and the 2016 Master License Agreement process (cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52893). Formal applications will be filed in the future for Major Architectural Review and Conditional Use Permits for the 92 small cell locations. A formal application will also be filed if the applicant proposed to temporarily install a to-scale, non-live, mock-up of the equipment configuration(s). 1 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Atkinson, Rebecca Sent:Monday, February 27, 2017 1:00 PM To:'rwen1234@gmail.com' Cc:Qizhang Chao Subject:RE: 17PLN-00033 - Preliminary Architectural Review Application – Vinculums/Verizon Proposed Cluster 1 Small Cell Deployment - About installing small cell wireless facility Hello Rushan Wen & Qizhang Chao,  Good afternoon.  I’ve added your questions to my list of items to research and look at during my site visits – I’ll take a look at pole 2455. Vinculums/Verizon does plan on being the only carrier on each of the proposed poles in application 17PLN‐ 00033, whereas other poles elsewhere in the City (example: Downtown installed by Crown Castle) requested to have up to two wireless carriers. Yes, some facility design/build companies have filed some applications for wireless communication facility sites on private property (example: Crown Castle, 1651 Page Mill Road) and some facility design/build companies and/or wireless carriers are also pursuing Master License Agreements with City Council for installation on wood poles and street lights in the public right‐of‐way. The City would be the landlord in the latter cases. AT&T, Crown Castle, and GTE Mobilnet dba Verizon already have MLAs. Please let me know if you have any further questions.  Regards,  Rebecca  From: rwen1234@gmail.com [mailto:rwen1234@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 9:42 AM To: Atkinson, Rebecca Cc: Qizhang Chao; rwen1234@gmail.com Subject: RE: 17PLN-00033 - Preliminary Architectural Review Application – Vinculums/Verizon Proposed Cluster 1 Small Cell Deployment - About installing small cell wireless facility Hello Rebecca Atkinson,  Thank you for your response. The information is very helpful for us to understand the project. We are waiting for more  information coming.  We found a cell wireless facility has been installed at the top of the pole 2455, near 2704 Louis Rd. The existed facility is  not listed in the planning  project of installing 18 cell wireless facilities. Is it from another project or wireless provider?  The proposed project plan includes a facility on pole 2461, near 2802 Louis Road. The pole 2455 and pole 2461 are very  close (about 400‐500 feet). Why are two facilities required to install in one neighborhood block?  The project is operated by Verizon. Will these new facilities be used by Verizon only?  Are there other projects to install  similar facilities in Palo Alto from other wireless providers?  Thank you for your attention.  Regards,  Rushan & Qizhang  2 Sent from Mail for Windows 10  From: Atkinson, Rebecca  Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2017 7:32 PM  To: rwen1234@gmail.com  Cc: Qizhang Chao  Subject: 17PLN‐00033 ‐ Preliminary Architectural Review Application – Vinculums/Verizon Proposed Cluster 1 Small Cell  Deployment ‐ About installing small cell wireless facility  Hello Rushan Wen & Qizhang Chao,  Thank you for your email, much appreciated.   The project plans, maps, and a detailed/expanded project description are uploaded to https://aca.accela.com/paloalto/  ‐ search with the file number 17PLN‐00033.   Let me know if you have any questions on these materials.  This is an informal, non‐binding Preliminary Architectural Review application and the purpose for this application is to  disseminate information and receive feedback from the public and the Architectural Review Board before the applicant  submits formal Major Architectural Review and Conditional Use Permit applications.  As the Project Planner for this application, I’ll be going out to all of the proposed deployment locations in the near term  in order to start my staff analysis and to help in preparation of a forthcoming Architectural Review Board staff report.  I won’t learn some information, such as in regard to radiation emission at each specific location, until the formal  applications are filed. In the meantime, I did request that the applicant provide me more information about the antenna  power and anything else that would be helpful, such as a weblink to an emission report from elsewhere for the same  technology.    I will try to answer your questions in my staff report or beforehand.  Notice of the Architectural Review Board meeting date will be posted in the newspaper and mailed out to neighbors  ahead of the hearing following standard City practices. The Architectural Review Board agenda and staff report will be  posted on the City’s website a week before the meeting.  You and neighbors are welcome to comment on the Preliminary Architectural Review application at the meeting or  beforehand.      Thank you again.  Regards,  Rebecca  3 Rebecca Atkinson, PMP, AICP, LEED Green Associate | Planner | P&CE Department   250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301  T: 650.329.2596 | F: 650.329.2154 |E: rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org  Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!  From: rwen1234@gmail.com [mailto:rwen1234@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 10:44 AM To: Atkinson, Rebecca Cc: Qizhang Chao; rwen1234@gmail.com Subject: About installing small cell wireless facility Dear Rebecca Atkinson,  We received a letter from Verizon. It says Verizon is planning to install a small cell wireless facility on the top of an  exiting telephone pole near our house on 2796 Louis Rd. We are seriously concerned the impact to human health by the  radiation emission from the facility. We are seniors and stay in the house everyday, almost entire day. Cross the street is  an elementary school. We are especially concerned the harmfulness of the radiation emission to the young children  attending that elementary school.  Please provide following information to help us understanding the project and its impact to our environment.  1.What is the exactly location of the exiting telephone pole near 2796 Louis Rd which the small cell wireless facility will be installed? 2.What are the Federal, state and city requirements and restrictions for installing the small cell wireless facility in residential area? 3.What is the status of the project going on in Planning division of Palo Alto city? 4.Why does the Palo Alto city allowed to install the cell wireless facility in residential area ? 5.Does Palo Alto plan to hold public hearing about the project? When it will be? We would like to attend. Thank you for your attention,  Sincerely  Rushan Wen & Qizhang Chao  1 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Max Ibel <maxi@google.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 28, 2017 11:19 AM To:Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Re: 17PLN-00033 - Preliminary Architectural Review Application – Vinculums/Verizon Proposed Cluster 1 Small Cell Deployment - Verizon small cell details Dear Ms. Atkinson thank you so much for your reply. There is no rush, I'm happy to wait until more data is available - I would appreciate a heads up if it is. For what it's worth, I'm not against those radio installations, since I assume that the installation meets FCC guidelines, and those guidelines are already plenty strict wrt EM radiation exposure on humans. Having more data will make it easier to argue with concerned neighbors etc. Best regards and have a great week Max On Monday, 27 February 2017, Atkinson, Rebecca <Rebecca.Atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello Max Ibel, Thank you for your email, much appreciated.  From your email below, it sounds like you have already found the project plans, maps, and a  detailed/expanded project description that are uploaded on our Accela permit tracking system  https://aca.accela.com/paloalto/ (search with the file number 17PLN‐00033).  To clarify some background ‐ This is an informal, non‐binding Preliminary Architectural Review application and  the purpose for this application is to disseminate information and receive feedback from the public and the  Architectural Review Board before the applicant submits formal Major Architectural Review and Conditional  Use Permit applications. I won’t learn some information, such as in regard to radiation emission at each specific location, until the  formal applications are filed.  In the meantime, I did request that the applicant provide me more information about the antenna power,  frequency bands, and anything else that would be helpful, such as a weblink to an emission report from  elsewhere for the same technology.  I will try to answer your questions in my staff report or beforehand. Notice of the forthcoming Architectural Review Board meeting date will be posted in the newspaper and  mailed out to neighbors ahead of the hearing following standard City practices.  2 The Architectural Review Board agenda and staff report will be posted on the City’s website a week before the  meeting. You and neighbors are welcome to comment on the Preliminary Architectural Review application at the  meeting or beforehand.     As the Project Planner for this application, I’ll be going out to all of the proposed deployment locations in the  near term in order to start my staff analysis and to help in preparation of a forthcoming Architectural Review  Board staff report. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thank you again. Regards, Rebecca Rebecca Atkinson, PMP, AICP, LEED Green Associate | Planner | P&CE Department  250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2596 | F: 650.329.2154 |E: rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you! 3 From: Maximilian Ibel [mailto:maxi@google.com] Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 9:21 AM To: Atkinson, Rebecca Subject: Verizon small cell details Dear Ms. Atkinson, I'd like to know a bit more about the proposed small cells that are erected in Palo Alto, e.g. the one to be installed in front of my neighbor's house. The documentation online is actually quite uninformative. I would like to know basic specs that allow the community to understand the potential impact on residents. In particular: 1) The radio frequency power and frequency band (e.g. 1900MHz band at 8W power) 2) The antenna characteristics (usually shown in Smith charts) The current material out there is just stating the safety without any data behind it. Bolstering the claims with data would strengthen the case for Verizon (and help the community accept) the installations. Verizon will have this data as it is required to get FCC certification for the transceiver and antenna installations. Best regards Max Ibel, AG6QD 1 Atkinson, Rebecca From:John Carey <pacificjack@earthlink.net> Sent:Friday, March 31, 2017 2:40 PM To:Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Re: No cell phone service in my house Thank You very much Rebecca Atkinson John Carey On Mar 31, 2017, at 1:59 PM, Atkinson, Rebecca <Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Hello John Carey,  Good afternoon.  Thank you for your email.  I anticipate that Vinculums/Verizon would submit a Major Architectural Review/Conditional Use Permit  application for small cell deployment in the Professorville area, as they mention in their current 17PLN‐ 00033 Preliminary Architectural Review application for the Mid‐Town area that they will be proposing at  or approximately 92 new nodes in various neighborhoods in the City.  The best contact for which to ask your question is Mary Diesch at Vinculums (Mary Diesch | Vinculums  Services | Site Acquisition Manager, Small Cells; small@vinculums.com; 925‐482‐8505).   For further background information, please refer to the Vinculums/Verizon project website  (improveyourwireless.com/paloalto/), the City’s website (aca.accela.com/paloalto/ ‐ search under the  project file number 17PLN‐00033), and the 2016 Master License Agreement process  (cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52893).  Regards,  Rebecca  <image001.jpg>  Rebecca Atkinson, PMP, AICP, LEED Green Associate | Planner | P&CE Department  250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301  T: 650.329.2596 | F: 650.329.2154 |E: rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org  Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!  ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: John Carey [mailto:pacificjack@earthlink.net]   Sent: Friday, March 31, 2017 11:02 AM  To: Atkinson, Rebecca  Subject: No cell phone service in my house  I have very bad to non‐existence verizon cell phone coverage in my house at 325 Kingsley Ave, or  outside,  in Palo Alto Professorville neighborhood.  None of the Small Cell Locations in Proposed Cluster 1 look like they will help my situation since they are  very far away.  2 Are there Small Cell Locations being consider for my neighborhood?  If not what can I do to support  obtaining cell coverage in my neighborhood  Thank You  John Carey  1 Atkinson, Rebecca From:Atkinson, Rebecca Sent:Monday, May 08, 2017 6:09 PM To:'Greg Kovacs' Cc:Mary Diesch; Lisa Ma Wu; Eric Wu; Alison Cole; Gerhardt, Jodie Subject:Opposition to Small Cell Installation at 4174 King Arthur Court Dear Greg Kovacs and Mary Diesch,  I wanted to confirm to you both that I have contacted our Utilities‐Electrical Department for the latest pertaining to  undergrounding across the City – I’m awaiting word back, including confirmation of the best contact people to answer  questions on that topic. I will get back to you.   You can feel free to submit comments on applications via email to me and I’ll include them in the record. You can also  contact the Architectural Review Board members (arb@cityofpaloalto.org), our Director of Planning and Community  Environment Hillary Gitelman (Hillary.Gitelman@CityofPaloAlto.org), or Current Planning Manager Jodie Gerhardt  (Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org). As a courtesy, as you have already been doing, please cc me so that it will be  easier to maintain the record.    You’ll be able to find the Architectural Review Board agendas and staff reports for wireless projects on the City’s ARB  website (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural.asp). Ms. Diesch’s application 17PLN‐00033 (as  described below) is currently scheduled for discussion on 5/18. The associated staff report will be uploaded/released a  week before the meeting.     We will upload any forthcoming (informal Preliminary Architectural Review and formal Major Architectural  Review/Conditional Use Permit) wireless applications to Accela and the City’s website – hopefully that will make it easier  for members of the public to review the materials.   Regards,  Rebecca   Rebecca Atkinson, PMP, AICP, LEED Green Associate | Planner | P&CE Department   250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301  T: 650.329.2596 | F: 650.329.2154 |E: rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org  Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!  From: Greg Kovacs [mailto:greg.kovacs@physiowave.com] Sent: Monday, May 08, 2017 4:02 PM To: Atkinson, Rebecca Cc: Mary Diesch; Lisa Ma Wu; Eric Wu; Alison Cole Subject: Re: Opposition to Small Cell Installation at 4174 King Arthur Court Dear Rebecca, Thank you for your note. Sorry for the delay - was on travel. We are very much wanting underground utilities and it is clear that adding costly infrastructure to the “developing nations look” wire mess above our homes will not help, but rather hinder that. We will most strongly oppose any such actions. Can you please connect us with the person responsible for Palo Alto’s “undergrounding" plan? 2 Meanwhile, rather than attend community meetings (most of us are rather busy) please advise on how to submit our inputs. Should we send letters and/or petitions to you? Thanks, Greg From: Atkinson, Rebecca Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 11:56 AM To: 'Greg Kovacs'; Mary Diesch Cc: Lisa Ma Wu; Eric Wu; Alison Cole Subject: RE: Opposition to Small Cell Installation at 4174 King Arthur Court Dear Greg Kovacs,  Thank you for your email below and for cc’ing me.   FYI ‐ The application 17PLN‐00033 that we currently have on file is for Preliminary Architectural Review of the  proposed 18 small cell nodes in the Mid‐Town Neighborhood. I’ve attached the project description for easy  reference. It includes a description of the proposed designs, etc. You can look up the project plans for the  application online using a search “Citizen Portal Palo Alto” – it should bring you to our permit tracking system  called Accela. Enter application “17PLN‐00033” under the Planning tab, and then go to the Record Info drop down  menu.   I don’t yet have a Preliminary Architectural Review or a Formal Major Architectural Review/Conditional Use Permit  application for the areas around Barron Park and Green Acres, so I don’t yet know proposed locations and so forth.   It is my understanding that Vinculums/Verizon is in the process of sending out letters and hosting community  meetings about their proposed small cell nodes in your area and across neighborhoods for their overall 92  proposed new nodes to comply with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.42.110   Wireless Communication  Facilities    (d)   WCF Application Requirements (7), which states:  “(7)   For Tier 2 and 3 WCF Permits, the applicant must host a community meeting at a time and location designed  to maximize attendance by persons receiving notice under this subparagraph to provide outreach to the  neighborhood around the project site.  The applicant shall give notice of the community meeting to all residents  and property owners within 600 feet of the project site at least 14 days in advance of the community meeting. The  applicant shall provide a proof of notice affidavit to the city that contains:  (i)Proof that the applicant noticed and hosted the community meeting before filing the application; (ii)A summary of comments received at the community meeting and what, if any, changes were made to the application as a result of the meeting…”  I welcome and look forward to receiving public comments on applications.   Dear Mary Diesch,  I don’t yet have, but would be very interested in learning the pole numbers/closest addresses for all 92 proposed  new nodes when you have them. Dr. Kovacs helpfully included the address in the subject line, so I’ll be able to look  into his questions/comments. If you provide this information to me directly ‐ I’ll be better able to field public  comments and work with staff from other Departments.       Thank you both for keeping me in the loop. Feel free to contact me with any questions.   Regards,  Rebecca  3 Rebecca Atkinson, PMP, AICP, LEED Green Associate | Planner | P&CE Department   250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301  T: 650.329.2596 | F: 650.329.2154 |E: rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org  Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!  From: Greg Kovacs [mailto:greg.kovacs@physiowave.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 10:16 PM To: Mary Diesch Cc: Atkinson, Rebecca; Lisa Ma Wu; Eric Wu; Alison Cole Subject: Re: Opposition to Small Cell Installation at 4174 King Arthur Court Dear Ms. Diesch, I’m totally easy about it, but even if you call me stupidhead, I have two doctorates, so it is Dr. Stupidhead until we get to know each other. Dr. Wu (copied), even though we are friends, I call Dr. Wu in formal correspondence like this. I’m afraid we will have to correspond in writing, so please fire away with any questions. I will copy the Wu’s and soon our other neighbors on the cul de sac, as I’m sure they will be keenly interested. We have several other folks who are highly technically skilled and educated (as you should expect in Palo Alto). Please do not get hung up on my household’s needs. I believe the consensus here is that we want underground utilities - very much. The City has been dragging it out despite multiple requests. Adding ANY infrastructure to the poles can only provide excuses for dragging it out further. In a word: no. Please answer one simple question. There is public land across the street: Terman Middle School. Why on Earth don’t you put the installation there? There is no - and I mean NO - logical reason that the RF field pattern (meaning those color-shaded coverage maps cellular companies like) would be any different if you put it there versus in our cul de sac. I suspect I know the answer, but I truly want to hear yours. Anyway, in writing is the way we have to do this. However, you will not meet the slightest resistance to discussion via this channel. I strongly advise using it. Thanks, Greg On Apr 26, 2017, at 1:03 PM, Mary Diesch <mdiesch@vinculums.com> wrote: Mr. Kovacs, Thank you for reaching out with your concerns. I have shared your letter with the engineering team at Verizon Wireless. Would it be possible to call you with a couple of questions? We would like to understand what kind of distance is being sought. Please also feel free to call me at the number below. Again, thank you for taking the time. 4 Warmest Regards, Mary Mary Diesch | Vinculums Services | Site Acquisition Manager, Small Cells | office +1-415-730-3700 | mdiesch@vinculums.com -----Original Message----- From: Greg Kovacs [mailto:greg.kovacs@physiowave.com] Sent: Sunday, April 23, 2017 12:59 PM To: mdiesch@vinculums.com Cc: Lisa Ma Wu <lisama@gmail.com>; Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org Subject: Opposition to Small Cell Installation at 4174 King Arthur Court Dear Ms. Diesch, I am in receipt of your letter postmarked 4/20/17 informing us of your proposal to site a Verizon small cell wireless facility on the telephone pole adjacent to our home at 4147 King Arthur Court. Attached, please find my response, with cc to our immediate neighbors and Ms. Atkinson at City Hall, whose name appears as the contact on the City’s website. Please acknowledge receipt. Sincerely, Greg Kovacs <Project Description 3 30 2017 Preliminary Architectural Review.pdf> 1 Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:Verizon cell project Attachments:Project Description 5 05 2017 Preliminary Architectural Review.pdf From: Atkinson, Rebecca Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 1:10 PM To: 'Jeanne Fleming' Subject: RE: Verizon cell project Dear Jeanne Fleming,  Good afternoon.  Partly to respond to your request for more information on the project, the applicant for 17PLN‐00033 updated the  project description on May 5, 2017 to include more visual simulations, including close‐ups of the proposed equipment  on the poles. Please see the visual simulations in the attached PDF. This Preliminary Architectural Review application is  currently scheduled for Architectural Review Board discussion on 5/18. The associated staff report will be  uploaded/released a week before the meeting on the City’s Architectural Review Board website  (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural.asp).  Regards,  Rebecca   From: Jeanne Fleming [mailto:JFleming@Metricus.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 9:14 PM To: Atkinson, Rebecca Subject: RE: Verizon cell project Thank you for your prompt reply, Rebecca Atkinson. I’m most appreciative. With regards, Jeanne Jeanne Fleming, Ph.D. JFleming@Metricus.net  650‐325‐5151  From: Atkinson, Rebecca [mailto:Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 5:57 PM To: JFleming@Metricus.net Subject: RE: Verizon cell project Dear Jeanne Fleming, Ph.D.,  I am resending you the email below without attachments in case there is a file size limit on your email system.  Regards,  Rebecca  From: Atkinson, Rebecca Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 5:54 PM To: 'JFleming@Metricus.net' Subject: Verizon cell project 2 Dear Jeanne Fleming, Ph.D.,  Thank you for your email, much appreciated.  I think that I’ll have to send you a few different email responses.   To start though, please see my blue highlighted text in‐line with your questions.   Regards,  Rebecca  1. As I understand it, 92 small cell locations are planned, of which 18 have actually been preliminarily sited. All of those 18 seem to be in Old Palo Alto. Of the remaining 74, how many will be sited in Old Palo Alto? The application 17PLN‐00033 that we currently have on file is for Preliminary Architectural Review of the proposed 18  small cell nodes. I’ve attached the latest March 30 project description for your easy reference. It includes a description  of the proposed designs, etc.   It sounds like you have already done so, but you can look up the latest March 30 project plans for the application online  using a search “Citizen Portal Palo Alto” – it should bring you to our permit tracking system called Accela. Enter  application “17PLN‐00033” under the Planning tab, and then go to the Record Info/Attachments drop down menu.    I have requested that the applicant (Vinculums/Verizon) provide the Planning Department with all of the latest proposed  pole locations, but they are not required to do so for the poles until they submit either an informal/non‐binding  Preliminary Architectural Review application or their formal Major Architectural Review/Conditional Use Permit  applications.   It is my understanding, however, that the applicant is in the process of sending out letters and hosting a series of  community meetings about their proposed small cell nodes across neighborhoods for the overall 92 proposed new  nodes to comply with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.42.110   Wireless Communication Facilities    (d)   WCF  Application Requirements (7), which states:  “(7)   For Tier 2 and 3 WCF Permits, the applicant must host a community meeting at a time and location designed to  maximize attendance by persons receiving notice under this subparagraph to provide outreach to the neighborhood  around the project site.  The applicant shall give notice of the community meeting to all residents and property owners  within 600 feet of the project site at least 14 days in advance of the community meeting. The applicant shall provide a  proof of notice affidavit to the city that contains:  (i)Proof that the applicant noticed and hosted the community meeting before filing the application; (ii)A summary of comments received at the community meeting and what, if any, changes were made to the application as a result of the meeting…”  2. Would you please send me photographs of what these installations look like? (I’ve seen drawings, but it is difficult to understand exactly how “aesthetically discrete” (as Verizon would have it) this technology is without actually seeing it.) And would you please direct me to existing small cell locations in Palo Alto or nearby communties? While I don’t have photographs of example installations at this time, Attachment E – Photo Simulations of  Configurations in the attached project description contains three example photo simulations of the proposed  installations.   3 It is my understanding that the applicant will be installing a non‐live mock‐up of Configuration 1 near the Palo Alto Art  Center within the next two weeks or so. The pole is adjacent to 1350 Newell. We granted this for the purposes of  supporting a more realistic opportunity for members of the public to understand what is proposed by seeing the  equipment first hand. We received a performance bond in guarantee that the mock site would be up for 1 year or less.  Please see the attached approval letter for the non‐live mock‐up.      I’ll ask the applicant for addresses in adjacent communities that utilize the same configurations that they are proposing  for Palo Alto. It is highly likely that there are not exact duplicates, as the applicant is continually adjusting designs and  other Cities often don’t require as much as what Palo Alto does in our Municipal Code.   3. Would you please send me non-industry research findings related to the health and safety of the proposed small cell installationmos? The Planning Department will be pulling in an independent peer reviewer to review the formal Major Architectural  Review/Conditional Use Permit applications to address emissions/health and safety questions. However, we don’t have  that person under contract yet because we don’t yet have the aforementioned formal applications on file. The applicant  is only required to produce an RF report for the formal applications. I would like this independent peer reviewer to be  able to provide the types of information that addresses your question.   Rebecca Atkinson, PMP, AICP, LEED Green Associate | Planner | P&CE Department   250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301  T: 650.329.2596 | F: 650.329.2154 |E: rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org  Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!  From: Jeanne Fleming [mailto:JFleming@Metricus.net] Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 2:41 PM To: Atkinson, Rebecca Subject: Verizon cell project Hello Rebecca Atkinson, I would appreciate it if you would answer a couple of questions for me: 1. As I understand it, 92 small cell locations are planned, of which 18 have actually been preliminarily sited. All of those 18 seem to be in Old Palo Alto. Of the remaining 74, how many will be sited in Old Palo Alto? 2.Would you please send me photographs of what these installations look like? (I’ve seen drawings, but it is difficult to understand exactly how “aesthetically discrete” (as Verizon would have it) this technology is without actually seeing it.) And would you please direct me to existing small cell locations in Palo Alto or nearby communties? 3.Would you please send me non-industry research findings related to the health and safety of the proposed small cell installations? Thank you for your help. Cheers, 4 Jeanne Fleming Jeanne Fleming, Ph.D. JFleming@Metricus.net  650‐325‐5151  1 Atkinson, Rebecca Subject:17PLN-00033 - Preliminary Architectural Review Application – Vinculums/Verizon Proposed Cluster 1 Small Cell Deployment - Verizon cell tower proposal Attachments:Project Description 5 05 2017 Preliminary Architectural Review.pdf From: Atkinson, Rebecca Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 1:16 PM To: 'Larry Yang' Subject: RE: 17PLN-00033 - Preliminary Architectural Review Application – Vinculums/Verizon Proposed Cluster 1 Small Cell Deployment - Verizon cell tower proposal Dear Larry Yang.  Good afternoon.  Partly to respond to your request for more information on the project, the applicant for 17PLN‐00033 updated the  project description on May 5, 2017 to include more visual simulations, including close‐ups of the proposed equipment to  show more of the side view. Please see the visual simulations in the attached PDF. This Preliminary Architectural Review  application is currently scheduled for Architectural Review Board discussion on 5/18. The associated staff report will be  uploaded/released a week before the meeting on the City’s Architectural Review Board website  (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural.asp).  Regards,  Rebecca  From: Atkinson, Rebecca Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 2:48 PM To: 'Larry Yang' Subject: RE: 17PLN-00033 - Preliminary Architectural Review Application – Vinculums/Verizon Proposed Cluster 1 Small Cell Deployment - Verizon cell tower proposal Hello Larry,  Thank you for your email.  Yes, you are correct – the sign only shows one side. The purpose is to give viewers a sense of what is being proposed.  The project plans and project description have much more information, including side views and details on mounting,  etc. The updated version of the project plans and project description are accessible online using the weblinks on the  notice board. For your ease, I’m including the weblink/directions:   https://aca.accela.com/paloalto/ Go to the Planning Tab Insert the application number 17PLN‐00033 Look under the Record Info drop down menu for Attachments Within the many attachments listed, you should be able to find the March 30 project plans and March 30 project description I just did this now and I had to click through some older attachments to get to the latest.   Please let me know if you have any difficulty seeing the side views.  Regards,  Rebecca  From: Larry Yang [mailto:lyang8888@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2017 10:44 PM To: Atkinson, Rebecca Subject: Re: 17PLN-00033 - Preliminary Architectural Review Application – Vinculums/Verizon Proposed Cluster 1 Small Cell Deployment - Verizon cell tower proposal 2 Thank you very much for your reply, taking my comments into consideration, and taking the time to notice the cooling fan noise! Responsive city staff is what makes Palo Alto such a great city to live in! One additional item I noticed today: the drawing on the sign doesn't seem to be a complete representation of what will go up, if the AT&T tower next to it is an indication. The problem is that it's a front view; when seen from the side (which is how pedestrians will see it), the bulk of the electronics becomes readily apparent. The notice should include the side view. Thanks! 3 Thanks! == Larry Yang 2888 Ramona Street On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:06 PM Atkinson, Rebecca <Rebecca.Atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Dear Larry Yang, Good evening. Thank you for your email below. I heard noise from an AT&T site when I walked by it and have mentioned it to my  contact there. Meanwhile, I mentioned noise considerations to the Vinculums/Verizon team and they indicated that the cooling fans  used in older designs aren’t proposed for these nodes.  Just some basic info – The notice board is for an informal, non‐binding Preliminary Architectural Review application.  The purpose for this application is to disseminate information and receive feedback from the public and the  Architectural Review Board on the location/siting criteria, design options, and design criteria before the applicant  submits formal Major Architectural Review and Conditional Use Permit applications. As the Project Planner for this application, I’ll be going out to all of the proposed deployment locations in order to  complete my staff analysis and to help finish preparation of a forthcoming Architectural Review Board staff report. 4 Notice of the Architectural Review Board meeting date will be posted in the newspaper and mailed out to neighbors  ahead of the hearing following standard City practices. The Architectural Review Board agenda and staff report will be  posted on the City’s website a week before the meeting. You and neighbors are welcome to comment further on the Preliminary Architectural Review application at the  meeting or beforehand.   Thank you again. Regards, Rebecca Rebecca Atkinson, PMP, AICP, LEED Green Associate | Planner | P&CE Department  250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2596 | F: 650.329.2154 |E: rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you! From: Larry Yang [mailto:lyang8888@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 12:20 PM To: Atkinson, Rebecca Subject: Verizon cell tower proposal I don't think the tower at El Dorado and South Court is necessary, and I don't want the added noise. I am a Verizon customer and my cell coverage at home is fine. I use my home WiFi for internet. I was surprised the ATT cell tower went up on the pole next to this proposed one. Whenever I walk by I can definitely hear the noise from it, which is how I noticed it. It's a little sneaky that this notice is up in front of a house under construction. Makes you think it's related to the existing construction, so it's easy to ignore. Maybe it's just a coincidence. Thanks. Larry Yang 2888 Ramona At Thanks. Attachment E Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the public by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Project Webpage: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3883 Additional Access Directions for Reviewing Project Plans online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “250 Hamilton Avenue” and open the record for 17PLN-00033 by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “Project Plans 3 30 2017 Preliminary Architectural Review” Note: The address for this application 17PLN-00033 is listed in the City’s permit tracking system under 250 Hamilton Avenue because the utility poles that are proposed to host the small cell deployment nodes are identified by unique pole numbers and do not have specific property addresses. City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Chair Lew: [Video started mid-sentence] …May 4th, 2017. Can we do the roll call, please? Claire, you can do the roll call. Present: Chair Alexander Lew, Vice Chair Kyu Kim, Board Members Robert Baltay, Wynne Furth, Robert Gooyer, Absent: Oral Communications Chair Lew: Now is the time for oral communications. The public may speak on an item that’s not on the agenda. I don’t have any – oh, I do have a speaker card. Is it Shani Kleinhaus? Ms. Shani Kleinhaus: Good morning. Chair Lew: Great and you have 3-minutes. Ms. Kleinhaus: I’m giving you the new American Bird Conservancy – Bird Safety Design Guidelines. I know that you have been looking at some buildings and bird safety design. Oh, I should have introduced myself. I’m Shani Kleinhaus, Environmental Advocate for Santa Clara Valley, Audubon Society, and I’m also on the Executive Committee of the Local Chapter of the Sierra cCub and – but I don’t speak for them and I’m a resident of Palo Alto. The reason why I wanted to give you the new guidelines is that there are things that we have learned since the San Francisco ordinance that you’ve been looking at that has come out. Even since this document came out, there are already new things that we know. We know now that collisions are not limited to the first 60-feet. They are actually happening even at higher altitudes. Especially very tall buildings, which in Palo Alto we don’t have skyscrapers but those are big problems. We’re learning also that some of the methods that have been used to mitigate bird collision with buildings are not very effective. One of the ones that I see often used in Palo Alto as well, is creating slanted walls. Those don’t seem to work very well. It’s – unless the wood is reflected in the slanted glass surfaces, it’s very, very urban and there’s no vegetation in it but that rarely happens. Another thing that doesn’t work very well are surfaces that have UV or other things that we don’t see. It seems like what we don’t see, the birds don’t see also so if you can’t see it, the birds can’t see it. UV may work for a very limited set of birds that actually are attracted to flowers that have UV in them but that’s really – a lot of species don’t see it so I hope you use this when you move forward and you’re looking at different buildings. One other thing at I probably should have mentioned is that birds collide anywhere in the City and outside of the City. Most of the new guidelines that we see, actually look at buildings anywhere so thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you very much. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: May 4, 2017 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 Chair Lew: Ok, moving onto agenda changes, additions and deletions and we do have one change today and that is that I think that we’re going to hear the – item number three which is the bicycle bridge first, ahead of the study session for the ARB report template. Right? [Board moved to item number three] City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals Study Session 2. Study Session - ARB Review of Staff Proposed Report Template and Submittal Checklists [The Board started with item number 3] Chair Lew: So, we have item number two which is a study session for ARB review of Staff proposed report template and submittal checklist. Mr. Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director of the Planning Department: Great, thanks, Chair. I’ll just frame this a little bit and then Jodie may have some more comments to make about some of the details about what’s being presented. Just by way of background, the Board may recall that when we presented the ARB findings – the re-do of the ARB findings, that was sort of the first phase of a couple of efforts that we wanted to take to streamline our applications review process and improve the product that we are generating out of our office. Also, improve the materials that are being presented to the Board so you can make informed decisions and recommendations on to the Director and Council. During that time, we had made some changes to the Staff report and we’re at a point now that you’ve had a chance to see that for a bit of time and you might find that there are things that are useful and helpful in reviewing those project and other things that you gloss over or don’t find as useful or helpful. So, we’re seeking the Board’s input on the Staff report and just as your thinking about those comments, keep in mind that these Staff reports serve a number of audiences. Including from a Staff perspective, documenting the administrative record and putting some information in there that the public might want to be aware of. There is – yeah, I guess there are different lenses that people might look at the Staff report. Whether an applicant, an applicant opponent or proponent and Council – when they look at – when the Council looks at the prior Staff reports and so for. Then there’s also you, as the primary audience, because you’re the ones who we are writing the Staff report for and so there may be some things that you want to see that is important to your quick, sort of getting up to speed on the project. There may be some things that we can put in the attachments and they can be referenced as needed when you’re conducting your review. Staff does put a fair amount of time and energy into writing the Staff reports and reviewing the Staff reports and there is a whole process of packet preparation. So, if we’re going to put this energy into it, we just want to make sure that we’re getting it right and it’s the most useful document that it can be for you and for the public. The other thing that we would like your guidance on is the application submittal checklist. Now, this is another sort of element that we’re approaching where we want to get a consistency in the type of material that’s coming in and presented. We want to also establish some – maybe some thresh holds for when somebody who’s proposing a project of a certain size, they might need to provide a little bit more information like a model or some kind of 3-D illustration or something that provides a little more sense for the context. You may not need it for – you likely won’t need it for every project and there are scales of projects and so we’re trying to find out what is the specific information that this Board needs in order to render the best, most thoughtful decision that you can, based on the findings that are required by code. So, we have some existing requirements and Jodie has, I think included in the Staff reports a proposed draft of what we would then seek to ask of applicants. City of Palo Alto Page 3 We’re looking to modify that and adjust that based on the Board’s comments. I’ll note that one of the challenges that we have or maybe even an applicant has is when an application is filed and it’s not complete for filing, a notice of incomplete letter is sent out and that’s sort of like the default way of doing business but it doesn’t always have to be that way also. In our – our intent here is to have a very clean submittal checklist that’s clear to the applicant. That if I submit these things, I’m going to be deemed complete at the end because really that’s what we are assessing. Is having application completeness and when you get that notice of incomplete, we’re adding – not only is there the first 30-days that we send out that letter. There’s the next amount of time where the applicant has to work with the architect and the client’s needs to modify and revise the project. So, there are another probably couple months – up to a couple of months before the plans actually come back. So, there might be a way for us to trim a little bit of that time off before we head onto the Board. So, I’ll stop there because we really would like to hear from you. Jodie, did you want to add anything else to that or just respond to questions? Ok, so thank you, Chair. Chair Lew: Are there questions or should we just move onto comments? Nobody? So, Robert? Yeah, we’ll just start with comments. Board Member Gooyer: I’m fairly happy with the way the report or I should say the – your report is. I wanted the idea that is some – over the years, it’s fluctuated as far as how much of an opinion that you give but I like the fact that I like to hear what Staff’s opinion is on certain items. Now whether I agree with them or I don’t agree with it, I guess is – I do like seeing that. Going to the -- going through the actually submittal applications, the only thing I have -- and I’m looking at it maybe just from a user rather than from this side, is you always ask for an incredible amount of copies and what printing cost these days, my god that – I’ve had projects where I’ve got $1,500 worth of printing charges for a submittal. I’d love to see some way that maybe there aren’t as many required and you include a set of PDFs or something like that; I’d be much happier with. Other than that – and of course, maybe I guess, it’s a little bit aside but the minutes, where they are verbatim, I think is ridiculous. I mean the first time I inadvertently pressed print and got 37 sheets printed out of my printer for – is I think, absurd. It – I’d prefer – you know, I don’t need to – obviously, there should be a verbatim copy somewhere but I don’t think it needs to go as the general one. I’d prefer to just the summarized version if you want to call it that. Then, if I want more input, I can press on the link and look at it verbatim. Ms. Gerhardt: Just for clarification on the number of plans sets. We did recently go back around and think through how many departments a particular project needs to go too and so that’s reflected in the number of plan sets that we’re asking for. We can certainly – there are some departments that are willing to take just the electronic kind. Board Member Gooyer: Well, I understand that but -- and I’ve gone – you know, having done this long enough, it’s – there are two ways to do this. You can run – for instance – I mean this is the extreme but you go run one set from one department to another department to a third department. That way – the advantage of that, that I’ve seen, is that other departments also see what – for instance, planning’s comments are or whatever. Rather than each department going into their own little isolated entity and marking things up because from a user standpoint, you get comments back that planning is directly opposite of what Public Works wants for instance; that sort of thing. It – there should be some flexibility there or whatever or – like I said, I’m sure it doesn’t work completely one way or the other but I have seen it work both ways. Ms. Gerhardt: We do certainly try and coordinate our comments. We have -- sort of three weeks into any major process like this, we have a Development Review Committee where all the departments are coming together with the applicant to make sure that we’re not having those comments that don’t align. Board Member Gooyer: Ok. Chair Lew: Peter. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Board Member Baltay: Thanks. Let me just pick up on what Robert was talking about. It just stirred my mind that maybe if you had a point person for each application or at least for major ones, that were sort of the ombudsmen, A person who takes the application, gets it to Public Works or traffic or trees and gets the response back. You might be able to do a hybrid. What Robert is saying tends to slow the process down because each department waits for it to come. Guys on vacation this week, it’s just really frustrating for applicants but he’s also right that we’re wasting so much paper and there are other technologies out there. I felt – we’ve done numerous applications that we sort of feel like we fall into the pit and then he’s absolutely right. We get a comment from the Traffic Department which contradicts Public Works which contradicts Planning and we’re sort of left having to figure this out. It just takes time and we’re kind of – go back to our client and they say well, I just paid you a $10,000 fee, what’s going on? That’s the public – the user’s point of view on it. Maybe if you were to, on a big project, put a point person that everybody went to – each department and they shepherd it through because what Jonathan is saying is true. We want to make the application complete at the beginning and get proper feedback. Even if it’s not what they want to hear but give it to them clearly up front. Let me address what you’re asking for. I think your templates for your Staff reports are pretty good. I think you do reach a nice balance of – it’s nice to hear what you think, it’s nice to hear the code background. If anything, I would just say would be to try to write less and probably that’s just me. I’m a visual person and I’m finding that when I get something this thick, it’s like jeez, you know am I going to read all this again? You’re right, when I look through it, you need to have a record. You want to put it out there for everybody over time to have seen what the decisions were so I don’t – I’m not an attorney. I don’t know where you do draw the line and don’t, but let me instead point to the drawings because I frequently find that those -- when I look at them architecturally, I feel like – even from my own office sometimes, just how did that get out? Frequently on elevation, it is a very – a drawing that guys whip out at the last minute in the office and it’s not as carefully done. It’s not conveying the right design intent; the line weights aren’t right. We’ve seen so many of them here that are really difficult. What I would encourage you to do at the Staff level is to push back on applicants. When their drawings aren’t really telling the story, or aren’t saying the message, push back early on. I think you’ll find applicants when told their drawings aren’t satisfactory, will be embarrassed more than anything else but set a high standard for that. I get the sense frequently that as Staff, just elevation, check. Rather than actually looking at the elevation for is it there? Is it consistent? Does it line up with the plans? It’s nice to see a little bit of work put into that. It’s really great to have more 3-D images and as a practicing architect, I can assure that it’s easy to produce 3-D images these days. It jumps out of our computers almost too much but if you say again to an applicant, we need to see what this looks like from both sides, not just the main corner. Again, insist on getting that rendering or that image. You’re not asking for too much and it really helps when we’re analyzing the project, to see this visual 3-D conveying what it’s like in context. Overall though, I think your reports and stuff are pretty good. Compared to other jurisdictions where we work, you guys do a pretty good job. If I could, what really doesn’t work and it’s not just Palo Alto but it’s this increasing requirement for Public Works grading and drainage information very early in the project. Just in the past year and a half, we’ve done three now through Palo Alto and it’s ridiculous. Each time we’re doing really detailed engineering work to satisfy a Publics Work Department, which is totally out of touch and it’s not necessary. It’s not helpful and our clients – it really has a counterproductive effect because the client grudgingly pays for the engineer and then digs their heels in when you have to make changes because – first thing I say is ok, we have to do the resubmittal, we have to get the engineer back and the engineer says another $4,000 to redo grading arrows on a driveway plane. That can be worked out at the building permit stage. If I really could ask you strongly, just cut out all of that grading and drainage as a defacto. requirement and instead, only require it on projects that really will be sensitive for that and that’s very few. Good engineers can work out almost anything. Very rarely does it affect our architectural judgment of the project but it really slows down the process. You don’t even have that in your checklist because it’s such a separate department from you guys in Planning but I tell you again as an applicant, it’s really frustrating to get an incomplete letter because we didn’t show a traffic study. There’s nothing on the checklist about a traffic study. Nobody picked it up because the Planners don’t connect on it either. Why does it matter? If you’re talking about whether the building should be there, it doesn’t. Same thing with – we’re doing a project now. Three small houses on Alma Street and we’ve gone through so much trouble on grading and drainage. Setting the heights of these pads to the nearest hundredth of a foot. It doesn’t affect the architectural issues but it sure affects the client’s budget and it sure slows down the process. So over and over again, City of Palo Alto Page 5 especially with Public Works and not just this agency, everyone we work in now. We’ve gone overboard for whatever reason and really that’s a building permit level review. It’s not appropriate or necessary for Planning level for architectural level. Mr. Lait: If I may, just on that. I couldn’t agree more actually and that’s a conversation that we’ve been having internally. There is this interest and – well, actually, I should say that there’s a balance that we have of wanting to convey to an applicant all of the things that might possibly go wrong so that there are pre-planning and an understanding of the implications of compliance with the different utility requirements, the (inaudible) requirements and so on and so forth. I think there has been and Jodie will correct me if I am wrong on this but just my own observation, it seems to me that we’re trying to get to a level of perfection before it comes to you for review. So that when the plan check – when you get into plan check, that’s a simple process, that’s smooth and the City has the blueprint effort. There – a lot of energy went into having the plan check process be streamlined and quick and get permits out the door. A lot of that has relied on – has resulted in the Planning Department getting a lot of these things embedded into the preliminary review to facilitate that process but I do think that it does slow things down. These – this is – in a large part, this is a conceptual review because things will get refined and worked out in the building permit when we start putting all the pieces together at a finer grain level. I appreciate hearing that comment and it is something that we’re working on. I wanted to ask if – one of the things that we were thinking about was that you go through the Design Review Committee process. Every, I think, application that goes to the ARB goes through this process. It’s within the first three weeks. The applicant can sit with City Staff and you get a list of comments and we convey all that stuff and it’s pretty much a lot of boilerplate – you know, these are the things that you have to do. What happens is that we also embed those into our approval letters and so if you get the approval letter, you’ve got 60, 70, 80 conditions of approval. A lot of it is boilerplate stuff that you see – you know, that you can find in the code. What we want to do is sort of get away from that and say, here are the major specifics – here are the two or three specific conditions related to your project. Here are some standard things, legal and compliance with the plans but then kind of shorten these conditions to maybe there’s a dozen of them that are really relevant because our concern is that contracts aren’t reading 100 conditions on their plans and we’re going to miss the important things that we do care about. In this DRC, we want to just reference that you got all these things and say hey, we expect that you’re going to comply with the details of irrigation or the Public Works requirements and all that stuff. You don’t have to worry about it now but you do – you’re on notice, you do have to worry about it and you will have to address it during plan check. That’s sort of the sentiment that we’re – the direction that we’re heading on and I’d like to get your feedback on that if you think that’s an appropriate path. Board Member Baltay: I think what you’re saying makes sense. If I can throw in, we’ve had two of these design review conferences and respectfully, both times we felt that the City wasn’t prepared. Nobody had looked at the plans until we got to the conference and in an essence, their telling us what you’re saying but there really wasn’t any substance because nobody made a judgment over which things were and weren’t important. Again, maybe if you just had one person in charge of it and they had to solicit this feedback, it might help. I don’t know. That’s a Staff issue on really how you do it but that’s our – my feedback to you is that twice now it hasn’t worked well because the City wasn’t prepared, in our opinion. Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, let me just reiterate on this. The same sort of thing where – let’s face it after you do this after a while with a particular jurisdiction, you begin to understand what some of their boilerplate items are so you figure ok, fine. I’ll include those in my drawings and so, I include all those in there. Then when I get the comment’s back, it still has those and I look at it and say nope, they just took the first four pages that were standard boilerplate. Didn’t even look at the drawings and then went from there. Then the client sees this and goes, my god, what did you guys do? There’s an eight-page or whatever of comments and then you have to show them, no, no, these three items at the very back are really the only ones that count and I’ve actually already covered those or I should say that I’ve covered the 85 other ones that are there. It is – I agree completely that they don’t look at the boilerplate stuff because we’re also – we go through the same thing. I’m not going to constantly have you guys do that when it’s easier for me just to put those in my general notes or whatever the case is, that it – I already understand that they are covered. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Board Member Baltay: You asked for it, Jonathan. Mr. Lait: Listen, absolutely, this is the kind of information that we need because I do think that we – part of it is that there’s a lot of work coming in and people and some vacancies and people are just trying to kind of get through it all but it’s – getting through it is not the point. We want to have a quality product. We want to be – we want the architects to have a relationship with us where they can – they know that we’re taking the time to read the plans and we’re giving thoughtful information back and so that’s the transition that we’re trying to get to. Ms. Gerhardt: I think I just wanted to go back to the grading and drainage question for a second. I -- Board Member Baltay, I understand where you’re coming from on smaller projects but I’m just – the larger projects that mainly the ARB sees. There are the C3 requirements that need to be adhered too and so my concern about the grading and drainage is that we want to make sure that there’s not a bio- retention area that needs to be planned for and we don’t want that popping up later at the building stage and so I’d like to just hear your thoughts on that. Board Member Baltay: Well, I think your right that occasionally, you need to have a bio-retention area. You want or most architects are thinking about that with their consultants but somehow, this just morphed way beyond just filling out a C3 form. A C3 form is essentially asking you to look at how much change you’re making on your pervious or impervious surface, bottom line and then what are you going to do about it? Public Works starts with that and then, the instant you fill it out and there’s one square foot more impervious surface, they throw the book at you. There’s not this sort of baseline, ok, you’re going to have to put something in for bio-retention, how are you going to do it? As an architect I say ok, I realize that I’m going to have this grassy area that we’re going to have to reserve or I’m going to have to tell my client that we’re going to have to do an underground system with filters and pumps or on a real dense spot, we have some more issues in the building structure. Very rarely does it – does anything – those questions go beyond that as far as affecting the design and the review. I think it’s pretty well understood that you have to do storm drainage and the design team is responsible for that. I mean, you have to have a building that holds itself up with the engineering but you’re not asking them to size the beams. These are basic things that they have to do so it’s really just a matter of judgment of when it’s necessary. That’s my feeling but maybe… Chair Lew: So, I use to work on really large projects and the grading was a driving factor – on hilly sites, often times large projects – the grading was a driver of the project. Like it would affect the general – the basic parts of a project and it was a struggle to get those to work. So, I can sort of see where the Staff is coming from and then I think it you're – again if it’s like a small project on a relatively flat plate in an urban infill thing then yeah, I think you’re right. Board Member Baltay: On a big project, a civil engineer is an integral part of the team and yeah, their work needs to be put into the package but only on some projects. Chair Lew: Ok, Kyu. Vice Chair Kim: My comments are more specific to the checklist submittal requirements. I know it’s been brought up before but just little things like if we’re getting a reduced set, that we have some kind of a graphic scale so that we can at least get an estimate of what a certain dimension is. Then some other minor things like public outreach images, I know previously it was a CD requirement but now it looks like it’s been changed to USB flash drive. Could that be just a cloud link? Whether it’s Dropbox or Google drive. Also, just some basic clean up on the checklists. I think if we refer to 24x36 or 11x17 instead of writing inch all the time. I agree that the more 3-D images and views are a good thing. That really helps us on the Board as well as members of the public that aren’t used to seeing just straight sections, elevations and floor plans to really get a sense of what the volume of a building perhaps looks like so I’d be in favor of asking for more of that information. I agree with Board Member Baltay that it’s not that difficult to produce. Just a super specific question but on the revised ARB major project submittal requirement checklist, under G for sections, it says provide illustrative lustration wall section. I was City of Palo Alto Page 7 wonder what does that mean, lusturation? I mean we’re asking for it to be a minimum of a certain specific scale so when I read that without seeing the portion at the end of scale, I would think oh, maybe it’s a sectioned perspective or just an illustration of what the section might look like but I think if it’s at a certain scale then maybe that word becomes ambiguous or we can strike it out. Ms. Gerhardt: I think we’re looking for a sample wall section – an example just to understand the depth of the windows and things like that. Vice Chair Kim: Ok, so maybe just provide example wall sections instead of lustration. Board Member Furth thinks lustration is a good word. Board Member Baltay: We use the term schematic in the office. A schematic detail is one that’s not technically correct. Maybe the flashing is not shown but it shows the depth of the window and things like that. Vice Chair Kim: Then a couple other minor comments with regards to the shadow shade studies and something else that I think was tossed around out there is perhaps having a sample for some of these applicants. Some applicants are very familiar with the process. You know they’ve been through it so many times. We’ve seen them a lot but other perhaps are less familiar with it and if we have a sample section, that can help the applicant or even clients that don’t understand why we have to present or spend the time to put together these submittal items. Overall, I’m very pleased with the Staff reports and I’m in favor of having these booklets that you introduced at the beginning of this year. I agree that maybe the verbatim minutes are a little overboard but overall, I think we’re heading in the right direction and I’m appreciative of the work that the Planners are putting forth. It hasn’t made my job harder. If anything, it’s made it easier to review things so thank you. Chair Lew: Ok and Wynne. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Well, I’m a word person so I want you to write less also. First drafts are always much longer than second drafts in things like this. I think Staff is talented, sophisticated and experienced and I think the documents show that. I love the bound volumes and now that I realize that my Adobe program will let me convert Staff reports to word documents and comment and edit on them online, you’re lives are going to be hell. Actually, it’s really helpful to me and probably helpful to the public too, if they want to do that. In order of importance, I would like the guidelines to emphasize what we need in order to make finding number one. Finding number one is about consistency with zoning and implacable special plans and guidelines. I often get the impression that the applicant hasn’t read those documents. They didn’t know they were downtown guidelines or south El Comino guidelines and sometimes I get the impression that people reviewing the document didn’t know those guidelines exist either. I would suggest that you highlight not just the implacable zoning but another implacable SOFA I, SOFA II, whatever. Those documents are really helpful in design review because they’re site specific. I mean I often – some of them are a bit old but zoning often frustrates us because it’s numbers and squares and dimensions and it can get in the way of what we’re trying to do. Where are the more qualitative characteristics of those documents, like SOFA I and SOFA II, help us understand the vision that we’re supposed to be implementing here. So, I would like – I wrote – I’ll give you my specific notes on that but I think that might help. I’m very support of the notion that we have scales on the drawings that work for the drawings in the size that we got them because I’m often sitting there trying to scale something off and am completely lost. I also want to say that on page two of your Staff report, you talk about basically a better checklist can make for a better and quicker process and I think that’s true. I also think that initial intake is not at all mechanical. That’s a skilled and time-consuming part of the job and much of what frustrates us, has to do with – for example, the quality of the drawing that we receive and so I’m all in favor of saying that this drawing – it may be a whatever but it doesn’t provide the necessary information at that stage. I would of course prefer that we not have drawings that are – leave us trying to read (inaudible) type space – type face; very tiny typefaces. It particularly seems to be a problem with landscape work. For me, when a project, unlike this bridge, is on a street grid, it’s very helpful if the elevations give me my street frontage because this town is not oriented to the Cardinal points and so City of Palo Alto Page 8 east, south, north, west isn’t necessary accurate or revealing when you can say Addison. That would help me misread plans less and I think it would be helpful for the general public too. Sometimes I think it would be very helpful to have dimensions of open space but again, if we have an adequately described scale, we can figure that out ourselves. Sometimes the keying is inadequate so there are lines going across the drawings and no indication of what they represent. Some of the them are standardized and we can be expected to know what they are but maybe the general public can’t and sometimes they are not standardized. I ask my more knowledgeable colleagues and they say, don’t know what that is so that would be something to check to see how readable they are. On landscape planning and plans, one of the problems I have is trying to figure out what the vertical of the 3-dimensional experience of the landscaping is going to be so I end up looking up trees in western flora or something to try to figure out how high a particular plant is. They could of course, give us that information and sometimes they do. I mean, I think we got a set of plans from Stanford that had, they will grow to be this size, information on it but I tend to find the landscape information inadequate. It’s very helpful to see an elevation or whatever, that shows me what 5-years out from now what this is going to look like. On a project in which landscaping is important, that information is important. One of the things that I hear in listening to my colleagues up here, who are not my professional colleagues, is that part of the problem that maybe people experience is about scale of the project, not the drawings. So, that what you require – so, that basically, we are supportive of Staff having flexibility to respond to the scale and nature of a project in terms of asking for more or less. That’s risky for Staff because you make a judgement call that somebody may question but that might help. One last thing, sometimes the CEQA document says a project won’t have an adverse aesthetic environmental impact. We know that because these documents – this project has to comply with a compatibility standards and the ARB will make sure that will happen. It says something very similar to that of the hotel project that is presently under review. In situations where the CEQA review finding of no aesthetic impact depends on us making accurate and supported findings based on that standard. I would like to have that called out because that makes me feel an extra level of pressure in thinking about that. I know that often the CEQA language is more complicated than that but if that’s what we’re counting on, we need to be reminded that that’s what the project is counting on. The other thing that I am reminded of and I don’t know what, in this case, the printing cost is. How useful color is in trying to understand documents? I mean, I end up hand coloring green for trees and red for existing but when I’m trying to figure out how, or a member of the public, is trying to figure out how new construction overlays existing footprints or where the green stuff is or isn’t. Color is really helpful and sometimes we get plans that use that. I don’t know when that makes economic sense but it does let you convey a great deal more of information. I believe that a 120 item condition lists are not helpful for us in reviewing a project unless you highlight with an alternative type those conditions which have been tailored to the project so I want to see that box or bold italic or something so I can get there fast and not get lost trying to understand things that I really don’t need to understand. So, taking advantage of current technology by using highlighting, backstage attachments that we can go look at if we need to, that’s all very helpful. Finally, I can’t quite resist, I can tell when you’ve had time to edit reports and when you haven’t and on this report, I would have liked to see a red line between version A and version B of these documents instead of trying to hold them up to the light. Sometimes – I don’t think you highlighted the changes in your revised versions of the guidelines? The intake sheets? Yeah, track changes. Sometimes track changes is useless. I would not want you spending your time making it useful, that’s too hard but in terms of pros, you say refine the submittal checklist will improve the consistency of information presented to the Board and enable Staff in taking the application to ensure that only complete applications are being received. This in turn may serve to reduce the amount of time that it takes to process applications. If you had more time, you would have said a better checklist can make for a better review – a better and faster review process. That’s 10 – you know, that’s half as much text so when you have time. Mr. Lait: As we move onto our last set of comments. There’s – I want the Board Members to sort of think about references to – if there is a differentiation that we should be thinking about for what’s a big project? When do you want the 3-D modeling? Is it for all projects and what does that mean in terms of what are we asking for? We need to put something in print that the public is going to understand as far as what the need is so perhaps as we’re hearing from the Chair’s comments, if there can be some more thought to what are these fine lines where we’re going to require something of one project but maybe City of Palo Alto Page 9 not of another project. What is that scale of the project that we’re going to make that decision point on because again, we’re trying to get to a clear place where your application is complete for filing because you satisfied these requirements. If we have a discretion where Staff is saying well, on this one we might need a 3-D rendering on this one. That creates some of the ambiguity as far as when is it complete or incomplete or things of that nature. Thank you. Chair Lew: So, thank you to the Board. I think you guys made some comments and I don’t have that many that haven’t been mentioned already. I would want to follow up on Jonathan’s point about the 3-D modeling. In a way, I expect everything to have some 3-D modeling these days because it’s not that hard. There is some reluctance -- like in the architectural offices that I’ve worked at. There’s some reluctance to release an image that’s not perfect and beautiful and I think sometimes we just want to see – I want to see the back of the building and I know it’s not going to be as – maybe it’s not as nice as the front of the building or maybe it’s just because of the viewpoint – you know, it’s in a built-up area, it’s hard to get a really good image and the client may not want to spend the money on something on the back corner of the building but I think there are times that we’ve wanted to see it. I think on some projects – recent projects, I think Kyu was asking for the back side of the building and we never got it and it was a big important project. I think on major projects, I think we should ask for at least two – I don’t know, front and back. I mean even on smaller projects, say like a more – something more along the lines of a house or a duplex or something. Usually, the back neighbors what to know what the – how their back yard is going to be affected so even on a small project, I would think that some kind of view from the back is warranted. Ms. Gerhardt: I’m just wondering that there are many different vantage points too. Chair Lew: Yeah, high or low. Ms. Gerhardt: Bird’s eye view versus pedestrian view. Is there… Chair Lew: It’s really – that’s a tough one. I mean a lot of the times other Cities do require it, like more of an eye level view from the neighbor back yard. I mean they ask for it and it’s really hard to do them and to get something that looks good but I think that’s the expectation from neighbors. We’ve had some – a few models over the years – it’s sort of like a dying – it’s like a lost art now. We do get the occasionally. I would argue that the 3-D models are so much less expensive than a physical model in terms of the amount of time it takes. 3-D model, once you start doing all the fancy rendering it can get just as expensive but I think there are a lot of smaller projects – you know, like three unit townhouses projects that have just done very simple sketch up level of 3-D views and they’re not really – they don’t have the full on super realistic rendering. I think that those are – at least for our – for somebody whose use to looking at drawings, those are fine. Ok, so the things that I think that haven’t quite been mentioned by others. Kyu mentioned the shadow – shade and shadow studies and I think -- my take on it is that the Board has been inconsistent about when we want to see them and so those are sort of hit or miss. I think we should be more consistent about that if we can. The photographs – context photographs are also sort of (inaudible) quality and I brought an example of a recent project. So, this is the High Street and Channing project but like these tiny little things and their gray and fuzzy. I don’t even – I don’t spend any time looking at them so those aren’t useful but the 3-D – I think the simulations where they plunk in a drawing into the photograph, those are always helpful. There’s – we’re often asked to weigh in on a neighbor’s privacy next to a new project and we don’t really have a great – there isn’t necessarily a great way of showing that. I think sometimes we ask for a site section after the fact; like after the first hearing. Maybe there is a way of getting that included at the beginning if we know that there’s a mix use project going into – next to a single-family house. The – on lighting, I think this is a universal problem. It’s not limited to Palo Alto but often times the sort of metric drawings are really hard to read and then sometimes they include the cut sheets and sometimes they don’t. Sometimes they’re on 8 ½ by 11 supplements or sometimes they put them in the drawings but it’s inconsistent. I think most of the time they tend to put them in the drawings but not always. Often times what I find myself doing is going on the website and looking up the list of the model number and so I do my own research and find the virtue on my own, typically. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Ms. Gerhardt: All of that type of stuff we’ve definitely have been trying to get them more into the drawings because that way we know that they get to you. When they are sort of these loose other pieces, there’s the potential that it doesn’t get to you. Chair Lew: Right and sometimes they change – and they change over time and stuff. So, that’s what I have. Oh, and on Staff report, I think you guys have been doing a great job on Staff reports. I think that in years – a long time ago, I would say that Staff reports tended not to ever say anything negative about a project. If there was – if the Staff was unsure, they would just leave it unsure and wait to see what the Board thought about a project. I think it’s fine for the Staff to express – to be opinionated and we can debate – and we can debate it. In the past, I think Staff was asking me about where the little tables – the zoning compliance tables useful and I actually do use those a lot on the complicated projects. Like a project that has multiple zonings on it or like a project on El Comino, where our zoning on El Comino has so many footnotes. That I actually don’t really know – I don’t really know what the code requires unless I read every footnote or whatever so the tables are useful in those instances. Then I think I would just say that often times when I’m reading the Staff reports, I’m always thinking shorter but that -- I’ve been reading them for a long time. Sometimes on very complicated projects, I really like reading through all of them so yeah, I don’t think there’s generally a problem with them. So, that’s all that I have. I think you guys are on the right track. I think everything is good. Do you have any other – Wynne? Board Member Furth: Thank you. I had two comments, one is on when do we need more 3- dimensionality or information? It doesn’t seem to me to be about the size of the proposed structure but more about where it is. It’s about – I find that it’s most needful when it’s going to be tucked in with existing developments so you can build a very large building in the Stanford Research Park with enormous setbacks and I can get a lot of information from relatively simple -- they’re probably actually all very expensive but I never feel that we’re short of information but if you’re going to put something in SOFA I or II, if you’re going to put it downtown, if you’re going to put it in the more built up section off California, then it gets really complicated as to how it relates to its surroundings. Then I feel like I need more information from more sides because it’s going to be viewed and have impacts from more points of view. Another thing which I don’t know how to deal with is when we get a context photograph of El Comino Real, it’s not accurate. It’s what’s there now and it’s not what’s been approved in the last 6- months and I’d really like to see a photo montage that maybe we have that shows me what does this block or this set of blocks look like as approved. Not as what’s there because I mean I’m asking – I’m supposed to compare it to Foot Locker and – but it’s not going to be Foot Locker so I felt like I have no way to see how those buildings flow and of course, we know that our experience hasn’t been universally positive in that regard. Also with respect to shadows, when I was reading the draft DIR for the hotels, it had a very specific definition of what kind of shadowing constitutes an impact. I don’t know where that standard is from, how useful you think it is and what settings? I mean I think it – for example, we might need to look at it more carefully if they are shading a children’s play yard, than if they are shading somebodies parking lot. It would be useful to have more information about that and if we have CEQA standards that applicants look at, that we’re supposed to have, that would be really helpful to know about because I don’t want to go (inaudible) off on excessive shadowing if the City already has a standard that says that’s ok. Board Member Baltay: Can I? Chair Lew: Yes, Peter. Chair Lew: I want to give Jonathan a response to the question that he asked about the 3-D stuff. In my opinion, every project that comes to the Board – a major ARB, should have 3-D renderings included. I suggest that you ask for a minimum of three and you provide a statement along the lines of the intended of the 3-D rendering is to show two things; the basic design intent of the building and two, the way it fits into its context. Then you have to leave it up to the applicant to decide whether they show trees and cars and people. Whether it’s from the sky or from the ground but that’s what we’re trying to get them to City of Palo Alto Page 11 show. You might off the record say that we’re not looking for photo realistic renderings. It doesn’t have to be polished. Straight out of their CAD program is fine but the more the better generally. Chair Lew: On 3-D renderings, also the other thing that always comes up internally with architectural offices is how to show the landscape. So, the architects are in charge of the project, right? They usually eliminate some of the trees in the landscape to show off the building and I think from the City’s point of view is that we actually want to see everything, all together. If the architect chooses to show an additional image with the edited landscape, I think that’s fine but I think that we should see it as it’s designed. Give them the option of doing more drawings. Mr. Lait: Does the ghosting of the (inaudible) (crosstalk)? Chair Lew: Ghosting works but I’ve noticed on projects like a lot of Page Mill Road projects, they are actually just cutting out trees. They’re just not – they’re just not showing – they are illuminating them altogether. I think that’s just – it’s just not – for the public consumption it should be accurate. Ok, are we done? Should we move onto the minutes? [Board move to approval of the minutes] 3. Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass and Adobe Creek Reach Trail Project [17PLN-00086]: Preliminary Architectural Review of a Proposal for an Overpass Structure Near San Antonio Road, and Trail, and Reconfiguration of the Adjacent Parking Lot at 3600 West Bayshore Road. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. Formal Application will be Subject to CEQA and NEPA Review. Zoning Districts: Public Facilities PF (D), ROLM, GM. For more information, contact the project planner Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Lew: So, we have – Claire, can we have the Staff report for – oh, I should announce the item, right? It’s item number three, which is highway 101 pedestrian/bicycle overpass and Adobe Creek Reach Trail Project. Preliminary architectural review of a proposal for an overpass structure near San Antonio Road, and Trail, and reconfiguration of the adjacent parking lot at 3600 West Bayshore Road. Environmental assessment is it’s not a project. A formal application will be subject to CEQA and NEPA Review and the zone districts are PF (D), ROLM, and GM. We have Claire Hodgkins and yes? Ms. Jodie Gerhardt: Yes, I would just like to note that Board Member Baltay has arrived. Thank you. Ms. Claire Hodgkins, Project Planner: Good morning, Board Members. I’m Claire Hodgkins and I’m the project planner for this project. As you mentioned, the project before you today are the 101 bicycle/pedestrian overpass and Adobe Reach Trail Project and I just want to reiterate that today is a preliminary study session only so no action is recommended. The proposed bridge across Highway 101, between east Oregon Express Way and San Antonio Road overcrossing. The purpose is to provide a year- round bicycle/pedestrian connect between commercial and residential uses west of Highway 101 and the walking and biking trails on – in the Bay Lands east of Highway 101. It also completes the Adobe Creek Reach Trail out to East Meadow Drive. Just to give you a brief summary of the zoning context. The project actually crosses four separate parcels within four different zoning districts so it includes the PFD zone on the Bay Land side – on the east side of the east approach. It crosses over the PF zone as it crosses over Highway 101. It crosses the ROLM zone as it goes through and over Google’s property and over Adobe Creek. Then it’s within the GM zone for the pathway along Adobe Creek out to East Meadow Drive. Following – oops. Following the study session and a study session with the Planning and Transportation Commission, the City Public Works engineering division will apply for a site and design review, which requires that the project goes to ARB and PTC for the recommendation and then to City Council for final approval of the project. Because there have been several previous hearings on this City of Palo Alto Page 12 project, Staff wants to note that through previous meetings and hearings, Council has already selected the alignment of the bridge, the type of the structure and the budget for the structure. So, we may discuss these things today to give context to the project but we want to focus the discussion today on a few key items so I’ve put those up here. Staff really hopes to obtain your input on this list of items, which has been outlined as well in the Staff report. If there are any questions, I’m available but I’ll turn it over to you guys again. We’re recommending that you hear from Public Works Engineering next. Chair Lew: Great and you have a presentation? I think we allow – normally allow 10-minutes for that and then, my understanding is that there was a video as well and so if you need a little bit more time for the video, I think that’s fine. We don’t have a huge agenda today so we can allow you a couple more minutes if you need it. Mr. Roy Schnabel: How do I get out? Ms. Hodgkins: do you want to start with the… Mr. Schnabel: Yeah, so we’ll start with the video, it’s already pulled up. [Board watched a short video] Ok, so, my name is Roy Schnabel, I’m with Biggs Cardosa Associates and we’re the consultants selected to basically provide this project for the City. I want to start with this image, which is basically the image of the existing creek bridge on the Bay Trail; on the east Bay Shore side. The reason I provided this is to provide some context. We’re doing a similar bridge on the other side and so basically, these bridges – this prefabricated, self-weathering, steel bridges are going to be bookends to the POC structure that crossed over 101. Basically, it provides us with some of the contexts which we use to define some of the architectural vocabularies for this project. With that, I would like to try it over to Claudia, who is our project architect. She can talk – discuss some of that vocabulary. [Ms. Claudia ??:] Good morning, my name is Claudia (inaudible) from [FMGR] Architects and I’m working with Roy and Ms. [Cardosa] on providing the architectural elements for the project. Like Roy mentioned, we took some clues from the surrounding environment. We took them up to develop a theme for this – for these projects and we believe that the architectural theme for – and the approach for these projects would be an industrial look. We’re proposing a self-weathering steel that – and the railing to be treated like galvanized steel. However, the base (inaudible) you see includes a chain link – a vinyl coated chain link railing. Within those cost perimeters, we’re looking for these (inaudible) alternatives that can meet the budget but they can also give a more enhanced look to the railing treatment so these are some of the options that we’re looking at. One of them is a welded wire mesh, which I think it can be used on the main span of the bridge where the railing needs to be an 8-foot high railing and the mesh really needs to be close to a 1-inch square. In addition to that, we are proposing to use a similar mesh on the rest of the railing, outside of the roadways. That railing needs to be about 48-inches high and for that, we would like to propose a similar mesh that perhaps is treated differently -- (inaudible) differently but still within the perimeters of the cost. One of the areas that we’re looking for an enhanced treatment is – so, this slide here shows what our standard detail for the railing – the 48-inch railing would be. We’re also proposing to treat some of the vertical surfaces – concrete surfaces with a foam liner, that will give it an interesting look to the concrete in the sense that it gives some texture and the texture itself will give an impressed that it’s a different color where we have the foam liner. These are some of the enhancements and the different treatments. So, the railing, one of the options that we’re looking at is the cable railing and perhaps that can be used in there overlook area. We feel that the overlook is where people are actually going to be stopping and looking at the Bay Lands so they are going to be able to enjoy it more and the experience. In working perhaps, with the artists, this is one area where we are looking into enhancing the railing. We’re also proposing a different type of flooring and one of the alternatives is to use some of the recycle wood for the floor. Perhaps install it in a different so it gives a different look and warmer and inviting feeling. That’s it. Roy will continue to talk about the additional features. Mr. Schnabel: We have several connections and where the pedestrians and bicyclists sort of co-mingling with some of the existing trailheads. The first one is the trail head at the Bay Trail on the Bay Lands side and it’s adjacent to the East Bay Shore Road. Based on the -- we simply had a ‘T’ intersection here and City of Palo Alto Page 13 based on some input from the PRC, they wanted us to take a look at providing a little bit more safer connection here so we envisioned doing this as a traffic circle. Traffic circles are the thing now for traffic calming so it has the potential to slow down the speeds, it’s traffic calming and it has improved safety. The City has a bike project in and around this area that is also installing traffic circles and crosswalks and raised sidewalks so the sort of fits into that same theme. With regards to that, we’ve talked to Chris over at transportation for some of the cues for both the traffic circle and there’s a potential for a raised curb as well. The second trail head is at the Adobe Reach – Adobe Creek Reach Trail and at the end of the POC structure and basically, there are not a lot of opportunities here for changes. It’s totally controlled by the requirements of the Santa Clara Valley Water District. They want a very wide, open, flat surface because they do – they stage a lot of their maintenance equipment here when they are doing their maintenance. They don’t want anything that they’re going to damage and have to replace so they are very sensitive to just something that is very resilient and very, very open. The third trailhead is the one at Meadow Drive and here’s the potential to utilize – there’s going to be a crosswalk here and potentially do a raised crosswalk to provide addition safety to both the bicyclists and pedestrians that are utilizing it. We also have several areas for landscaping. The landscaping is predominantly replacement landscaping so we’re going to affect these areas and this area includes a bio-retention area to collect water, to filtrate it and then treat it before it enters into the storm drain system. This can also be planted over but basically, we’re going to – this area is predominantly non-native grasses or non-native landscaping and we’re going to replace it with native grasses. We’re also planning to utilize the area close to the channel – to the creek to plant some of the replacement plantings that we have with some native trees. We can’t put them into the Bay Lands area because the Bay Lands guidelines want a wide-open space so we figured that we would put it there; adjacent to the riparian area and get some native plantings there. The other area is basically where we’re affecting a number of trees in the landscaping areas on the Google lot. We’re realigning their entrance and replacing their existing parking slots. The darken configuration there is basically a revised parking scheme for them. Then, with the affected trees, we’re planting additional landscaping trees in and around the triangle and their landscaping buffer. Lighting, basically for the lighting, this will consist of a variety of high efficient LED lighting. It will be in the warmer colors because that’s more sensitive to the wildlife that we’ll also be addressing. That will consist of both pole, rail mounted, hand rail mounted, and edge mounted and marker puck style fixtures. We’re basically, from right to left, we’re transferring from a very urban setting, which is fairly well lit, over to an open space area which is not light as well as that other side. Our goal is to – for the illumination levels to focus on the functional path and making sure we have the correct illumination for the path; for safety reasons. We also want to minimize any impacts of light pollution, especially to the Bay Lands, the creeks and to the traveling public on Highway 101 so we have to be very sensitive to those three distinct areas. We will also have lighting controls and the lighting controls will allow the lights to dim during low usage and it will since somebody coming and then power up to the high levels for safety reasons. This is a rendering of what the lighting would look like and it shows the difference between pole lighting, photometric and the rail lighting photometric. Definitely the pole there is spaces out larger distance and they are broader. The rail lighting once is denser and more frequent so they tend to be more expensive. Then for amenities, Council has approved for us do some enhanced amenities but we’ve discovered that we have some very limited amenity opportunities here. The only locations that we really can effectively do the amenities are at the trails heads and there’s not a lot of opportunities to expand on those amenities. We’re going to try to keep it as low key as possible on both trail heads. With that, questions? Chair Lew: Ok, so we’ll get to the questions in a minute. I think what we normally do is open up the hearing to the public so we do have – I think we have one speaker. Again, it’s Shani Kleinhaus and you have 5-minutes. Ms. Kleinhaus: Shani Kleinhaus again for – speaking for Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and a couple of things as a resident. The easy, there is still no dog water pictures on the fountains so dogs are thirsty too. Things from the Audubon, I think it would be good to allow structures under the bridge in areas that don’t have a lot of traffic of people underneath for Swallow. Swallow will probably look for places to nest and instead of looking at that as a nuisance, we can incorporate that as some kind art into the bridge in areas where – when they poop, it doesn’t bother people so maybe you can look into that. This is a confluence of two creeks and the Bay Lands. It’s a really important area for nature and I think that’s City of Palo Alto Page 14 probably why the previous bridge did not get through. This one is more sensitive and that’s wonderful but I would really like to see part of this design to look at the creeks and see where can we enhance trees along the creek corridors. While trees are not necessarily wanted in the Bay Lands, anywhere that you can plant them in the creek corridors and maybe in those swells, would be good. Water from here doesn’t really have to go into a drainage system. It can be a self-contained thing in the Bay Lands. It’s already a wetland, part of it and very wet. Here, some of that plain area may get flooded so use that in that way and make nature part of this design because there is an opportunity here. It may be a little bit more difficult but maybe consult a biologist but bring somebody who can really bring nature and combine the bridge with its setting and not just oh, where doing this and – the grasses are not that important there; trees are. When you have planting opportunities, look for those and really consider nature is that something that we really need there and those Eucalyptus will probably need to be removed. It should probably be replaced with Sycamores and Cotton Wood because those are the trees that grew there before. Willows, a willow grove in the swell would be absolutely perfect in that area so maybe you can consider that. In the bio-retention basin, instead of native grasses – LEDs are not good for birds, even the warmer colors, and lower intensities so you have to be really careful with that or potentially think about not doing LED in those areas. I guess – and otherwise, I’m glad this is moving forward. Thank you. Chair Lew: If there are no other speakers we will move onto Board Member questions and I’ll close the public hearing. Wynne. Board Member Furth: I just had one question, we got a – the Board received an email from Roy Snyder, raising some issues and I wonder if Staff could respond to them. I wasn’t exactly following everything he said. (Inaudible)… Ms. Gerhardt: Microphone. Board Member Furth: …which I think is not in our purview but some of it was about immediately implementing the West Side Trail so if you could just take me through what he was saying so I will understand. Oh, it was printed out. Ms. Hodgkins: It’s not in here it doesn’t look like. I believe if I remember correctly as I look through this comment. This comment was basically, talking about how – he has a lot of concerns about the bike trail along West Bay Shore Road and he really wanted to see – let’s see, hold on. So, he doesn’t want the overlook, that was one of the things that he mentioned. Board Member Furth: It was his comments about safety and access and I was trying to figure out his concerns related to the proposal, which appeared to me to address his concerns but I wasn’t sure. Ms. Hodgkins: Yeah, sure. If you would like to. I think – what I will say is that the project actually does the things that he’s looking to do, which is to connect – to have a bike trail that is separated from West Bay Shore Road and connects out to East Meadow Drive so that you’re not continuing immediately adjacent to the traffic. Maybe you can say a little bit more than but I think that’s… Mr. Schnabel: Yeah, I think he also has some concerns with regards to the bicycles on its – outside the limits of this project. Basically, connecting to the trail that’s behind the Google building and looking for improvements to access that trail, which is basically outside the scope of this project. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Mr. Schnabel: So, he sent us some of that information and we’re reviewing it to see what can be incorporated. Especially, with regards to the right-of-way access and the easements in the Google parking lot. Board Member Furth: Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 15 Chair Lew: Peter. Board Member Baltay: Good morning. Two quick questions if I could. First simply, is there more detail on the light pole? The proposed design of that pole. All I see in the rendering is that it just seems like a pole with something on top. Mr. Schnabel: (Inaudible) Board Member Baltay: So, it’s the one on the left here? Mr. Schnabel: (Inaudible) Vice Chair Kim: If you could speak – turn on your mic when you speak. Thank you. Mr. Schnabel: Oh, I’m sorry. It’s 12-foot high but it has – at the top you can actually mount additional extensions. 4-foot – I think they are 4-foot increments so you could raise the increment of or the height of the poles. We’re trying to keep it as low as possible so we’re envisioning utilizing the 12-foot. The light fixture on the top can also be extended. Utilizing multiples so you can actually add more of those cones at the top which contains the light fixture. If you need a deeper, more bright light but we’re only envisioning one. Our goal is to sort of focus the light onto the pathways and prevent some of the – any pollution outside of the fixture. Board Member Baltay: Ok, thank you. The second question is that I know that this is not something that we’re looking to change but just for the record, as I go up and down 101, it seems that every bridge is a pre-cast concrete structure. When I talk to my son who’s an engineer, he says dad, why aren’t they doing it out of concrete? It would be cheaper so can you just address that for the record. Why do you choose the steel trusses? Mr. Schnabel: There are several reasons and the first reason is that one of the things that we were trying to avoid was a column at the center of the freeway. The freeway had just gone through an HOV lane expansion. That is going to be also revised to an express lane in the future by the VTA and so there is potentially some construction that is going to occur in the median. Placing a column in the median would of basically, taken away those HOV lanes for the period of the construction of the bend in the middle. One of the ways to mitigate that is to span across it. So, once you get into the longer span structures, you tend to go to different types of structures. Obviously, you could still do a concrete structure but the problem with the concrete structure is that the depth exists below the deck and that increases the profile so basically, you’re having to travel to a higher distance. We have some very challenging profile issues with regards to this project. One of the main ones is to get underneath the high voltage P (inaudible) lines and provide enough clearance. Right now, we’re providing the exact clearance requirement there, while meeting the ADA requirements. Then for longer span structures, such as this one, where we’re looking 160-foot span. Steel actually becomes cheaper and cost effective than concrete so it had multiple reasons and as a result, we picked the most cost effective and most engineering wise solution here. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. Chair Lew: I have a question. Will you – the Staff report mentions signage as something that the Board should comment on and I don’t recall seeing anything. I was wondering if you could explain the thinking on signage at the moment? Mr. Schnabel: Yeah, we haven’t gotten to the point where we’re addressing signage. We’ve started to get input from the different discipline areas in the City with regards to what they would like to see signed. We’re looking at normal traffic signs – just a standard traffic sign. At this point, we know we’ll have to do something a little bit more special for the trail head areas, especially, because there’s a confluence of both pedestrians and bicyclists. The traffic circle will definitely have signs indicating what the traffic circle will be but we’re looking at basic green signs with white markings for those. We also have an artist on City of Palo Alto Page 16 board and one of the things that may be incorporated – one of the ideas that were kicked around was potentially doing some kind of specialized sign both describing the bridge. We also have informational signage and educational signage on the overlook. We haven’t done a full rendering of all of those things and I think one of the things that we want to do is basically input what we should see on those, especially, that educational signage. Do we want it to refer to the Bay Lands? Do we want it to refer to Palo Alto? Do we want it to refer to the birds and the wildlife? The salt harvest mouse, which is a – marsh mouse, which is the species of concern in this area. We’d like some input as to what, in general, that will reflect. Chair Lew: Thank you and I think Robert has a question. Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, I have one question. On the front page of the drawing, it’s basically – obviously, you have three sections of truss and on this one, they are connected but yet in other drawings in here and also on your video, there are three distinct trusses. Mr. Schnabel: Yes. Board Member Gooyer: So, which is it? Mr. Schnabel: There are three – there will be three distinct trusses. Board Member Gooyer: So, this is not correct, the front page of this drawing? Mr. Schnabel: I don’t see what you have. That is correct. We will – Board Member Gooyer: That’s what I am talking about. Is that there’s a link right here, that shows on this but doesn’t show on a couple of others and doesn’t show in your video so I wanted to… Mr. Schnabel: Yeah, those are – that’s a non-structural link and that was one of the first renderings we did and so obviously, it makes sense to – if we could do a continuous because the less joints you have, the better it is for the bicyclists and pedestrians. Board Member Gooyer: No, I mean I understand its non-structural but I mean, it will be there. That’s the intent? Mr. Schnabel: Yeah, I – it should have a flow where it looks like an integrated structure from an architectural standpoint. Board Member Gooyer: Ok, that’s all I needed. Thank you. Vice Chair Kim: I have a quick question. It mentions a vinyl clad fencing and I – could you just clarify where the vinyl clad fencing occurs? Mr. Schnabel: So, the vinyl clad fencing is something that – when we were first looking at this project, it was to develop cost effective solutions and chain link fencing is probably the most cost effective solution out there. We thought we would – the original vision was to paint the bridge and to have the vinyl clad fencing echo the painting of that. We sort of – since that time, we’ve sort of rethought the industrial look and we thought that the self-weathering steel would probably be a better, cheaper, maintenance-friendly solution and now we’re looking at more of a galvanized finish. What Claudia has done is looked at costs similar fencing materials that can still meet the cost factor that the Council wanted us to achieve but also was more integrated with the design vocabulary that we’re sort of utilizing in other parts of the structure. Then, we’re also looking at potentially utilizing maybe two or three different types of fencing details. We definitely want to look at the overlook as something different, especially, with the integration of some art in those areas. City of Palo Alto Page 17 Chair Lew: Ok, any other questions Kyu? Vice Chair Kim: No. Chair Lew: Ok, so let’s move onto Board Member comments and again, this is just preliminary. It’s coming back to us later once it’s an official project. Anybody want to start? Wynne? Board Member Furth: Thank you. Well, I must say, I look forward to seeing this and using this. It’s nice to have a project which is essentially about pleasure. I had a couple of questions and comments. I am glad you’re looking at weathering steel. The thought of people repainting that thing constantly is not a good one and I also like the way that it looks. I certainly think that it sounds like its providing good accommodations for birds and dogs. This is a good idea that should be pursued unless it conflicts with some other serious problem. I’m pleased that you’re doing replanting. I actually think grasses are pretty important but -- I think there is a member of the public trying to talk to Staff. I am – I never knew that the underpass commemorated Mr. [Lekovic] but if this is a commemorative underpass and it’s going to be replaced, I hope that when we do the replacing, we don’t obliterate the commemoration. On the benches, I was out hiking in Edgewood last week and one of the people who was hiking on the trail was severally crippled with osteoporosis and hiking with a walker. It reminded me that people make great efforts to use places that are at least moderately accessible like this but they need places to rest and benches with no backs or handrails are not places to rest for people who have difficulty standing. Although flat benches look great, they do a disservice to some of the people who should be able to use this place and who will enjoy using it. I hope you can find something that will both accommodate that group of people which actually, includes most of us at some time or another. I was struck by Debra Baldwin’s query about the height of the fencing over the freeway and the risks that can pose for facilitating impulsive self-destruction. We have a sad history in that regard in this community and we certainly have all seen the great efforts that the Bay Areas has had to go to, to try to retrofit structures when they become areas that people seek out when they are in great distress. I would like to hear from Staff and when we see this again, how we’re going to address that issue because I think we need too. Also, when you present this again, it would be really helpful to have a clear train map. We don’t have a very clearly labeled trail map in the actual – the big – this thing. The Master Plan does not clearly identify the trails particularly as they exist now so a schematic that makes it easier for those of us who don’t really know where these trails and trail heads are would be great. Similarly, it’s helpful to have the simulation of the overcrossing but again, if you’re not familiar with it, you can’t figure out where the overcrossing is going to go so just a little sketch there would be helpful. Thank you. Chair Lew: Kyu. Vice Chair Kim: Yeah, thank you. I also look forward to using this bridge, as it is kind of in my neighborhood and also driving by it and under it. I think I’m in favor of going with the self-weathering finish materials and without having to paint anything. Just really letting the materials speak for themselves and be as natural as possible to also go along with the Bay Lands design guidelines. I think currently as is, there may be too many types of fencing. I appreciate that you’re looking at different ways to go about that but I think maybe just a different fencing at the overlook area and then a consistent fencing throughout will kind of simplify things. That probably will just be enough, rather than having too many different types of fencing. One thing that I don’t think you spent too much presenting was the Adobe Creek Reach Trail. I think that’s a critical component of this project as a whole and I think that also needs to move forward along with this project. I hope that they’re concurrent because I think there’s a large safety concern right now with bicyclists and pedestrians going along West Bay Shore where it turns into Fabian as is. I like the light fixtures that have been chosen. Originally, I had some concerns about the pole fixtures but it does look like from the cut sheet that you briefly presented and the way that you had explained it, that some of the light pollution concerns that I had will probably take care of themselves. I think overall, I’m with a lot of the public in that I really want to see this bridge move forward. We’ve been through a long process so design competitions and looking at different alternatives. I think it’s just a matter of people needing to use it and getting over but looking at this design, while I think it gets the job done. I – it just looks really massive in certain areas and I’m just wondering if there City of Palo Alto Page 18 is a way that we can engineer that so that perhaps some of the steel members can either be reduced or to appear less bulky than it currently is. Overall, I’m in favor of the path that the bridge takes, the connections, the trail heads and I’m also very much in favor of that traffic circle at the eastern trailhead. I think that would be -- the presented drawing of the eastern trailhead looked a little odd to me in the way that it flared out like that but I think the traffic circle takes care of that quite nicely. Perhaps enclosing – this doesn’t have to be answered now. It can be mentioned later but I was just curious to know what the future of the Adobe Creek Trail is on the western side of this bridge? I know that in the past -- even the City Manager has set up a temporary area of the Adobe Creek Trail but I think eventually if that were to become a larger trail through this neighborhood of Palo Alto. How does that Adobe Creek Trail tie into the Reach Trail and the pedestrian bridge? Chair Lew: Robert. Board Member Gooyer: Thank you. Yeah, this has been a very long process it seems like. I was here when we went through the whole design competition and although I haven’t designed a whole lot of bridges, it was pretty obvious that the designs that we had were quite incredible but I was amazed at the – just thinking to myself about what the numbers would be. I’m not surprised that they came in over budget but unfortunately, with this, all I keep hearing is cheaper and cost effective and it’s almost the extreme opposite end. The biggest thing I have a problem with is the way it’s set. It’s obviously three separate trusses that are – and there’s no real integration between the three of them. I would like to see –even – that’s why I said with the – as you said, the non-structural link. I’d – rather than it budding straight in, I’d like to see it curve so that it’s a continuous line at the top of the actually trusses. Even if that means that the -- yeah, ok. Exactly, it’s that sort of thing that, I’d rather see it flow. The reality of it is that I can’t imagine it would be that much more expensive to cut those non-structural pieces with a bend in them, then – so that they actually flow better. The – I mean I understand, there have been a lot of these bridge type thing built and it is a very ecumenical, logical system; it gets very open. There is one, obviously, that I’m sure we’ve all seen driving into San Francisco and this is the blue one right near Hospital Curve. It’s been there for, I don’t know, 40-years or something but I mean it – and it’s still doing well. The only problem I have with this – well, let me back up. A bridge like this or a truss system like this on a small bridge in a forest or this or even on the trail heads, the core ten or the rusted steel is, I think appropriate. Going across a freeway, I just don’t think it works. I don’t like the – looking down and seeing this sort of brown bridge going across. Here, I’d rather see a – some sort of a painted system. There’s enough to make it a little bit more urbanized, I guess if you want to call it. I understand that it’s a bicycle trail and going from a two- way – a wetlands area but that doesn’t to me, have to look like something that belongs in a forest somewhere because it’s not. It’s crossing an eight-lane freeway. It – like I said, those would be my two main comments. To make the thing a little smoother and also just get away – it’s too rustic, the way that it is right now. Chair Lew: And Peter. Board Member Baltay: Thank you and good morning. Right off the bat, I wonder if I could just pass this sketch to the Board Members and the forward. I share exactly Roberts comments about on the main principle span, where the two trusses join. I find it very problematic to have the square- Pratt truss sort of bumping into the bottom of the bowstring truss and then have this filler piece of metal on top, that doesn’t have any architectural integration. I made a – so, the sketch that I have shown essentially a curve top of the bowstring truss, which engineering wise would work just fine, an alternative which is what’s been done historically. That’s to use three bowstring trusses so that at the point of zero moments, on top of the span, they’re right down to zero again. The trusses are arching out of that. In any case, I don’t want the sketch to be seen as trying to design it but rather to convey an idea that I think that juncture of the trusses on the principle span needs a little bit more refinement from a design point of view. It is important too – I understand to keep the cost down but this is going to be there a long time and this is not a large ticket change of cost kind of thing. A little more effort on that design element, I think will be successful. If we could get that sketch to the – I like the idea of the self-weathering steel, although I’m cognizant of Robert’s comments about this being a bridge over a very urban area. I think it City of Palo Alto Page 19 would nice to know which is going to be more cost effective over time. If it needs to be painted every 10- years, that’s something the City doesn’t always do and then having a structure that’s rusting defective. Board Member Gooyer: It will be rusty anyway and (inaudible). Board Member Baltay: Well, then I’d rather have it be naturally self-rusting. I think there is some merit to saying that this is a pedestrian bridge and a link to the Bay Lands. So, the more earthy, a naturalist of the self-weathering steel is appropriate. I think in the end, I would support the self-weathering steel approach. I think that the traffic circle intersection of the East Bay Shore Trail is a very nice enhancement and that should be kept. It really has a very nice appeal to it about how the bike riders and pedestrians might interact at that juncture. On the overlook, I find that the wood surfacing is a very nice detail. That just sets off enough that this is a separate spot where you don’t bike ride through it and it just looks really nice in your renderings and I encourage you to keep that idea. Perhaps on the railing, just put a wood cap on the railing and keep the rest of the railing. I share Vice Chair Kim’s concern that you have so many types of the railing. A simpler refinement, less is more, might carry the day again. Just consider putting a wood cap or some other warmer detail on it. On the railing as well, I’ve had bad luck with stretched cable railing being durable over time. There’s something about those connections that loosen and just a slight shift in the bridges structure; shifting over thermal changes or something. The cables sag, they are not safe, they look sloppy and they are really hard to fix. I’ve had great luck trying to go a step above chain link by using welded wire fabric meshes. Any welding company can put them into any shape of a grid, you paint them and they last forever. They just look really nice when you detail them out and they are cost effective. Whereas a chain link fence, it’s really hard to put lipstick on it and pull it off. I’d urge you guys to – again if you have to stretch your budget or get rid of some of the amenities, make a railing that is simple, consistent and durable. I think the welded wire mesh or fabric is a good choice and a good way to do that. One thought I had was to try to get you to integrate that mesh with the bowstring and other trusses across the span. In other words, make it go maybe the full height of the truss, rather than introducing that line at the top of the fence. It’s an 8-foot railing line, which is an arbitrary height but rather you could just let it fill in all the panels of the truss completely. It would look a lot nicer and I bet it’s not more expensive really. Again, it’s just something to think about in integrating the smaller detail into it. My last comment has to do with the lighting pole which I don’t find attractive or appropriate to the design that you are doing. It’s a very urban integrated thing and you’d expect to see that on some commercial office building in downtown San Francisco. I’m reminded that every time I walk across the Golden Gate Bridge, the light fixtures are so wonderful there. They came out of the design of the rest of the bridge. That sort of eye beam that splits and curves and hang over the road, it’s an iconic thing. When you really think about it, it’s the small things like the railing and the light fixtures that the public experiences and sees as they go over this bridge. The shape of the trusses is something that pretty much only drivers racing by wouldn’t really notice these things but the lights are really important actually. These curved poles to me -- is that there’s something about when the light is coming down, you want the fixture to arch or cap or do something geometrically to express what it’s trying to do. What you’ve got is a pole with a clever arrangement of reflectors and it just, to me at least, doesn’t sort of carry the day – carry the weight of what you want to do. There must be some other way that you could design that to integrate the design style with the rest of the bridge and perhaps give a visual clue as to what it’s trying to do. I support what you’re doing and I want to see this go forward as fast as possible. If there’s any additional help that the ARB could do to make it go fast, I certainly support that. That’s the end of my comments, thank you. Board Member Gooyer: I just wanted to comment that I agree completely. I think the fencing should work better with the truss itself so that you don’t have – like this section, you’ve got basically three – you’ve got the truss, you’ve got the fencing, you’ve got the hand rail. I think it’s just too much or it doesn’t need to be. Also, the light fixture, I agree completely that it just seems like – I guess maybe it’s a very effective solution in the evening on what you’re trying to do but in the day time, it looks like they’re going to put light poles up and they are not done yet or something or whatever these sort of – they look like light bollards that I’ve got in front of my office building, only with a 10-foot extension on them. Chair Lew: Ok, thank you. We do have one last speaker which is Penny Elson and you have 5-minutes. City of Palo Alto Page 20 Ms. Penny Elson: Thank you. I wanted to point out that your Staff report was not – the link wasn’t live so I came to the meeting and had to read while I was sitting here. I’m a user of the Lefkowitz tunnel right now. In fact, my whole family does. We are a family of hikers and bird watchers and bicyclists. My husband regularly uses the Lefkowitz tunnel, when it’s open, to bicycle to his job in Sunnyvale from south Palo Alto. My daughter and my husband and I do a lot of bird watching out on the Bay Lands in the wee hours so we understand the need for light out there for walkers. I heard your comments earlier about how long this had taken and in fact, my history with this project goes back about 10-years. We had to advocate for the grant funding that was lost because this took so much time. Many people worked on this for a long time before we ever got to the phase you were talking about earlier. I have to say that speed is important here because my husband bikes to work in Sunnyvale. When that tunnel is closed, he is forced to surface streets and many – I have many other bicycling friends who have the same problem. They are forced to streets like Middlefield and Mountain View and Sunnyvale to get to jobs that are south of here. In the winter, when visibility is poor and the streets are wet, cars become a real risk factor for bicyclists. They need to get off the streets. This connector will get them to Bay trails that provide regional connections. This is part of a regional bicycle plan. It’s not just about getting the walkers out there. It’s about getting commuters safely to work in the south. Let’s see, I don’t want to take all of my full 5- minutes. I just want to say to expedite this. I mean, move this thing forward. We’ve been waiting a very long time; 10-years I’ve been working on this, personally. I get that it’s been a few years from your perspective but for those of us who’ve been trying to make this thing move forward for a long time, we’ve had some losses. Hard work that we did got lost because of these delays and I’d like to see this thing move forward so that the people who are bicycling – who are helping us all by bicycling; getting our streets less congested and helping our environment. I hope we can provide a safe, regional connection for all of these people from Palo Alto and who are commuting into our community from other communities that connect to those Bay trails. Thank you very much for the work that you do. We appreciate it. I heard many thoughtful comments today but I hope that we can move this forward. Let’s work with Staff to expedite it. Thank you. Chair Lew: Thank you and Wynne? Board Member Furth: Thank you. I just wanted to say to Staff, when I raised Debra Baldwin’s comment about safety for suicides. I wasn’t making the case – trying to the make the case that you haven’t already address that. I would just like to discuss that and how you’ve addressed that and why you think it's adequate when we go forward. Chair Lew: Ok, so I have – I think the Board has made really good comments today. I think I agree with most of them and I have a couple other comments. One is regarding the traffic circle and so one is that is there a way to connect that path to East Bay Shore? There are different types of bicyclists, right? There is bicyclist who will not ride on the bike path because the user is too slow so they want to be out in traffic and they are comfortable with that. Is there a way of connecting there or are we limited to the existing connection, which is – what do you call it? South of the bridge of the existing bike trail bridge. Then… Ms. Hodgkins: I’m not sure I totally understand the question? Chair Lew: Yeah, so there is a little ridge that crosses the creek on east – just to the east of East Bay Shore. Ms. Hodgkins: Ok. Chair Lew: Yeah, if we could get a map, maybe that would be useful. Male: So, the existing entrance is right here. Chair Lew: Yeah, I think that’s… Ms. Hodgkins: Like the… City of Palo Alto Page 21 Chair Lew: Right, so there’s a… Male: I was talking to Claire. So, he’s talking about the existing entrances here… Ms. Hodgkins: Ok. Male: …and he’s wondering if we could incorporate an entrance in here as part of this so that -- as an alternative to that. Chair Lew: I think this is kind of a dangerous area because the bridge is narrow – the roadway bridge is a little narrower, right? So, the bicycles have to sort of go into the traffic and so it’s not an ideal situation in my mind but I’m thinking that there are people who would want that. (Inaudible) if that could be evaluated. Mr. Schnabel: Yeah and we can take a look at it. One of the things that the bike lane sort of disappears, right? Chair Lew: Yeah, that’s what I under – I totally understand. Mr. Schnabel: Right there so it actually makes sense to do it on the side that it actually occurs because of the drop in the bicycle lane. Chair Lew: I agree. I totally agree. Mr. Schnabel: I don’t think that we would probably get rid of that, as part of that but we could evaluate on looking at another entrance on this side but (inaudible) Chair Lew: Yeah and I actually don’t think that it’s an issue. Say, we don’t do anything and if there a bicyclist who wants to go say north. If they have to ride on one – on part of the path for whatever, a quarter mile before they can get onto the bike lane, I don’t think anybody is going to – I don’t think that’s huge. Mr. Schnabel: I think one of the benefits of the tight area is that the existing bridge is not very wide. There’s already a bollard in the middle of it. It will – it’s going to be natural traffic calming. It slows the bicyclist down where pedestrians start – are meeting so it has some benefits in doing that because of its tight nature. Chair Lew: I agree. Mr. Schnabel: I agree that it’s not ideal because it’s so tight. Chair Lew: Ok, so good. Two is that I think you do need signage. Most of the bridges on the Bay Trail and a lot of the creek trails both don’t have any signs and when I’m off in a different – bicycling through a different town, it’s really hard to figure out where you are. There aren’t any – there is very few waymarking signs so I think what you were explaining before about the street – some sort of street – similar to a street sign, I think that’s appropriate. Then I also did look at the Bay Lands Design Guidelines to see if the City had wanted any sort of gateway marker at that point in town. The guidelines sort of suggests that all the gateway signs are sort of over near Embarcadero Road and not on this side. I wasn’t crazy about your location in our drawing set for all of the trash and stuff on the East Bay Shore side but I think you’re showing a different location on your roundabout – on the traffic circle diagram and I think that looked better. Mr. Schnabel: That was to address maintenance concern about access to the trash receptacles so we put it on the other side so it’s easier accessible from the road. City of Palo Alto Page 22 Chair Lew: On – with regard to the Bay Lands Guidelines, I mean it seems like it would – points the finger towards Corten versus painted. In Mountain View, they have both and I have seen the rust coming through the painted bridges and there’s a certain point where it doesn’t look good. Then the thought of – yeah, in terms of City maintenance and enclosing the bridge, one is being repainted and it seems like Corten is the better way to go. I’m not crazy about chain link but I have seen other bicycle bridges that if the main truss structure is strong enough and attractive enough, the chain link doesn’t look that bad. When it’s – when the whole bridge is chain link, that’s when it really looks kind of like a prison yard. I would say focus on the truss and the finish of the truss and then we’ll work on the chain link or the mesh; the welded wire mesh. Yeah, I would say that chain link is like – I would normally put that down at the bottom of the list of options – recommended options. Then we also had – I did want to address some members of the public who’ve written emails. They were looking for more – it seems like enhanced landscape in the area and it seems like we’ve talked – you talked a little bit about that but maybe in the next hearing we could go into that in more detail. What are the exact project boundaries? Where’s – yeah, and that kind of thing and the constraints for existing trees. What're wetlands? What’s riparian and all of that. What’s under the water district’s jurisdiction and all of that. I think that’s all that I have here today. Then we have some more comments, Kyu? Vice Chair Kim: Yeah, I just wanted to comment that, I’m just wondering if there is any way that we can bring the arch of the center – bowstring arch – bowstring truss portion down? You know it’s 16-feet and when I look at this section that – sometimes it looks like its ok but others, it just looks so tall. I don’t know. If there is a way to perhaps bring the arch down or is that really the … Chair Lew: Like depth to span, I think that’s a structural issue. Vice Chair Kim: Yeah. Chair Lew: Yeah. Mr. Schnabel: Yeah, that’s controlled by the depth to span ratios. Vice Chair Kim: And that’s the best we can do, huh? Mr. Schnabel: We could probably go a little tighter but then it becomes a little bit more flexible and bouncer and so now you’re now affecting the user with the – we can go down to the limits of the live load deflections in the middle but that increases the frequency of the period of bridge and (inaudible) (crosstalk). Vice Chair Kim: Ok, that’s what I figured but I also thought that maybe members of the public might question that. Then finally, my last comment is regarding some of these form liners that you were showing for the concrete work. I don’t really like either of the options that you’ve presented. I’m just wondering if there is a way that we can some kind of a board form or perhaps even use some of the reclaimed timber that you’re proposing on the view area. Is there a way that we can incorporate that into the formwork of the concrete rather than introduce such an industrial – having nothing to do with nature really, straight line form lines? Thank you. Mr. Schnabel: One of the benefits of the form liners is it creates – a highly textured finish which mitigates some of the graffiti potentials that you have there. If you put a flat surface like the timber, it just creates a palette for people to graffiti as well so we have to sort of managing both of those conditions. Vice Chair Kim: So, then both of the form liners that you’re presenting are kind of well-known deterrence to graffiti? Mr. Schnabel: These are the most ubiquities common form liners and we could utilize differently. We could go horizontal, we could go vertical. There are ways to achieve a little bit more look and there are City of Palo Alto Page 23 some other different standard form liners out there. A little bit more individual and we can take a look at that. Vice Chair Kim: A form that comes to mind I the connection from 101 to 85; on some of those concrete areas. They’re like hibiscus or some kind of a flower pattern. I’m not asking for that necessarily but I’m just wondering if there’s another pattern that perhaps relates a little bit more to the Bay Lands or becomes a little bit more natural in expression. Mr. Schnabel: Yeah, those are what we call reliefs and basically, they relief to the fracture fin or whether the form liner so either they come out or go in with regards to the image. We can implement those. I’m not sure that matches with sort of that industrial look. I think park of the industrial look is to try to stay as basic and clean as possible. Vice Chair Kim: Ok. Mr. Schnabel: I think a better usage from an architectural standpoint is a combination of two different form liner types, that could create a little more interest. Vice Chair Kim: Good to know, thank you. Chair Lew: If you actually look at the form liners, there are products – I mean they have an amazing array of things. It’s almost – yeah, it’s almost like too many. It’s like a kid in a candy store, they have too many choices. Board Member Furth: So, I want some that look like grasses. Chair Lew: Yeah, there you go. Mr. Schnabel: We have done that. That’s expensive though. Chair Lew: Aw, it’s always – the nice stuff is always expensive. Ok, is that it? Do you have any other question for us or if you have any follow-ups? Mr. Schnabel: No, I think you guys have given us some input. I think a lot of the stuff that you guys have sort of focused on, we’re sort of looking at those things. The integration of the truss, we were looking at that. To look at that some way to make that continuous. With regards to the railing difference, it was our intention to pick one type of railing and go with that. We showed the different types in the same image just to give you some context but I think we were, at the most, looking at two different railing types. One for the overall structure and then one special one potentially, for the overlook. I think Elizabeth wanted to talk about – she wanted to talk about schedules since project delivery is a big issue. So, she wanted to sort of address that as well. Ms. Elizabeth Ames, Project Manager: Yes, thank you. Elizabeth Ames, Project Manager with the City and to just comment, the public has been saying in these emails and Penny and everybody has been saying to us to expedite this project as much as possible. We were trying to show you what we could, given the time constraints and our wish is to come back to you, through site and design review and have one meeting with the ARB. I know maybe this is tough because we need to see the details but if we could consider in August, when you see this and we’ll have all the details hopefully, that you wish to – that you feel like you can comment on. Then if there are certain items like lighting or other issues, maybe we could do this at subcommittee level so we can move the process along but thank you so much and hopefully, we will see you in August. Chair Lew: Thank you, Elizabeth. I think Peter had one more comment? No? City of Palo Alto Page 24 Board Member Baltay: She just covered it. I was going to say let’s close this discussion by acknowledging that we’ve got 10 or more emails and everybody wants this consistently wants this to go quickly. I’d like us to clearly say to Staff that we support that and do whatever we can to make it go quickly. Chair Lew: Ok, agreed. Thank you, guys. [Board moved back up to item number two] Approval of Minutes 4. April 6, 2017, Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes Chair Lew: Ok, so I have a question on – for the Staff on the minutes. So, you’re asking for approval for the minutes for April 6th, 2017 and those are in our packet. Then I think we did get from Staff an emailed copy of corrected minutes from an ARB/HRB meeting and my understanding is that it was 2016 and we had reviewed them once before and has some comments on them. I just want to make sure that if you wanted us to vote on that today or at the next meeting? Yeah, it’s not on the agenda. We’ll wait on that. Ok, so it’s just on this. Are there any comments? I have a lot of comments. Board Member Baltay: Comments on? Chair Lew: On the minutes for April 6th, which are in our packet. Board Member Baltay: Well, I’m just getting to the point where you’re asking me Chair, to make a vote and a motion on this and I’m saying that I just can’t do that anymore. I mean, this is a verbatim transcript and I’m sorry but I just can’t spend the time to read this that carefully to say whether it’s accurate or not. It’s no longer… Board Member Gooyer: Or do I even remember exactly whether (inaudible)… Board Member Baltay: … so why Chair, are you asking for such a motion? So, sorry for the snarky remark. Chair Lew: I think you can abstain, maybe? I think you can abstain from it. I look at – I would just say that I look at –I don’t read every word in the minutes. I do look for places where the transcript has not identified a person and I know who the person – I know who the public speaker is so I’ve done that. Then I also do look at the vote to see if that is accurate and so for example, in this case, one of the vote counts is not correct. So, I do look at all of that stuff and then there are little typo things and I notice some of them but I don’t usually mention them. Board Member Baltay: Fair point. I stand correct. You’re right, there are things in here. Chair Lew: Yeah but I think it’s fine to abstain. If you – I would just say that the Council wants the verbatim minutes. Board Member Gooyer: Nobody is arguing that they shouldn’t be there but like I said…(crosstalk) Chair Lew: Yes, I know. It doesn’t have to be like (inaudible)… Board Member Gooyer: … I agree that (inaudible) (crosstalk) I don’t have the time to read a 50-page verbatim… Chair Lew: That’s fine. City of Palo Alto Page 25 Board Member Gooyer: … with a lot of well, uh, um, you know this kind of thing in it and I just don’t want to deal with it. You’re right, to a certain extent I’m not going to sit there and go I’ll vote for something that I honestly haven’t read or at least I’ve read the gist of it but you know… Mr. Lait: Again, the intent here is that they are verbatim minutes so we have a professional transcriptionist who is listening to the video recording and typing that out. Unless there are errors related to votes or things of that nature – I mean that’s – I think your vote for approval doesn’t necessarily need to be one that I’ve read every single word of the minutes but that this captures the sentiment of the dialog. I understand that the transcriptionist has prepared this. There are going to be some errors in terms of typos or some misidentification but the idea of this is to capture what happened. I do understand and appreciate the desired way to have minutes, which is a short summation of the action that have taken place and that’s an administrative function that we just don’t have right now. So, we either have action minutes, which says this is the item and this is the vote and we refer everybody to the website to get to the video and listen to it or we go to the other extreme and have somebody do the verbatim minutes. Board Member Gooyer: To a certain extent, I’ve been in situations where action minutes, I think are fine because those are the ones that really made a difference and they are a heck of a lot shorter. Mr. Lait: Well, that’s basically the agenda. It’s basically the agenda with the votes. I mean action minutes would be this is the item, this is the motion, this is the vote. Board Member Gooyer: Ok, I think we’re… Chair Lew: My take on it is that the decision has been made up -- higher up in the food chain and I think -- correct me if I am wrong but I think they are entitled to abstain, right? Mr. Lait: You are certainly welcome to abstain and I will say that I don’t know that the Council uniformly or unanimously agrees that verbatim minutes are desired. I’ve heard the pros and cons of both, just as I’m hearing on this Board too. So, I get the tension there and I’m from a – just trying to manage this part of the system. I kind of feel like it’s either all or none and that in between pieces in a Staff resource that I don’t feel like we’ve got the time to dedicate to that. Board Member Gooyer: I have a question then. I mean I’m all in favor of having a verbatim set of minutes but why do we have to vote on those? Board Member Baltay: I share exactly… Board Member Furth: The minutes that you vote to approve are the official minutes of the ARB. Unless the City… Board Member Gooyer: Ok, fine. Board Member Furth: … unless for litigation purposes – unless the City decides that they are going to designate something else as the official record and I don’t believe the City has. Mr. Lait: So, that’s – I can explore that. I mean the – maybe the official minutes are this short version of what I am talking about, which is basically the transmittal of the action but we’ll still prepare the draft transcript and we’ll have that as part of our administrative record for items that end up going to Council. Board Member Gooyer: In case somebody needs more information as to what’s in the shortened version. Mr. Lait: Yeah, let me – there may be some… Board Member Furth: Talk to the City attorney. City of Palo Alto Page 26 Mr. Lait: … Yeah, I will. Board Member Gooyer: Ok. Mr. Lait: Board Member Furth comment is to coordinate with the City’s attorney’s office but yeah, I think before we had – I know that we did have transcribed minutes before so the question is, is the simple report out of the motion and the action items sufficient to constitute the record for the meeting but I’ll explore that. Board Member Baltay: What is the official position of the video then? There’s a video out there… Board Member Furth: It depends on what the City Council decides. Board Member Baltay: But isn’t the video… Board Member Furth: No. Board Member Baltay: …technically a legal record as well? Board Member Furth: It’s a record but whether it’s the official recorded is not something that happens just automatically. Board Member Baltay: Because we don’t vote… Board Member Furth: It gets designated. Board Member Baltay: … we don’t vote to accept the video. Mr. Lait: Yeah, the video… Board Member Furth: That scene is having no discretionary aspects to it. We’ll all know that that’s a bit of a myth but that’s why. I want to say that as somebody – straight action minutes are useless for the applicant, the property owner, the public and everybody else to find out what your comments were and what changes you want. They just – if it just says parking was raised and the matter was continued. Somebody is going to have to go look at something else, whether it’s their notes or the video or the transcription. Personally, it's – I find it vastly more efficient to look at a transcript. I, of course, want the unattainable. I want an edited set of minutes that make us all sound brilliant but I think it’s an interesting possibility if this is a matter of concern to you. That we approve action minutes but still have transcribed minutes so that people can go back and find that material but if you don’t have it in your official minutes, then you’re not entitled to rely on it in many settings. Mr. Lait: Well, you know I think there’s… Board Member Furth: There could be evidentiary in a record so talk to the City attorney. Mr. Lait: If we were dealing with a court proceeding then we can make it official. Board Member Furth: Usually, you could but usually the City has a set of rules that it’s adopted already that says what set of – which set of records, the video, the transcript or the whatever minutes are the official minutes because in the absence of that kind of decision, then the official is the approved minutes or at least it use to be the last time I looked. Mr. Lait: Ok, so again, I think the comment where heard and let us run with that and see what we come back with. City of Palo Alto Page 27 Chair Lew: Ok, so I’ll go back to the actual minutes, right? So, item number six on page 165 of the packet, it says motion passed 5-0 with Vice Chair Kim abstained. That should be a 4-0. Page 165, 121 of the minutes of 165 of the packet. Oh, yes, yes. Board Member Furth: (Inaudible) Chair Lew: Yes. Board Member Furth: This is two sets of minutes. Chair Lew: Then I have a whole bunch of typos and I have the names of the speakers who have not been identified so I can give that after the meeting. Are there any other comments? MOTION Vice Chair Kim: Otherwise, I’ll make a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Chair Lew: Ok. I will second. All in favor. Opposed? Abstained? Board Member Baltay: No, I vote aye. Chair Lew: Ok, so that’s a 5-0. Ok, we are adjourned. We do have a subcommittee item who have been very patient so thank you. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0 Subcommittee Item 5. 900 N California Avenue [15PLN-00155]: Subcommittee Review of Revisions to Proposed Setbacks and Design of the Detached Garage and Accessory Dwelling Unit. Review was Required as a Condition of Approval. Environmental Review: Categorically Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). Zoning District: Single Family Residential District (R-1). Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Adjournment