Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-03-15 Architectural Review Board Agenda Packet_______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Architectural Review Board Regular Meeting Agenda: March 15, 2018 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 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2), Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals, and 3) Tentative Future Agenda items. Action Items Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL: 250 Hamilton Avenue [17PLN-00169]: Consideration of Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permit Applications for the Deployment of Small Cell Wireless Communication Equipment on Utility Poles in the Public Right of Way. While the Original Application Included 18 Small Cell Nodes Within the Mid-Town, Palo Verde, St. Claire Gardens, and South of Mid-Town neighborhoods, the Current Request is for Approval of 11 Small Cell Nodes. One Viable Alternate to Node 133 Node (Node 133-E near 949 Loma Verde) is Also Presented for ARB Consideration. The Applicant Removed Seven Small Cell Nodes (Nodes #127, #139, #146, #136, #140, #141, and #147) from ARB Consideration at This Time. Environmental Assessment: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Class 3, Guidelines Section 15303. Zoning: Within Residential Districts. For More Information, Contact Planner Rebecca Atkinson at rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org. 11 Nodes the Architectural Review Board will Review March 15, 2018: Node #129: CPAU Pole# 3121 (near 2490 Louis Road APN 127-30-062) Node #130: CPAU Pole #2461 (near 2802 Louis Road APN 127-28-046) Node #131: CPAU Pole #3315 (near 891 Elbridge _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Way APN 127-26-067) Node #133: CPAU Pole #2857 (near 925 Loma Verde APN 127- 24-023) and Node #133E (as an Alternate to #133): CPAU Pole #2856 (near 949 Loma Verde APN 127-23-009) Node #134: CPAU Pole #2964 (near 3409 Kenneth Dr APN 127-09-028) Node #135: CPAU Pole # 3610 (near 795 Stone Ln APN 127-47-001) Node #137: CPAU Pole #3351 (near 3090 Ross Rd APN 127-52-031) Node #138: CPAU Pole #2479 (near 836 Colorado Av APN 127-27-063) Node #143: CPAU Pole #3867 (near 419 El Verano Av APN 132-15-017) Node #144: CPAU Pole #1506 (near 201 Loma Verde Av APN 132-48-015) Node #145: CPAU Pole #3288 (near 737 Loma Verde Av APN 127-64-039) 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2755 El Camino Real [16PLN-00464]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Site and Design Review to Allow Construction of a 57 Unit Multi-family Residence at the Project Site. The Project Also Includes a Request for a Zoning Code Text Amendment Ordinance to Create a New Workforce Combining District and a Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance to Apply the New District to the Project Site. Council Will Consider These Ordinances Along With the Site and Design Review Application. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was Published for Public Comment on January 19, 2018 and Circulation Ended on February 20, 2018. Zoning District: Public Facilities (PF). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at Claire.Hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org. 4. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3223 Hanover Street [17PLN-00225]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Construction of a new two-Story 67,200 Square Foot Office / R&D Building. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study is Being Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: RP (Research Park) and RP(L) (Research Park with Landscape Combining District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org 5. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 356 Hawthorne Avenue [17PLN-00367]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing Four-Unit, 4,032 Square Foot Multi- Family Residential Development and Construction of a new 4,561 Square Foot, Multi- Family Development Comprised of Three Detached Residential Units Each With an Attached Single Car Garage. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: RM-15 (Low Density Multiple- Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Phillip Brennan at phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 7, 2017. 7. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 1, 2018. 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 two 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 Wynne Furth Vice Chair Peter Baltay Boardmember Robert Gooyer Boardmember Alex Lew Boardmember Osma Thompson 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 Noon two Wednesdays 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. Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9034) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 3/15/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: City Official Report Title: Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2), Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals, and 3) Tentative Future Agenda items. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate. Background The attached documents are provided for informational purposes. The Board may review and comment as it deems appropriate. If individual Boardmembers anticipate being absent from a future meeting, it is requested that be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item. The first attachment provides a meeting and attendance schedule for the current calendar year. Also included are the subcommittee assignments, which rotate throughout the year. The second attachment transmits administrative staff-level Architectural Review approvals since the Board’s last meeting. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the ARB on the proposed director's decision by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing. However, pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. The third attachment is a Tentative Future Agenda that provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items. The hearing dates for these items are subject to change. 1 Packet Pg. 5 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 No action is required by the ARB for this item. Attachments:  Attachment A: ARB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX)  Attachment B: Staff Approvals (DOCX)  Attachment C: Tentative Future Agendas (DOCX) 1 Packet Pg. 6 2018 Schedule Architectural Review Board Meeting Schedule & Assignments Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/5/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 1/18/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/1/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/15/2018 /17 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Baltay 3/1/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/15/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/5/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/19/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/3/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/17/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/7/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/21/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/5/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/19/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/2/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/16/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/6/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/20/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/4/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/18/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/1/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/15/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/6/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/20/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2018 Subcommittee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair on the day of the hearing January February March April May June 1/18 Baltay/Lew July August September October November December 1.a Packet Pg. 7 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : A R B M e e t i n g S c h e d u l e A s s i g n m e n t s ( 9 0 3 4 : C i t y O f f i c i a l R e p o r t ) Architectural Review Board Staff Approvals Project Description: ARB staff level review to allow for the installation one new non- illuminated monument sign. Applicant: Sid Aslami Address: 3100 Hansen Way, 17PLN-00423 Approval Date: March 7, 2018 Request for hearing deadline: March 21, 2018 Project Description: ARB staff level review to allow for minor exterior modifications Applicant: Bud Kobza Address: 821 San Antonio Road, 18PLN-00066 Approval Date: March 7, 2018 Request for hearing deadline: March 21, 2018 Project Description: ARB staff level review to allow for minor exterior modifications Applicant: Bud Kobza Address: 821 San Antonio Road, 18PLN-00066 Approval Date: March 7, 2018 Request for hearing deadline: March 21, 2018 Project Description: ARB staff level review to allow for the installation one new illuminated monument sign. Applicant: Sid Aslami Address: 911 Hansen Way, 17PLN-00422 Approval Date: March 7, 2018 Request for hearing deadline: March 21, 2018 1.b Packet Pg. 8 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : S t a f f A p p r o v a l s ( 9 0 3 4 : C i t y O f f i c i a l R e p o r t ) Architectural Review Board 2018 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics April 5  695 Arastradero Road: New reception pavilion  620 Emerson: Nobu annex (2nd Formal)  180 El Camino Real: Jeffery’s retail (1st Formal)  3265 El Camino Real: New Mixed Use (3rd Formal)  3001 El Camino Real: Subcommittee review April 19  3945 El Camino Real: Comfort Inn Hotel (1st Formal)  250 Sherman Ave: Public Safety Building (2nd Formal)  565 Hamilton Ave: Prelim for Mixed Use 1.c Packet Pg. 9 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : T e n t a t i v e F u t u r e A g e n d a s ( 9 0 3 4 : C i t y O f f i c i a l R e p o r t ) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8632) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/15/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Tier 3 WCF - Vinculums/Verizon - Cluster 1 (2nd Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL: 250 Hamilton Avenue [17PLN-00169]: Consideration of Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permit Applications for the Deployment of Small Cell Wireless Communication Equipment on Utility Poles in the Public Right of Way. While the Original Application Included 18 Small Cell Nodes Within the Mid- Town, Palo Verde, St. Claire Gardens, and South of Mid-Town neighborhoods, the Current Request is for Approval of 11 Small Cell Nodes. One Viable Alternate to Node 133 Node (Node 133-E near 949 Loma Verde) is Also Presented for ARB Consideration. The Applicant Removed Seven Small Cell Nodes (Nodes #127, #139, #146, #136, #140, #141, and #147) from ARB Consideration at This Time. Environmental Assessment: Exempt pursuant to CEQA Class 3, Guidelines Section 15303. Zoning: Within Residential Districts. For More Information, Contact Planner Rebecca Atkinson at rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org. 11 Nodes the Architectural Review Board will Review March 15, 2018: Node #129: CPAU Pole# 3121 (near 2490 Louis Road APN 127-30- 062) Node #130: CPAU Pole #2461 (near 2802 Louis Road APN 127-28-046) Node #131: CPAU Pole #3315 (near 891 Elbridge Way APN 127-26-067) Node #133: CPAU Pole #2857 (near 925 Loma Verde APN 127-24-023) and Node #133E (as an Alternate to #133): CPAU Pole #2856 (near 949 Loma Verde APN 127-23- 009) Node #134: CPAU Pole #2964 (near 3409 Kenneth Dr APN 127-09-028) Node #135: CPAU Pole # 3610 (near 795 Stone Ln APN 127-47-001) Node #137: CPAU Pole #3351 (near 3090 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Ross Rd APN 127-52-031) Node #138: CPAU Pole #2479 (near 836 Colorado Av APN 127-27-063) Node #143: CPAU Pole #3867 (near 419 El Verano Av APN 132-15-017) Node #144: CPAU Pole #1506 (near 201 Loma Verde Av APN 132-48-015) Node #145: CPAU Pole #3288 (near 737 Loma Verde Av APN 127-64-039) From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval to the Director of Planning and Community Environment (PCE) of Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) permits for 11 small cell nodes based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The subject small cell nodes were previously reviewed by the ARB. An earlier staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies; that report is available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62427. A copy of the report without prior attachments is available in Attachment E. 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 December 7, 2017, the ARB reviewed a group of 15 proposed small cell nodes, of which 11 are now presented for further consideration. The draft minutes from this meeting are available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63794. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board- 73-2/. The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Provide an option to place underground associated mechanical equipment to the greatest extent feasible. Four of the 15 nodes have been removed from consideration at this time to explore vault feasibility; the remaining nodes are proposed to be attached to existing or new utility poles. Antenna shroud should match the color of the utility pole. Shrouds will be painted to match utility poles. 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Analysis1 The applicant has updated the project description that includes information on coverage maps2, alternative site analysis, applicant siting criteria, map of 11 proposed nodes, color paint samples and other documentation. (Attachment C) Notably, four of the 15 nodes most recently reviewed by the ARB have been removed from consideration at this time. (Nodes 136, 140, 141, and 147) These nodes are being evaluated as possible candidates for mechanical vaulting. At present, Verizon Wireless reports the noise from the undergrounding vaulting equipment would not comply with the city’s noise standards. The applicant has indicated it is exploring alternatives to achieve compliance and will return at a later date to continue processing these four nodes under a different application cluster. The applicant has provided an analysis showing that vaulting is not feasible for the subject 11 nodes. The mechanical equipment for these nodes cannot be placed underground based on a variety of reasons, including location in the floodplain, California Public Utilities Commission requirements, City of Palo Alto utility requirements, Verizon Wireless safety standards, and others. This analysis is included with this report as Attachment D. Staff has reviewed the vaulting analysis and verified the information relative to city-expressed reasons for rejecting certain candidate poles from consideration. At this time, staff is not pursuing vaulting alternatives for these 11 sites and remains unconvinced that vaulting is a preferential form of screening in residential areas. Vaulting requires more equipment to ensure proper air circulation, fans for cooling, and sump pumps to address water entering the vault. Access to this equipment for servicing increases the amount of excavation needed and introduces inground metal cabinets that may be placed in sidewalks and parkways, which may be more aesthetically disruptive to a residential neighborhood than equipment attached to a utility pole and screened from view. Moreover, vaulting would necessarily include sound producing equipment that may be continuous at times or intermittent. Verizon Wireless has indicated its equipment would not comply with the City’s comprehensive plan noise standards. The proposed pole mounted equipment includes no noise emitting devices. Pole mounted mechanical equipment is nine feet above the sidewalk grade. The mechanical equipment at this height does not emit any electromagnetic radiation and is a necessary component of the small cell technology. While not an ideal aesthetic, the City is required to find opportunities to allow Verizon Wireless and other wireless providers to locate in the public 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. 2 These maps are illustrative only and staff is unable to draw conclusions about the existence or absence of a significant gap in coverage, as claimed by the applicant. Because such an analysis is highly technical, the City’s regulatory interests are better served by focusing on the aesthetic and noise impacts presented below, to ensure that the proposed installations represent the least intrusive means of addressing the claimed gap in service. 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 right of way, so long as such uses do not unduly inconvenience the public. In fact, the City Council has previously approved five Master License Agreements (MLA) to allow wireless providers, including Verizon Wireless to locate in the public right of way to expand this technology through Palo Alto. The City Council report and MLA agreement are available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52893. Based on the foregoing, staff seeks the ARB’s recommendation on a preferred screening method for the pole mounted equipment and antennas. The applicant has identified four antenna mounts, which are shown on the plans, and five equipment screening alternatives. Staff recommends the ‘taper’ shroud for the antenna and the ‘box’ shroud for the equipment screening. Some poles require replacement. In those instances, the pole replacement alternative would supersede the taper shroud and be designed as presented in the plans. Replacement poles eliminate the need for a bayonet shroud, which is an aesthetic improvement, but results in an inactive, stubbed out pole (the existing wood pole) remaining in place for nearly one year, until removed by a third party (AT&T). The project plans show the location and orientation of the mechanical equipment and screening and height of antenna structures. Staff recommends approval of these node locations except for Node 133, which is adjacent to 925 Loma Verde. At this location, the node is presented at a T-intersection and the mechanical equipment must be oriented facing the street making the equipment more visible. The alternate location, Node 133-E at 949 Loma Verde addresses these aesthetic considerations and benefits from incrementally better street tree screening. This staff recommended alternative is provided in the plans following Node 133. Staff recommends some of the nodes be further screened with additional parkway trees that would be paid for by the applicant and planted by the city. New trees would be planted at the following nodes: Node 130 (2 trees), Node 131 (1 tree), Node 133-E (1 tree), Node 143 (1 tree), Node 144 (2 trees), and Node 145 (1 tree). The city hired consultants to evaluate noise related impacts and assist staff in evaluation of the proposed project to the wireless communication facility requirements in the municipal code. As no noise emitting equipment is associated with the proposed nodes, the consultant’s report concludes the project complies with the city noise regulations. Node specific analysis from Telecom Law Firm PC, including consultant recommendations regarding mechanical screening and shrouds, as well as compliance with applicable local, state and federal regulations is available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63846. Included with this report are draft findings supporting the proposed nodes (Attachment A); draft conditions of approval are also provided (Attachment B). Staff encourages the Board to review these two attachments. Revised project plans have been transmitted to the Board with this report; the plans are also available to view online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3999&TargetID=319. 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Environmental Review The subject projects have 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 proposed installations of 11 small cell nodes are exempt from environmental review in accordance with Section 15303, Class 3 of the CEQA Guidelines (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) in that the projects propose to install small cell wireless communication equipment in small structures that can be attached to utility poles. Where appropriate, the equipment would be camouflaged, concealed, or screened through integrated design with the utility poles and the existing environment surrounding each location. 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 March 2, 2018 which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on February 28, 2018, which is 15 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments Staff received a significant number of public comments and inquiries at and since the December 7, 2017 Architectural Review Board meeting. Staff received comments of support, but more in opposition. Supporters generally cited a desire for improved wireless coverage. Opposed persons generally cited concerns regarding locations, aesthetics, noise, and radio frequency emissions/health and safety. Public correspondence received through March 7, 2018 is compiled and available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4106. Additional correspondence received after this time will be provided to ARB members at the March 15, 2018 meeting. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1.Recommend project approval with modified findings or conditions; 2.Recommend approval of some small cell nodes and denial of others based on modified findings and conditions; or 3.Recommend project denial of all small cell nodes based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB3 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, Chief Planning Official Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2575 amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Attachments:  Attachment A: Draft Findings for Approval (DOCX)  Attachment B: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX)  Attachment C: Applicant Project Description (received February 26, 2018) (PDF)  Attachment D: Vinculums Vault Feasibility Reports (received February 5, 2018) (DOCX)  Attachment E: December 7, 2017 Report to ARB (without attachments) (DOC) 2 Packet Pg. 15 Attachment A: Draft Findings for Cluster 1 Vinculums Verizon (17PLN- 000169) Tier 3 WCF Permit Development Standards PAMC 18.42.110 (i) (1) Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible. The proposed Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) employs a design that balances aesthetic considerations and reduces, to the extent feasible, the small cell’s footprint on the utility pole. (2) Shall be designed to minimize the overall height, mass, and size of the cabinet and enclosure structure. The project applicant presented four design options for pole mounted mechanical equipment. The overall size and dimensions varied, but the approved design was selected for its concealment and integration with pole design, in addition to overall reduction in mass and size. The antennas require a bayonet extension or pole replacement, but the height of the antennas extend to the minimum height necessary for effective transmission. (3) Shall be screened from public view. The proposed mechanical equipment, bayonet extensions and antennas are screened from public view with metal shrouds that will be painted to match existing or proposed utility poles. Sites with sparse street trees are conditioned to have additional trees planted to further screen the WCF from view. (4) Shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site. The small cell nodes will be located on wood utility poles. The proposed shroud and concealment approach is consistent and compatible with other equipment screening on utility poles. (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. No significant landscaping or parkway planting will be disturbed or lost. As conditioned, some nodes will receive additional landscaping to improve screening. (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. Proposed mechanical equipment and antennas will be concealed with shrouds colored to the extent feasible to match existing or proposed utility poles. The placement and orientation of each node’s mechanical equipment has been evaluated to minimize visual impacts and, to the extent feasible, blend in with 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. This provision does not apply to the subject project. (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. This provision does 2.a Packet Pg. 16 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : D r a f t F i n d i n g s f o r A p p r o v a l ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) not apply to the subject project. No WCR is proposed to be located on a historic structure or site. (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. The proposed facility is not building mounted and, therefore, this provision does not apply to the subject application. (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. None of the proposed WCF’s extend beyond 65 feet in height. Most antennas are located at or around 55 feet in height. (11) A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. This provision does not apply to the subject project. The proposed small cell nodes are all located on public property, which is not subject to setback requirements. Architectural Review Findings PAMC Section 18.76.020(d) (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 proposed project complies with applicable local regulations for WCF’s, specifically the development requirements of PAMC 18.42.110 (i). There are no applicable design guidelines or coordinated area plan that is relevant to this project. There are several policies in the city’s comprehensive plan that relate to preserving the character and enjoyment residential neighborhoods and wireless communication facilities are not precluded from locating in residential districts. The city’s zoning code provides a process to permit WCF’s that blend with their existing surroundings and do not negatively impact the environment, historic properties, or public safety. None of the proposed small cell nodes are located on a historic resource and each has been designed to blend in with the surrounding neighborhood to the extent feasible. The proposed facilities are located on utility poles that typically have equipment boxes, transformers, cable runs and other features to support a variety of utility service providers. The comprehensive plan includes Program L9.11.2, which provides that the city identifies city-owned properties where combinations of wireless facilities can be co- located, assuming appropriate lease agreements are in place. The subject antennas are subject to an approved Master License Agreement approved by the City Council in June 2016. Based on the foregoing and information contained in the administrative record, the proposed project complies with this 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. The project includes the establishment of mechanical equipment, antennas and associated cabling. The small cell nodes are designed to balance the aesthetic interests to minimize the visibility of the WCF in the smallest footprint reasonable. The sites are located on utility poles distributed throughout portions of the city and are not intended to be occupied or visited structures. 2.a Packet Pg. 17 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : D r a f t F i n d i n g s f o r A p p r o v a l ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 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. The proposed small cell nodes are attached to existing or planned replacement utility poles. There WCFs are not located on historic resources and are not located in any area recognized by the city for its historic character. C. Is consistent with context based design criteria of the applicable zone district. There is context based design criteria for RM zone district where some of the nodes are located, however, these standards typically relate to building mass, façade treatment, entries, open space, site planning, parking and related matters that are not related to the subject small cell nodes. The proposed WCFs, however, are designed to blend into the environmental to the extent possible with integrated screening techniques and matching exterior surfaces to the color of existing or planned utility poles. D. Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations. The proposed WCFs are designed to blend in with the existing environment, are located on existing or replacement utility poles and will be painted to match the structures they will be located upon. The proposed equipment is not an atypical use of the utility poles which provides a variety of communication utility services and would not impact the scale, mass or character of adjacent land uses. E. Enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The proposed project does not include residential uses and placement of WCFs on utility poles does not disrupt living conditions in adjacent residential areas. Some residents may benefit from improved wireless coverage. (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. The proposed project includes the placement of mechanical equipment, cabling, antennas and screening material. The components necessarily by design and function must be integrated and employ appropriate construction techniques. The proposed materials and colors have been reviewed and determined appropriate for the utility use planned for with the proposed WCFs. The propose material and colors were selected to blend in with the surrounding environment. (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 proposed project has been designed in compliance with local, state and federal safety standards, construction techniques and clearances required to allow for the ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The design is functional for its intended use and includes components necessary for its operation and screening. (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. As a condition of approval, the project requires screen trees at certain small cell node locations. While subject to review and approval from the City’s Urban 2.a Packet Pg. 18 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : D r a f t F i n d i n g s f o r A p p r o v a l ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Forestry division, the variety of trees proposed include Forest Pansy, Blue Atlas Cedar, Dodonea Viscosa, Crape Myrtle, Shamel Ash, Drake Elm, Live Oaks (Quercus Wislizenii); and Hackberry. These trees are consistent and appropriate to the local conditions and support the desired habitat in these areas. (6) The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The proposed project draws energy from the city’s utility service, requires no water, employs appropriate landscaping where required to enhance screening and is designed with material appropriate to the proposed utility use. Conditional Use Permit Findings PAMC Section 18.76.010 (c) (1) The project 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. The project involves the construction of 11 small cell nodes to provide wireless service in certain coverage areas of the city. The federal government has preempted local jurisdictions from denying projects based on electromagnetic radiation generated by these WCFs. However, local governments can impose conditions to verify compliance with federal thresholds, which has been incorporated into this approval. The mechanical equipment and antennas are located on existing or planned to be replaced, utility poles. These structures provide a range of communication services to Palo Alto residents. The proposed WCF is consistent with this service objective and is placed in a matter that is designed to blend in with the environment to the extent feasible. The utility poles have been evaluated and determined to be able to support the increased weight and for those poles not suitable, replacement poles are planned. The equipment is placed at an appropriate height and will not interfere motorists, pedestrians or cyclists. No noise will be emitted from any of the proposed equipment. Based on the foregoing and other information contained in the administrative record, it is found that the proposed project will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. (2) The project is located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning). Wireless Communication Facilities are permitted uses in the residential district. The city’s zoning code provides a process to permit WCF’s that blend with their existing surroundings and do not negatively impact the environment, historic properties, or public safety. None of the proposed small cell nodes are located on a historic resource and each has been designed to blend in with the surrounding neighborhood to the extent feasible. The proposed facilities are located on utility poles that typically have equipment boxes, transformers, cable runs and other features to support a variety of utility service providers. The comprehensive plan includes Program L9.11.2, which provides that the city identifies city-owned properties where combinations of wireless facilities can be co-located, assuming appropriate lease agreements are in place. The subject antennas are subject to an approved Master License Agreement approved by the City Council in June 2016. Based on the foregoing and information contained in the administrative record, the proposed project in consistent with the city’s comprehensive plan. 2.a Packet Pg. 19 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : D r a f t F i n d i n g s f o r A p p r o v a l ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 17PLN-00169 City of Palo Alto Page 1 of 8 ATTACHMENT B DRAFT CONDTIONS OF APPROVAL Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 1 17PLN-00169 Planning Division 1. COMPLIANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS. The nodes shall be built in compliance with the approved plans and associated application materials on file with the Planning Division for 17PLN-00169, except as modified by these conditions of approval. Any additional azimuths, antennas or equipment shown on the project plans beyond that mentioned in the application materials are not approved. The aforementioned plans and materials include:  Color Sample Board, received June 27, 2017.  Project Description, received February 26, 2018.  Project Plans, titled “PALO ALTO SMALL CELL CLUSTER 1,” received February 26, 2018.  Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, titled “Verizon Wireless • Proposed Small Cell Base Stations - Noise Levels at Eleven Pole Locations (Cluster 1) • Palo Alto, California,” dated February 22, 2018 as received February 26, 2018.  Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, titled and dated as follows: a. Verizon Wireless • Proposed Small Cell (No. 133-E), 949 Loma Verde Avenue • Palo Alto, California, dated February 22, 2018 as received February 26, 2018 b. Verizon Wireless • Proposed Small Cell (No. 129) 2490 Louis Road • Palo Alto, California, dated December 18, 2017 and as received December 21, 2017. c. Verizon Wireless • Proposed Small Cell (No. 130) 2802 Louis Road • Palo Alto, California, dated December 18, 2017 and as received December 21, 2017. d. Verizon Wireless • Proposed Small Cell (No. 131) 891 Elbridge Way • Palo Alto, California, dated December 18, 2017 and as received December 21, 2017. e. Verizon Wireless • Proposed Small Cell (No. 134) 3409 Kenneth Drive • Palo Alto, California, dated December 18, 2017 and as received December 21, 2017. f. Verizon Wireless • Proposed Small Cell (No. 135) 795 Stone Lane • Palo Alto, California, dated December 18, 2017 and as received December 21, 2017. g. Verizon Wireless • Proposed Small Cell (No. 137) 3090 Ross Road • Palo Alto, California, dated December 18, 2017 and as received December 21, 2017. h. Verizon Wireless • Proposed Small Cell (No. 138) 836 Colorado Avenue • Palo Alto, California, dated December 18, 2017 and as received December 21, 2017. i. Verizon Wireless • Proposed Small Cell (No. 143) 419 El Verano Avenue • Palo Alto, California, dated December 18, 2017 and as received December 21, 2017. j. Verizon Wireless • Proposed Small Cell (No. 144) 201 Loma Verde Avenue • Palo Alto, California, dated December 18, 2017 and as received December 21, 2017. k. Verizon Wireless • Proposed Small Cell (No. 145) 737 Loma Verde Avenue • Palo Alto, California, dated December 18, 2017 and as received December 21, 2017. 2. ANTENNAS. The antenna model numbers, tilts, and azimuths shall remain consistent between the permit plan set and the Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated as received February 26, 2018 (Node 133-E) and December 21, 2017 (all other Nodes). 2.b Packet Pg. 20 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 17PLN-00169 City of Palo Alto Page 2 of 8 3. NODES EXCLUDED. This approval does not include Nodes 127, 139, 146, 136, 140, 141, and 147, as the applicant elected to not pursue these nodes at this time and these nodes were removed by the applicant from the Project Plans, dated and received February 26, 2018. 4. BATTERY BACK-UP UNITS EXCLUDED. This approval does not contain battery back-up units and associated heat exchangers, as this equipment was removed by the applicant from the Project Plans, dated received February 26, 2018. 5. APPROVAL OF NODE ALTERNATE. This approval does not include Node 133, as Alternate Node 133-E is approved as an alternate. 6. USE OF EXISTING POLES OR POLE REPLACEMENTS. Pole replacement is required if existing poles do not meet structural and loading requirements. All pole replacements are approved – Node 129 and Node 133-E. All existing poles to remain shall be returned to plumb. 7. PAINT COLOR FOR CONDUIT AND EQUIPMENT. Each node shall be painted to match most closely the color of the adjacent pole as shown on the Color Sample Board, dated received June 27, 2017. If a pole is replaced, the conduit and equipment shall be painted “Railroad Ties.” 8. ANTENNA CANISTER/BAYONET SHROUD OR POLE REPLACEMENT/CAP MOUNT. Each node shall utilize the “Taper Shroud” shown as on Sheet CT-2 of the plan set, unless the node is listed for pole replacement and the associated cap mount format. No sky shall be seen through the mounting and attachment equipment for the antennas. 9. VAULTING OF EQUIPMENT. This approval does not include any vaulting of equipment listed to be pole mounted, as vaulting was found to be infeasible at the approved locations. 10. POLE-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT SHROUD. Each node shall utilize the “Box Shroud” as shown on Sheet CT-4 for any pole mounted equipment. 11. POLE-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT STANDOFF DISTANCE. The standoff distance for the pole mounted equipment shall not exceed five (5) inches. 12. POLE-MOUNTED EQUIPMENT ORIENTATION. All nodes shall maintain required climbing space. Pole mounted-equipment shall not face directly toward adjacent private property or extend over sidewalks. The Director of Planning and Community Environment may approve minor modifications to equipment orientation in order to address any resource, technical, or utilities engineering-related site constraints based upon field conditions. 13. AMENITY TREES FOR ADDITIONAL SCREENING. New amenity trees proposed on private property are not a part of this approval. All nodes shall incorporate new amenity trees in the right of way where possible in order to provide for additional screening of pole mounted equipment and conduit. All new amenity trees shall be listed in the “New Tree Table” on Node Sheets A-1. Amenity trees are identified for the following nodes: Node 130 (2 trees), Node 131 (1 tree), Node 133-E (1 tree), Node 143 (1 tree), Node 144 (2 trees), and Node 145 (1 tree). 14. EXPLANATORY AND OTHER SAFETY SIGNAGE. The recommended explanatory signage described in the Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated as received February 26, 2018 (Node 2.b Packet Pg. 21 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 17PLN-00169 City of Palo Alto Page 3 of 8 133-E) and December 21, 2017 (all other Nodes), shall be incorporated into the permit plan set. Signage shall comply with any relevant requirements of California Public Utilities Commission General Order No. 95. All radio frequency signage shall comply with FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 65 or ANSI C95.2 for color, symbol, and content conventions. All such signage shall at all times provide a working local or toll-free telephone number to its network operations center, and such telephone number shall be able to reach a live person who can exert transmitter power-down control over this Site as required by the FCC. 15. PERMITTING. This approval letter, including the associated conditions of approval, shall be printed on the plan sets submitted for encroachment and street work permit review. 16. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The project establishes site specific camouflage, concealment and stealth elements for each approved new node, and for that node only. 17. PERMITTING BY OTHERS. This approval does not include approval or permitting by the Santa Clara Valley Water District and/or other entities that may have additional permitting authority separate from the City of Palo Alto. 18. PLANNING FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a permit final inspection by the Public Works and/or Building Departments. Any revisions during the construction process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; landscaping, equipment, and hard surface locations. Contact the Planning Department to schedule this inspection. 19. NODE MAINTENANCE. All aspects of the small cell node shall be well maintained at all times and replaced, if necessary, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 20. MODIFICATIONS TO APPROVED PLANS. Any modifications, additions and intensification of use (i.e. additional antennas, equipment substitutions, adjustments in location or height) shall require review and approval as specified in the Palo Alto Municipal Code prior to construction. Please see PAMC Section 18.42.110(c) for more information. 21. NOISE ORDINANCE AND NOISE POLICIES. The project shall comply with all noise standards specified in Municipal Code Chapter 9.10.050 and the noise-related policies in Chapter 4 (Natural Environment). 22. REMOVAL OF ABANDONED EQUIPMENT. Any components of the Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) that cease 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. No new permits shall be approved until the abandoned WCF or applicable components are removed. 23. AS-BUILT PLANS. An as-built set of plans and photographs depicting the entire WCF as modified, including all Transmission Equipment and all utilities, shall be submitted to the Planning Division within ninety (90) days after the completion of construction. (APPLICANT FOLLOW-UP REQUIRED) 24. RADIO FREQUENCY EMISSION. 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 Federal Communications Commission standards. A report, certified by the engineer, of all calculations, required 2.b Packet Pg. 22 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 17PLN-00169 City of Palo Alto Page 4 of 8 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. The report shall have a methodology section outlining instrumentation, measurement direction, heights and distances, and other protocols outlined in FCC Bulletin OET 65. The report shall include a list and identify any nearby RF sources, nearby reflecting surfaces or conductive objects that could produce regions of field intensification, antenna gain and vertical and horizontal radiation patterns, type of modulation of the site, polarization and emissions orientation(s) of the antenna(s), a log of all equipment used, and a map and list of all locations measured indicating the maximum power observed and the percentage of the FCC Uncontrolled/General Population guidelines at the measurement location. At the applicant’s expense, the City may elect to have a City-staff observer during the measurements, may elect to receive raw test measurements by location provided in electronic format to the observer, and may elect to have the report independently peer reviewed prior to report acceptance. Applicant may be required to submit these reports periodically for the life of the project, as determined by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. (APPLICANT FOLLOW- UP REQUIRED) 25. 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. 26. 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. 27. PERMIT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. A written request for a one-year extension shall be submitted prior to the expiration date in order to be considered by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. 28. REVOCATION. The Director of Planning and Community Environment may revoke any WCF permit if the permit holder fails to comply with any conditions 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. Fire Department 29. FIRE CODE. This project shall comply with the 2016 CFC and local Fire Code ordinance/requirements. 30. ELECTRICAL DISCONNECT. The project shall label the main electrical disconnect. 2.b Packet Pg. 23 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 17PLN-00169 City of Palo Alto Page 5 of 8 31. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS REGISTRATION FORM. A Hazardous Materials Registration Form is required to be submitted and approved prior to bringing any hazardous materials on site. Forms also available at http://www.unidocs.org 32. SIGNS. The project shall provide warning signs at locations where workers and general public may be exposed to RF exposure above the federal Maximum Permissible Level. 33. CONTACT INFORMATION. Each site shall have at least one sign per owner/service provider that indicates the company’s name, site # and 24 hour emergency number. Transportation Division 34. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLANS: Include site-specific traffic control plans which conform to the latest version of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) with plans submitted for a Street Work Permit or Encroachment Permit. Temporary traffic control plans will be reviewed as part of the Street Work and/or Encroachment Permit. Approval of the planning entitlement does not constitute approval of any temporary traffic control plans. 35. VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL CLEARANCES: At least 1.5-feet horizontal clearance shall be provided between any new or relocated equipment and the adjacent face of curb or edge of traveled way for any public roadway, driveway, or alley, unless 16-feet vertical clearance is provided between equipment and the top of adjacent travel way. In no circumstance shall less than 10-feet vertical clearance be provided between adjacent sidewalk, path, or walkway grade. Public Works-Urban Forestry Department 36. NEW AMENITY TREE PLANTING AND WATERING. The applicant shall be responsible for providing amenity trees, landscaping, and watering for those trees in order to provide screening of pole mounted equipment. The applicant shall coordinate with the Urban Forestry Department to finalize all tree species, locations, and box sizes prior to permit in order for all trees to be accurately noted on the plans for permit. The applicant shall make a one-time only standard contribution to the Urban Forestry Fund in the amount of $650 per tree for Urban Forestry to plant and then water the tree during the tree establishment period. 37. PROJECT ARBORIST. The property owner shall retain a certified arborist to ensure the project conforms to all Planning and Urban Forestry conditions related to landscaping/trees, as shown in the approved plan set. 38. 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. 39. 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. 2.b Packet Pg. 24 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 17PLN-00169 City of Palo Alto Page 6 of 8 Utilities-Water, Gas, Wastewater Department 40. SERVICE REQUIREMENTS. The applicant shall comply with all the Water, Gas, and Wastewater Department requirements noted during plan review. Utilities-Electrical Department 41. MASTER LICENSE AGREEMENT. Each small cell node will comply at all times with the terms and conditions in the Master License Agreement for Use of City-Controlled Space on Utility Poles and Streetlight Poles and in Conduits (“MLA”) between the City of Palo Alto and GTE Mobilnet of California Limited Partnership, DBA Verizon Wireless, executed on June 27, 2016 (Contract No. C16165156). A security instrument, such as a Performance Bond or Letter of Credit, shall be provided in accordance with Section 14.0 of the Master License Agreement prior to encroachment or street work permit issuance. 42. LOADING CALCULATIONS. All sites shall include pole loading calculations. 43. ATTACHMENTS. All attachments for equipment must be in the 12, 3, 6, or 9 o’clock positions. 44. SERVICE REQUIREMENTS. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. 45. PRIOR TO WORK. 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. 46. IDENTIFICATION OF UTILITIES. The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. 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. 47. UTILITITY DISCONNECTION. 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. Public Works-Engineering Department 48. PERMIT REVIEW. Public Works shall determine the number of encroachment permits and associated street work permits, if any, that can be processed in a batch. The applicant will be required to apply for all necessary permits including: Street Work and Encroachment Permit applications. All required applications shall be in the submittal package for Public Works. Any necessary traffic control plans will also be submitted in the permit application packet. These necessary permit applications and requirements are available from Public Works on our website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/default.asp. All traffic control plans associated with each 2.b Packet Pg. 25 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 17PLN-00169 City of Palo Alto Page 7 of 8 proposal location shall be reviewed by Transportation Division under Planning & Community Environment. Public Works will route all traffic control plans for Transportation review when associated Street Work and Encroachment permits are submitted. 49. TRENCH WORK AND FIBER OPTIC CONDUIT. All trench work and placement of fiber optic conduit shall adhere to City of Palo Alto Public Works specifications. Refer to City of Palo Alto Public Works Conduit Location Detail Telecommunications Drawing No. 402. This detail will provide specifics for placement of conduit in both residential and commercial areas. Any deviation from City Standards and Regulations must be approved by Public Works and all other applicable Departments. 50. EASEMENTS. All existing easements shall be indicated on plan submittal to Public Works for necessary permits. Any proposed items in existing Public Utility Easement areas shall be approved by CPA Utilities and Public Works Engineering. This can be covered under an Encroachment Permit. Include a note on site plan indicating whether easements are present for each location. 51. FLOOD ZONE. Notes shall be included on the Site Plan and/or Grading and Drainage Plan that includes the FIRM panel number, flood zone designation, BFE elevation and the North American Vertical Datum (NAVD). You may access project specific information on Public Works Storm water website. See Flood zone Lookup under the attached link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/stormwater/floodzones.asp 52. PLAN SET NOTES. The following notes shall be added to the plan set for permits: a. Include the sidewalk width for each location on site plans. b. Add a note to the plans that says, “The contractor using the city sidewalk, alley or parking lot to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians and vehicles. The contractor must cone or tape-off the work area while still leaving adequate room for pedestrians and vehicles to safely pass. If the contractor’s work area leaves insufficient sidewalk or alley space for safe pedestrian and vehicle passage, the contractor must apply to Public Works for an encroachment permit to close the sidewalk or alley.” c. 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.” d. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and adjacent to the work within the Public road right-of-way. “Any construction within the city’s public road right-of-way shall have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work.” e. The following note shall be included on the Site 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. f. The following note shall be included on the Site Plan: “The contractor shall be required to submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that 2.b Packet Pg. 26 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 17PLN-00169 City of Palo Alto Page 8 of 8 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 surrounding properties , and schedule of work. The requirement to submit a logistics plan will be dependent on the number of applications Public Works Engineering receives within close proximity to help mitigate and control the impact to the public-right-of- way. If necessary, Public Works may require a Logistics Plan during construction.” g. The following note shall be included on the Site Plan: “The contractor using the city sidewalk to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians using the sidewalk. Pedestrian protection must be provided per the 2007 California Building Code Chapter 33 requirements. If the height of construction is 8 feet or less, the contractor must place construction railings sufficient to direct pedestrians around construction areas. If the height of construction is more than 8 feet, the contractor must obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works at the Development Center in order to provide a barrier and covered walkway or to close the sidewalk.” 53. CURB CONDITION. Each location shall identify curb type on plans. Indicate whether or not a site has a rolled curb or a standard curb/gutter. In the instance of the rolled curb, all equipment shall be removed from the transition slope area of the rolled curb. The equipment shall be on one plane. 54. UTILITIES. Note that all above ground utilities, such as transformer, backflow preventer, gas meters, etc., shall be located within the project site but accessible from the street. Any new or relocated utilities will correspond with approved locations from City Utilities Department. 55. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION. The permit plans shall include the City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan.” The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 56. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. The plans shall clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as trenching, sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, utility laterals or crane. 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. 57. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER. As part of this project, the applicant shall 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. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so that the inspector can discuss the extent of replacement work along the public road. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work. 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. 2.b Packet Pg. 27 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 1 of 26 February 26, 2017 Verizon Wireless – Project Description Cluster 1 February 26, 2018 Verizon Wireless is seeking approval for the design of proposed small cell attachments to wood poles owned and operated by the City of Palo Alto Utilities (“CPAU”) under the Master License Agreement (“MLA”) entered between the two parties in June 2016. This application for Architectural Review encompasses the first “cluster” or grouping of small cells located in the public Right-of-Way (“ROW”) and contains eleven (11) proposed nodes on wood utility poles in the Mid-town, South of Mid-Town, St. Claire Gardens and Palo Verde neighborhoods. Current Design for Consideration Verizon Wireless’ currently proposed design is the direct result of feedback from the December 7, 2017 Architectural Review Board hearing where Verizon was asked to install equipment underground to the greatest extent feasible. Verizon has evaluated all fifteen (15) original locations from this cluster and is requesting to move forward on eleven (11) poles where vaulting has been determined to be infeasible. Details of the assessment process are provided below in the “Vaulting” section. All pole mounted equipment including antennas and shrouding will be painted to match the pole. We have worked closely with Urban Forestry to propose amenity trees, which will provide additional screening where none currently exists. Each small cell is served by both fiber and electrical power; in most cases, this is accomplished via an aerial drop on the pole. Pole Top Design The currently proposed design for these eleven (11) poles consists of one (1) narrow four-foot cylindrical antenna, with a one-foot cable concealment cage underneath. For existing utility poles, the antenna will be elevated on a seven-foot pole top “bayonet” extension. For replacement utility poles, the antenna will be placed directly on top of the pole using a one-foot mount. At the December 7, 2017 hearing, consensus from the ARB was for a more streamlined appearance between the pole and the antenna. Various shrouding options have been presented at the front of the plan set. Verizon has received approval to modify the “mock” small cell, located adjacent to 1350 Newell Rd. with the addition of the Tapered Bayonet radio shroud. At this time, Verizon Wireless now seeks direction from the ARB on a final preferred design for the pole top configuration. Radio Design On the side of the pole, Verizon Wireless will mount three (3) required radios (“RRUs”), an AC conversion panel, a small fiber demarcation unit and diplexers. From among the four (4) options presented at the December 7, 2017 hearing, the Architectural Review Board preferred a streamlined “Box Shroud” which would conceal the three vertically-stacked radios, associated ancillary equipment and cabling within a single shroud of uniform width and depth. Since the December 7 ARB hearing, a new, smaller model of RRU has become available for network use, which further reduces the volume of the pole mounted equipment and associated shroud. Additionally, the bracket standoff from the pole has been reduced from the originally proposed maximum of 12 inches, to no more than the 4-inch required minimum separation (“belt gap”) from the pole. The various shrouding options to conceal the 2.c Packet Pg. 28 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( r e c e i v e d F e b r u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 8 ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 2 of 26 February 26, 2017 pole mounted equipment have been presented at the front of the plan set, in both drawing and photo sim form. Verizon also will be modifying the “mock” small cell, with the addition of the “Box Shroud”. At this time, Verizon Wireless now seeks direction from the ARB on a final preferred shroud design for the pole mounted equipment. Vaulting At the Architectural Review Board on December 7, 2017, staff was directed to have Verizon Wireless propose underground equipment to the greatest extent feasible. To assess feasibility, Verizon scrubbed the technically viable search area of thirty feet (30') from each primary pole. Once that distance is exceeded, the network no longer operates as designed. Additionally, all viable alternate poles for each node were reviewed. To determine feasibility of placing the equipment in an underground vault at each pole, the scope and conditions listed below were used: Scope 1) Size of vault and associated excavation Vault Equipment: Western Utility Vault ID-717 Vault Interior Dimensions: 4' x 6'-6" x 4' to accommodate required three (3) radios Vault Exterior Dimensions, including Lid with Hatch: 5'-8" x 8'-2" x 1' Vault Excavation Requirements: 10' x 18' x 8'-1"  Depth to accommodate 1'-8" x 1'-8" x 2'-6" drywell for sump, located under vault  Width to accommodate two (2) intake and exhaust vents on either end of the vault lid, both 2'-6" x 2'-6" x 5'-7" Venting Requirements: (2) underground vent stacks for intake and exhaust at 2'-6" x 2'-6" x 5'- 7", separation from vault required for temperature regulation Vault Sump Pump Drainage: (2) underground sump pumps required, located on top of drywell, core drilled to curb release to gutter 2) Search distance from pole of 30’ radius. Conditions The following conditions restrict the placement of a vault: 1. Proposed vault location interferes with existing underground utilities as identified by field conditions or from maps provided by the City of Palo Alto. 2. Vault or its associated excavation would encroach on private property. 3. Proposed vault is located within a Flood Plain. 4. Proposed vault location is unable to comply with state, federal or city safety standards. 2.c Packet Pg. 29 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( r e c e i v e d F e b r u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 8 ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 3 of 26 February 26, 2017 5. Preservation of trees: Excavation cannot occur within a minimum distance of 10’ of an established street tree. Additionally, Section 1.39 of the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual confirms that trenching within the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) is injurious to roots and tree health and is prohibited. The TPZ extends a minimum distance of the dripline, per Section 1.36 of the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual. Section 2.15 of the outlines prohibited activities within the TPZ, including foundation digging, utility trenching, paving, or any other excavation. Privately owned trees are also considered for protection. 6. Noise generated from vault is unable to comply with City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan noise standards. It was only after thoroughly evaluating each node that Verizon determined vaulting is infeasible on 11 proposed locations. Separate vaulting reports have been submitted for review. Landscaping Verizon Wireless has worked closely with our project arborist, Urban Forestry and Planning to propose trees in the public Right-of-Way, where deemed appropriate that will help to screen the proposed equipment from various surrounding views. The proposed trees have been added to the Site Plan (page A-1 of each node) and a New Tree Table placed beside the Existing Tree Table for ease of reference. Careful consultation with Urban Forestry resulted in the species selection and size. Color As currently conceived, wood pole designs would require all pole mounted equipment, including conduits to encase the fiber and power, to be painted brown to blend closely with the color of the existing pole. Upon review of existing small cells in Palo Alto, and the proposed utility poles for this cluster, it seemed appropriate to select various shades of brown to more closely match the existing poles. In recognition that brown is not just brown, paint samples (Kelly Moore: Railroad Ties KMA67, Log Cabin KMA76 and Clay Bath KM4595) are included in Exhibit F – Proposed Paint Samples. These are a digital approximation of the color and actual samples have been provided with our application. Design Evolution of Project Over the last year and a half, Verizon Wireless has been working with the City to refine the design for its small cells. As detailed below, the most critical design changes to reduce overall volume and footprint of equipment, as well as eliminate any noise producing elements. Again, in its current proposal, a new and smaller radio has become available for network use, which reduces overall volume of any pole mounted equipment: • Original Design: Configuration 1 (original design with backup battery): approx. 68 cu. ft. • Revised Mock Sun Shroud Design (no battery, only pole mounted): approx. 14.3 cu. ft. • Currently Proposed Box Shroud (with new, smaller radio): approx. 16.0 cu. ft. Beginning in the Fall of 2016, Verizon attended two Development Review Committee meetings to discuss the preliminary design for small cells. Subsequently, the mock site constructed to the Palo Alto Art Center was built to obtain feedback from staff and members of the public. Application for Preliminary Review was filed in Jan. 2017 for Cluster 1, after which Verizon Wireless attended additional DRC meetings. Staff feedback from these meetings has also been critical in evolving the design. For 2.c Packet Pg. 30 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( r e c e i v e d F e b r u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 8 ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 4 of 26 February 26, 2017 example, a thoughtful discussion during one DRC resulted in a close collaboration with the Project Arborist, Urban Forestry and Planning to propose new amenity trees where none currently exist. The project was heard for Preliminary Review by the ARB on May 18, 2017. Feedback generally centered on shrouding the cabling between the radios to create a more streamlined appearance in the equipment and the “Sun Shield” design was constructed in September of 2017. The currently proposed “Box Shroud” is a further iteration of that design, requested at the December 7, 2017 formal ARB hearing. Design feedback from the public remains a top priority for Verizon in its endeavors to site small cells. To begin early with Cluster 1, Verizon Wireless sent notices to owners and occupants within over six hundred-fifty (650') for a March 30, 2017 community meeting, held at the Palo Alto Art Center. In addition, a personalized package was sent to each residence directly adjacent to a node, even if across the street (usually 3-6 packages per node). Community feedback was obtained both at the meeting and through direct contact where residents reached out. The most major concern expressed by residents related to noise-producing equipment of any kind. There were also a smaller percentage of residents who felt very strongly that the tradeoff for some noise was worth the security of emergency battery backup during a disaster resulting in major power loss. Verizon ultimately made the decision to remove the emergency batteries to eliminate the noise. The project, as proposed, has no noise producing components. 2.c Packet Pg. 31 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( r e c e i v e d F e b r u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 8 ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 5 of 26 February 26, 2017 Exhibit A – Coverage Maps Coverage Map – Cluster 1: Labels The map below depicts the nodes from Cluster 1, and the existing macro sites. For clarity, coverage is depicted on subsequent maps. Blue circles represent a proposed node that would transmit signal in all directions. “Pie-shaped” proposed sites represent small cell nodes with fewer than three (3) sectors, i.e. the antenna has a directional signal pattern that is not in all directions. Map of Labels: Streets, Node Numbers, Existing Macro Sites with Names 2.c Packet Pg. 32 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( r e c e i v e d F e b r u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 8 ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 6 of 26 February 26, 2017 Existing coverage area – proposed small cells in Cluster 1 turned OFF. Coverage Map – Cluster 1: Existing Coverage Only existing coverage provided by “macro” sites is shown (Cluster 1 small cells turned off). For clarity, site names and numbers are shown on the previous map. Blue circles represent a proposed node that would transmit signal in all directions. “Pie-shaped” proposed sites represent small cell nodes with fewer than three (3) sectors, i.e. the antenna has a directional signal pattern that is not in all directions. As demonstrated by the map, coverage is marginal or poor in many locations. 2.c Packet Pg. 33 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( r e c e i v e d F e b r u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 8 ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 7 of 26 February 26, 2017 Coverage Map – Cluster 1: Proposed Coverage The map below depicts the additional coverage provided from the proposed nodes in Cluster 1 (small cells turned on). Existing coverage provided by “macro” sites is also shown. For clarity, site names and numbers are shown on the first map page. Blue circles represent a proposed node that would transmit signal in all directions. “Pie-shaped” proposed sites represent small cell nodes with fewer than three (3) sectors, i.e. the antenna has a directional signal pattern that is not in all directions. As demonstrated by the map, coverage is significantly improved in many locations with the addition of small cells. Proposed Coverage – small cells in Cluster 1 turned ON. 2.c Packet Pg. 34 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( r e c e i v e d F e b r u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 8 ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 8 of 26 February 26, 2017 Exhibit B – Small Cell Selection Process Pole Selection Based on the need to provide network coverage and capacity, Verizon Wireless Radio Frequency engineers identify target locations or “nodes” throughout the city to improve and optimize network performance. Because small cells provide service over a small area, approximately six hundred (600) to twelve hundred (1200) feet, there is less flexibility in how far they can be moved from a defined engineering target. As a result, there are a limited number of existing structures, i.e. existing wood utility poles or streetlights that will meet the required engineering objective for any given small cell node. Each proposed node is visited by a team to identify existing city-owned structures available for attachment within the target engineering area. During this fielding walk, guidelines 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. Much of the design for the pole-mounted equipment has been dictated by regulatory agencies, such as the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The criteria used to select a pole have been compiled into the Small Cell Siting Guidelines below. The Alternative Site Analysis for each small cell area are contained in Exhibit C—Node Level Alternate Pole Analysis, which provides an inventory of available poles and their viability. Collocation with Other Small Cells As mentioned above, the first step when a location is identified by Engineering, is to visit the area and assess suitable structures for attachment. In some cases, there may be an existing WCF or small cell located on a utility pole in the area. While it may appear to make sense to collocate on the same pole as an existing WCF, this is not feasible for many reasons. First, Right-of-Way poles are small and can only support limited equipment. Placing additional equipment on a pole will very likely exceed the structural limits of the pole and block required climbing space. Additionally, interference can present a problem in locating different carriers’ equipment on the same structure. Some carrier antennas and frequencies used need significant separation to avoid interference and most ROW poles don’t have enough space to allow for this separation. We are also striving to provide the most seamless aesthetic design possible. Having multiple carriers on a pole means more antennas and more equipment boxes on the pole. For these reasons, Verizon Wireless has not proposed collocation on an existing WCF. Additional Considerations Beyond the Engineering Criteria, pole selection is based on a thoughtful consideration of the surrounding environment, optimizing for existing favorable site features such as landscaping and tree foliage and wherever possible, reducing the impact on views from streets as well as adjacent residences. Poles located in private residential easements (e.g. backyards) and close proximity to second story windows were avoided whenever possible. As these Alternative Site Analyses demonstrate, many seemingly suitable poles must be eliminated for engineering or other reasons. In fact, as these examples demonstrate, there is quite often only one suitable pole for a small cell within a designated coverage area. 2.c Packet Pg. 35 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( r e c e i v e d F e b r u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 8 ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 9 of 26 February 26, 2017 Small Cell Siting Guidelines The standards contained below 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 consider previous findings and recommendations by staff, the public and reviewing bodies. 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 Clear climbing space – minimum of 90-degree quadrant o Clearances between power conduction and/or other attachments (min. 6') o Required distances for separation between pole and equipment (min. 4") o Required distances for separation between equipment o Minimum height of attachment • 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 CA 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.c Packet Pg. 36 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( r e c e i v e d F e b r u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 8 ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 10 of 26 February 26, 2017 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 • Poles preferred in the public Right-of-Way are selected. Poles on Public Utility Easements are not generally 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 location that is least disruptive to views from both pedestrian and the adjacent residences 2.c Packet Pg. 37 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( r e c e i v e d F e b r u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 8 ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 11 of 26 February 26, 2017 Exhibit C – Node Level Alternate Pole Analysis Below is an analysis of each node in Cluster 1 and the poles available for attachment. Poles within the search area are designated as either viable alternates or eliminated for the various reasons outlined in the Alternative Site Analysis for each node below. SF PALO ALTO 129 Alternative Site Analysis Per the analysis below, the currently proposed pole is the only one viable for attachment to provide service for this node. Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 129-A Metal Street Light 251 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from communication equipment. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW attachment. 129-B Wood Utility Pole 3129 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. CPUC GO95 rules require clear climbing space. There is not enough climbing space on this pole to safely allow a VZW attachment. Additionally, the pole is located near a more visible corner along Louis Rd and therefore would is more visible than the primary pole. 129-C Wood Utility Pole 3207 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. High voltage lines located on pole. 129-D Wood Utility Pole 3120 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. Additionally, not selected as primary because high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines. 129-E Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because 1) antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service; 2) high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines. 129-F Wood Utility Pole 3208 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. High voltage lines located on pole. 129-G Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because 1) antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 2.c Packet Pg. 38 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( r e c e i v e d F e b r u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 8 ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 12 of 26 February 26, 2017 SF PALO ALTO 130 Alternative Site Analysis Per the analysis below, the currently proposed pole is the only one viable for attachment to provide service for this node. Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 130-A Wood Utility Pole 2462 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. Additionally, high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines. 130-B Metal Street Light 281 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because 1) antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 130-C Wood Utility Pole 2460 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Line and buck situation on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 130-D Wood Utility Pole 4016 Not Viable Planning Poles located on private property (residential easement) are only selected as a last resort, given potential disturbance to adjacent resident. 130-E Wood Utility Pole 2430 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. High voltage lines located on pole. 130-F Wood Utility Pole 2463 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Line and buck situation on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 2.c Packet Pg. 39 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( r e c e i v e d F e b r u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 8 ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 13 of 26 February 26, 2017 Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 131-A Wood Utility Pole 3316 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Primary power riser located on pole. 131-B Wood Utility Pole 3317 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Primary power riser located on pole. 131-C Metal Street Light N/A Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because 1) antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service; 2) high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines. 131-D Wood Utility Pole 3314 Viable Viable Alternate Pole is viable alternate, but was not selected as primary as it is more visible from all directions than the corner location selected. It is first alternate candidate. 131-E Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 131-F Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 131-G Wood Utility Pole 3313 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Line and buck situation on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. SF PALO ALTO 131 Alternative Site Analysis Per the alternative site analysis below, the currently proposed pole is one of two viable for small cell attachment to provide service for this node. While the primary pole is located on a corner, it was selected because it is far more naturally screened than the first alternate, which is in a highly visible location just within the landscape area between two residences. The existing large trees are at the far side of the yards adjacent to the alternate and no planter strip exists where amenity trees could be added. This is a great example of the kind of prioritization involved in choosing between two technically viable poles. In this case, the corner location provides service via a less obtrusive pole. 2.c Packet Pg. 40 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( r e c e i v e d F e b r u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 8 ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 14 of 26 February 26, 2017 SF PALO ALTO 133 Alternative Site Analysis Two poles were viable in this service area. Both poles have similar settings along Loma Verde Ave, located between two residences, rather than directly in front of one. The selected primary pole better meets the engineering objective and appeared to be less visible when traversing Loma Verde Ave, but at the request of Planning & Community Environment, the viable alternate pole has also been included for review. Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 133-A Wood Utility Pole 2858 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Line and buck situation on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 133-B Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from communication equipment. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW attachment. 133-C Wood Utility Pole 3304 Not Viable CPAU Engineering A power line crossover takes place at this corner and does not allow enough space for attachment. Additionally, high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines 133-D Wood Utility Pole 2859 Not Viable CPAU Engineering A power line crossover takes place at this corner and does not allow enough space for attachment. Additionally, high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines 133-E Wood Utility Pole 2856 Viable Viable Alternate Pole is viable. It is first alternate candidate. 133-F Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 133-G Wood Utility Pole Unknown Not Viable Planning Poles located on private property (residential easement) are only selected as a last resort, given potential disturbance to adjacent resident. 133-H Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 133-I Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 2.c Packet Pg. 41 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( r e c e i v e d F e b r u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 8 ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 15 of 26 February 26, 2017 SF PALO ALTO 134 Alternative Site Analysis Two poles were viable in this service area. Both poles have similar settings along Kenneth Dr. The selected primary pole better meets the engineering objective and is located less intrusively between two residences, rather than directly in front of one. Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 134-A Metal Street Light 345 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from seconary power. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW attachment. 134-B Wood Utility Pole 2965 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Pole is too short and so could not meet engineering objective for this area. 134-C Wood Utility Pole 2963 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 134-D Wood Utility Pole 2962 Viable Viable Alternate Pole is viable alternate, but was not selected as primary. It is first alternate candidate. 134-E Wood Utility Pole 2966 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Pole is leaning, too short and surrounded by tree clutter and therefore could not meet the engineering objective for this area. 134-F Metal Street Light 341 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 2.c Packet Pg. 42 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( r e c e i v e d F e b r u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 8 ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 16 of 26 February 26, 2017 SF PALO ALTO 135 Alternative Site Analysis Three existing pole locations were viable to meet the engineering objectives for this node. Two are located along the water district canal, mid-bock and so are more preferred. The taller of the poles was selected as it does not require replacement. Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 135-A Wood Utility Pole 3611 Viable VZW RF Engineering Pole location is viable, but the existing structure does not provide enough height to meet the required engeering objective. It is the first alternate candidate and would require replacement with a taller pole to provide the required level of service. 135-B Wood Utility Pole 3371 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Primary power riser located on pole. 135-C Metal Street Light 342 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 135-D Wood Utility Pole 3609 Viable Planning/Visibility Concerns The pole is technically viable, but was not preferred as it is located on a high visibility corner. It is the second alternate candidate. 135-E Wood Utility Pole Unknown Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 135-F Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from seconary power. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW attachment. 135-G Wood Utility Pole Unknown Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 135-H Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, GO95 requires distance form communication lines, therefore attachment is not feasible. 2.c Packet Pg. 43 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( r e c e i v e d F e b r u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 8 ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 17 of 26 February 26, 2017 SF PALO ALTO 137 Alternative Site Analysis Two poles were viable to meet the engineering objective at this location. The proposed primary was selected for its location between two residences with firmly established trees for screening on either side. The first alternate candidate is viable and meets the engineering objectives, but is located on a highly visible corner and so was not selected as primary. Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 137-A Wood Utility Pole 3349 Viable Planning Pole is viable from an engineering perspective, but its highly visible location at an intersection, with only moderate screening, makes it the first alternate candidate. 137-B Wood Utility Pole Unknown Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow attachment. Line and buck situation on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. Additionally, pole is too far north to meet required engineering objectives. 137-C Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, the pole is surrounded by tree clutter and could not meet the engineering objective for this area. 137-D Wood Utility Pole Unknown Not Viable Planning Poles located outside of the Public ROW, within a public utility easement, are only selected as a last resort, given potential disturbance to the resident. Could not get pole number as it is located in backyard. 137-E Wood Utility Pole 3352 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Pole is too short and so could not meet engineering objective for this area. It would require replacement with a taller pole. 137-F Wood Utility Pole 3353 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 137-G Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 137-H Wood Utility Pole 3554 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. CPUC GO95 rules require clear climbing space. There is not enough climbing space on this pole to safely allow a VZW attachment. Additionally, the pole is somewhat too far so the south to meet the required engineering objective and is highly visible. 137-I Wood Utility Pole Unknown Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 137-J Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. CPUC GO95 rules require a minimum distance from communication lines, which could not be met on this pole. Additionally, not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. The pole is also surrounded by tree clutter and could not meet the required enginering objectives. 137-K Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, the pole is surrounded by tree clutter and could not meet the required enginering objectives. GO95 requires a minimum distance from communication lines, which could not be met on this pole. 137-L Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, the pole is surrounded by tree clutter and could not meet the required enginering objectives. GO95 requires a minimum distance from communication lines, which could not be met on this pole. 2.c Packet Pg. 44 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( r e c e i v e d F e b r u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 8 ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 18 of 26 February 26, 2017 SF PALO ALTO 138 Alternative Site Analysis Two poles were viable to meet the engineering objective for this area. The pole selected as primary is located between two residences and within a tree to take advantage of natural screening. The first alternate is also viable, but was not selected as primary, because it lacks natural screening. Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 138-A Wood Utility Pole 2478 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole. Additionally, a primary riser is located on the pole. Neither allows attachment. 138-B Metal Street Light 85 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from communication equipment. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW attachment. There is also too much tree clutter surrounding this pole, so it would not meet the engineering objective for this area. 138-C Wood Utility Pole 2477 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Primary riser located on pole. Additionally, pole is slightly to far east to meet the intended engineering objectives. 138-D Metal Street Light 83 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 138-E Wood Utility Pole 2480 Viable Viable Alternate Pole is viable alternate, but was not selected as primary as it has less natural screening. 138-F Wood Utility Pole 2481 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Pole is viable from a structural perspective, but is too close the west to meet the required engineering objective. 2.c Packet Pg. 45 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( r e c e i v e d F e b r u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 8 ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 19 of 26 February 26, 2017 SF PALO ALTO 143 Alternative Site Analysis Only one pole was available to meet the required engineering objective and was selected as the primary. Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 143-A Wood Utility Pole 3866 Not Viable Planning Poles located on private property (residential easement), as opposed to the Public ROW, are only selected as a last resort, given potential disturbance to adjacent resident. Could not get pole number as it is located in yard. 143-B Wood Utility Pole 3889 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on pole - wireless equipment not permitted. 143-C Wood Utility Pole Unknown Not Viable Planning Poles located on private property (residential easement), as opposed to the Public ROW, are only selected as a last resort, given potential disturbance to adjacent resident. Could not get pole number as it is located in backyard. 143-D Metal Street Light 18 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because 1) antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole; 2) high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines. 143-E Wood Utility Pole 3995 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Pole is too short give the surrounding tree clutter and so could not meet engineering objective for this area. 143-F Wood Utility Pole 3996 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Pole location is viable, but was not selected as primary, as it is short and likely would require replacement to meet the required engineering objective. The pole partially resides in the driveway of the adjacent resident and would not be selected for attachment. 143-G Metal Street Light 323 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 143-H Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from communication equipment. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW attachment. 143-I Wood Utility Pole Unknown Not Viable Planning Pole appears to be located on private property (residential easement), rather than Public ROW, and would only selected as a last resort, given potential disturbance to adjacent resident. It is located within the yard of the resident. 143-J Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 143-K Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 2.c Packet Pg. 46 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( r e c e i v e d F e b r u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 8 ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 20 of 26 February 26, 2017 SF PALO ALTO 144 Alternative Site Analysis Only one pole was viable for attachment within the targeted coverage area. Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 144-A Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Not selected as primary because 1) antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole; 2) high visibility corners are not preferred per the planning siting guidelines. 144-B Wood Utility Pole 1521 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Existing AT&T utilities conflict with attachment. 144-C Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from communication equipment. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW attachment. 144-D Wood Utility Pole 1507 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on the pole. 144-E Wood Utility Pole 1508 Not Viable Planning Poles located on private property (residential easement), rather than in the Public ROW, are only selected as a last resort, given potential disturbance to adjacent resident. 144-F Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 144-G Metal Street Light 304 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Significant tree clutter surround light and would not meet engineering objectives. 144-H Metal Street Light 311 Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 144-I Metal Street Light Unknown Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 2.c Packet Pg. 47 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( r e c e i v e d F e b r u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 8 ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 21 of 26 February 26, 2017 SF PALO ALTO 145 Alternative Site Analysis Two poles were viable to meet the engineering objective for this node. The primary was selected because it better meets the engineering target. Alternative Candidate ID Structure Type Pole # Viable Alternative Candidate Fallout Reason Fallout Note 145-A Wood Utility Pole 3292 Viable Viable Alternate Pole is viable alternate, but was not selected as primary. It is first alternate candidate. The pole was recently replaced and the old transfer pole still exists. 145-B Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, there is too much tree clutter surrounding this pole, so it would not meet the engineering objective for this area. 145-C Wood Utility Pole Unknown Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Transformer located on the pole. 145-D Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. Additionally, CPUC GO95 rules require clearance from communication equipment. There is not enough clearance on this pole to allow a VZW attachment. 145-E Wood Utility Pole Unknown Not Viable CPAU Engineering Existing AT&T utilities conflict with attachment. 145-F Metal Street Light No Tag Not Viable VZW RF Engineering Viable location, but not selected as primary because an antenna location on streetlight is lower than on wood pole and does not provide the same level of service. 145-G Wood Utility Pole 3290 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Primary riser located on pole. 145-H Wood Utility Pole 3289 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Pole is for communications only and not electrical transmission. Additionally, it is too short to meet the required engineering objectives. 145-I Wood Utility Pole 3285 Not Viable CPAU Engineering Utility engineering constraints would not allow an attachment. Primary riser located on pole. 2.c Packet Pg. 48 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( r e c e i v e d F e b r u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 8 ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 22 of 26 February 26, 2017 Exhibit D – List of Cluster 1 Nodes Cluster 1 contains eleven (11) proposed small cell nodes. Node #Address of Adjacent APN Proposed Antenna Shroud Proposed Radio Shroud Color - Pole Mounted Equipment - Kelly Moore CPAU Pole # Adjacent APN Public ROW Zoning Class Source for Power & Fiber Height of Existing Height of Proposed (including Antenna) Pole Replace Required (YES/NO) SF PALO ALTO 129 2490 LOUIS RD Taper Bayonet Box Shroud Railroad Ties 3121 12730062 R-1 Aerial Drop 43'-1"55'-2"YES SF PALO ALTO 130 2802 LOUIS RD Taper Bayonet Box Shroud Railroad Ties 2461 12728046 R-1 Aerial Drop 43'-0"55'-1"NO SF PALO ALTO 131 891 ELBRIDGE WY Taper Bayonet Box Shroud Railroad Ties 3315 12726067 R-1 Aerial Drop 43'-10"55'-11"NO SF PALO ALTO 133 925 LOMA VERDE AVE Taper Bayonet Box Shroud Railroad Ties 2857 12724023 R-1 Aerial Drop 44'-2"56'-7"YES SF PALO ALTO 133-E (Alternate) 929 LOMA VERDE AVE Taper Bayonet Box Shroud Railroad Ties 2856 12724020 R-1 Aerial Drop 44'-2"56'-7"YES SF PALO ALTO 134 3409 KENNETH DR Taper Bayonet Box Shroud Clay Bath 2964 12709028 R-1 (7000) Aerial Drop 39'-1"51'-4"NO SF PALO ALTO 135 795 STONE LN Taper Bayonet Box Shroud Railroad Ties 3610 12747001 R-1 (8000) Aerial Drop 42'-10"54'-11"NO SF PALO ALTO 137 3090 ROSS RD Taper Bayonet Box Shroud Railroad Ties 3351 12752031 R-1 Aerial Drop 43'-8"55'-9"NO SF PALO ALTO 138 836 COLORADO AVE Taper Bayonet Box Shroud Log Cabin 2479 12727063 R-1 Aerial Drop 43'-2"55'-3"NO SF PALO ALTO 143 419 EL VERANO AVE Taper Bayonet Box Shroud Log Cabin 3867 13215017 R-1 U/G Vault N36 38'-3"50'-4"NO SF PALO ALTO 144 201 LOMA VERDE AVE Taper Bayonet Box Shroud Log Cabin 1506 13248015 RM-30 Aerial Drop 42'-10"53'-11"NO SF PALO ALTO 145 737 LOMA VERDE AVE Taper Bayonet Box Shroud Log Cabin 3288 12764039 RM-15 Aerial Drop 43'-3"55'-4"NO 2.c Packet Pg. 49 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( r e c e i v e d F e b r u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 8 ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 23 of 26 February 26, 2017 Exhibit E – Map of Cluster 1 Configurations Cluster 1 contains eleven (11) proposed small cell nodes in the Midtown, Palo Verde and St. Claire Gardens neighborhoods. 2.c Packet Pg. 50 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( r e c e i v e d F e b r u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 8 ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 24 of 26 February 26, 2017 Exhibit F – Proposed Paint Samples All pole mounted equipment will be painted to nearest shade of brown to the existing pole (all Kelly Moore durable metal paint). Railroad Ties (KMA67) Log Cabin (KMA76) Clay Bath (KM4595) 2.c Packet Pg. 51 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( r e c e i v e d F e b r u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 8 ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 25 of 26 February 26, 2017 Exhibit G – Model Small Cell Location Verizon Wireless has constructed a non-operational “mock” site for public and staff viewing, which is updated with the most recent proposed shrouds. The central location adjacent to 1350 Newell, across from the Palo Alto Art Center was selected in conjunction with CPAU, because that particular pole has no overhead transmission. Additionally, Verizon Wireless has selected the auditorium at the Palo Alto Art Center as a location to host community meetings. 2.c Packet Pg. 52 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( r e c e i v e d F e b r u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 8 ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d Cluster 1 Project Description – Page 26 of 26 February 26, 2017 Exhibit H – Statement Regarding Spectrum Act Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.42.110(d)(8) provides: “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.” Verizon Wireless cannot submit a scaled depiction of the maximum permitted increase in the physical dimensions of the proposed small cell facilities on Palo Alto utility poles under the Spectrum Act for the following reasons: 1. Spectrum Act “Substantial Change” Criteria Are Indeterminate Spectrum Act “substantial change” criteria theoretically allow the expansion of a wireless facility in the Right-of- Way by ten feet in height and six feet in width. However, any such expansion cannot defeat existing “concealment elements” of the facility (see 47 C.F.R. §1.40001). Verizon Wireless small cells are designed with vertically integrated and oriented radio equipment as well as a vertical cylindrical antenna that matches the shape and size of the utility pole to which it is mounted. It is not clear what increase in size, if any, could be accomplished without defeating the concealment elements of the Verizon Wireless design. 2. Modifications To The Verizon Wireless Small Cell Allowed Under The Spectrum Act Must Comply With Health And Safety Requirements (CPUC G.O. 95) The Spectrum Act accommodates regulations for health and safety, such as the requirements of G.O. 95, that are generally observed by the City. G.O. 95 places strict limitations on the placement of attachments on utility poles. Specifically, continuous climbing space must be maintained in one quadrant of the pole from top to bottom. A six- foot separation is required between antennas and transmission lines. Equipment must be more than seven feet from the ground, and pole capacity must be restricted to accommodate the structural limitations of each pole. These limitations severely restrict the modifications that can be made to the Verizon Wireless small cell and would likely prevent modifications of the scale allowed under the Spectrum Act. Any modification that requires the replacement of the utility pole, for structural reasons or lack of space, is disqualified as an eligible facility request under the Spectrum Act. In nearly all cases, Palo Alto utility poles are near capacity and cannot accommodate modifications of the dimensions allowed under the Spectrum Act. 3. Verizon Wireless Has No Plans To Modify Its Small Cell Design And Any “Spectrum Act” Modification Would Be Speculative Verizon Wireless cannot predict the customer demand or technological changes that would lead to a modification of the proposed small cell design. Similarly, Verizon Wireless cannot predict what another utility or wireless provider may propose to add or attach to a utility pole. In the same way, the City cannot be obligated to pre- approve hypothetical designs as “eligible facility requests” under the Spectrum Act that may or may not defeat existing concealment or violate health and safety laws. 4. Hypothetical Maximum Build-Out Under The Spectrum Act Is Irrelevant To Required Approval Findings For Verizon Wireless Small Cells While theoretically interesting, the potential future expansion of a project is not the subject of any of the 16 Architectural Review findings nor the two conditional use findings required for approval of the Verizon Wireless small cell design under the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Projects must be evaluated as proposed and not on future hypothetical modification. There are no reasonably foreseeable modifications to the proposed Verizon Wireless small cell design that can be reviewed by the City at this time. Simply put, speculation cannot form the basis for any findings. Similarly, speculative future modifications do not constitute the substantial evidence required to deny approval of a wireless facility under federal law. For all of the reasons stated above, Verizon Wireless will not revise plans to show a scaled depiction of the maximum permitted increase in the physical dimensions of its small cell project. 2.c Packet Pg. 53 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A p p l i c a n t P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( r e c e i v e d F e b r u a r y 2 6 , 2 0 1 8 ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d Attachment J Vinculums Vault Feasibility Reports These reports are available to the public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Vinculums Vault Feasibility Reports online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Search for “250 Hamilton Avenue” and open the record for 17PLN-00169 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: “17PLN-00169 Cluster 1 Supplement Vinculums Vault Feasibility Reports 02-05-18” More information can also be found on the City’s project webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3999&TargetID=319 Note: The address for this application 17PLN-00169 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. 2.d Packet Pg. 54 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : V i n c u l u m s V a u l t F e a s i b i l i t y R e p o r t s ( r e c e i v e d F e b r u a r y 5 , 2 0 1 8 ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8310) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/7/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Tier 3 WCF - Vinculums/Verizon - Cluster 1 (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 250 Hamilton Avenue [17PLN-00169]: Consideration of a Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permit Application for the Deployment of Small Cell Wireless Communication Equipment on Utility Poles in the Public Right of Way. This Application Proposes 15 Small Cell Node Locations Within the Mid-Town, Palo Verde, St. Claire Gardens, and South of Mid-Town Neighborhoods. The Approximate Location of Each of the Nodes is Available Online at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62 257. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: Various. For More Information Contact Project Planner Rebecca Atkinson at rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Conduct a public hearing and provide comments to the applicant 2. Continue the public hearing to January 18, 2018 Report Summary This report provides background information to support the first formal ARB meeting on Verizon’s first “Cluster” of 15 wireless communication facilities (WCF), ‘small cell nodes’ to be installed on wood utility poles in Palo Alto (application file 17PLN-00169). The 15 nodes are located in Midtown, Palo Verde, St. Claire Gardens, and South of Midtown neighborhoods. Two additional Vinculums/Verizon applications are on file with the City and more Vinculums/Verizon clusters are anticipated to be filed in the coming months, which are shown on the image below. More WCF-related information and links to project status can be found here: 2.e Packet Pg. 55 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 1 7 R e p o r t t o A R B ( w i t h o u t a t t a c h m e n t s ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/wireless_communication_facilities/default.asp. Interested parties may also sign up for updates at the aforementioned website. Background Project Information Owner: City of Palo Alto (Owner of Utility Poles in the Right-of-Way) Architect: Vinculums on behalf of GTE Mobilnet dba Verizon Wireless Representative: Mary Diesch (Vinculums) and Jennifer Haas (Verizon) Legal Counsel: Paul Albritton, Mackenzie & Albritton LLP Property Information Address: 15 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): 15 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), RM-15 and RM-30 Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence District Location Map: File #17PLN-00169 – Also please see Attachment A. 2.e Packet Pg. 56 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 1 7 R e p o r t t o A R B ( w i t h o u t a t t a c h m e n t s ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Vinculums/Verizon Project Plans, September 12, 2017 Please note that three nodes (Node 127, Node 139, and Node 146) were initially proposed for inclusion in Cluster 1. They were subsequently withdrawn by the applicant on September 12, 2017, but might be proposed in the future via a different application. Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Public right of way within residential districts: R-1 Single Family Residential and R-1 Sub-districts (7,000) and (8,000), and RM-15 and RM-30 Medium Density Multiple Family Residence Districts 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'): Within residential districts Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: June 27, 2016 Master License Agreement GTE Mobilnet dba Verizon Wireless (http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52893) PTC: None HRB: None 2.e Packet Pg. 57 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 1 7 R e p o r t t o A R B ( w i t h o u t a t t a c h m e n t s ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 ARB: May 18, 2017: Preliminary Review (application 17PLN-00033) of conceptual siting criteria and project design. The agenda, staff report, and video of the ARB meeting can be found at the following weblinks: Agenda:http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57843 Report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57840 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-62/ Administrative Review: The PCE Director approved AR application 17PLN-00063 to allow the installation of Pole #7423 (1350 Newell Road, near the Art Center). This non-live, one-year mock-up of a WCF node (Configuration 1) was installed before the May 18 ARB meeting initially with exposed pole-mounted equipment - “unshrouded” to allow public viewing of the equipment; later, the applicant installed custom shrouding to cover some wires and equipment, responding to preliminary ARB feedback. Project Description The proposed ‘Cluster 1’ is comprised of fifteen (15) WCF small cell nodes located, as shown in the map on the previous page, within the Mid-Town, South of Mid-Town, St. Claire Gardens, and Palo Verde neighborhoods.1 Each node would operate independently from one another and requires its own ‘Tier 3’ Wireless Communication Facility permit. The Tier 3 classification is defined under the City of Palo Alto’s Municipal Code (PAMC)2. The proposed node locations are grouped together into a cluster for processing to allow coordinated City review and transparency to members of the public about what is proposed in their neighborhoods. The applicant has provided a detailed project description (Attachment B). Shot Clock and Extension Process Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permit applications have a unique application process involving a “shot clock” timeline, whereby a decision on each node must take place within 150 days, unless the applicant provides the City an extension to enable and adjustment or “tolling” of the decision deadline and appeal period to complete. For this cluster of nodes, the applicant has provided the City an extension through February 2018. Verizon Proposal/Future Applications In total, Vinculums/Verizon proposes to install ninety-three (93) nodes in various neighborhoods and commercial areas within the City. The additional node locations will be identified and clustered together into a series of applications; two of these applications have been formally submitted to date, and are anticipated to have ARB review in 2018. Cluster 1 List of WCF Node Locations 1 The address for this application 17PLN-00169 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. 2PAMC Section 18.42.110 is provided as Attachment C. 2.e Packet Pg. 58 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 1 7 R e p o r t t o A R B ( w i t h o u t a t t a c h m e n t s ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 The application includes a deployment of fifteen (15) small cell WCF node locations listed in Table 1. Table 1 shows that there are three different design configurations and Figure 1 shows simplified images of the design configurations for easy comparison. Table 1 shows the height of the existing utility poles and that their height would increase by approximately 11 to 13 feet. Figure 2 shows an example of the proposed height increase due to a combination of the new antenna and “bayonet.” Two existing wood utility poles are proposed for replacement. No additional street lighting is proposed. 2.e Packet Pg. 59 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 1 7 R e p o r t t o A R B ( w i t h o u t a t t a c h m e n t s ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Table 1: Fifteen (15) Small Cell Deployment Node Locations in Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 1 Node Address of Adjacent APN Pole Type Design Configuration Color - Pole Mounte d Equipme nt - Kelly Moore Publi c ROW Zonin g Class Source for Power & Fiber Height of Existing Height of Proposed (including Antenna) Pole Replace Required (YES/NO) SF PALO ALTO 129 2490 LOUIS RD Wood Utility Config 1 Railroad Ties R-1 Aerial Drop 43'-1" 55'-2" YES SF PALO ALTO 130 2802 LOUIS RD Wood Utility Config 3 Railroad Ties R-1 Aerial Drop 43'-0" 55'-1" NO SF PALO ALTO 131 891 ELBRIDGE WY Wood Utility Config 2 Railroad Ties R-1 Aerial Drop 43'-10" 55'-11" NO SF PALO ALTO 133 925 LOMA VERDE AVE Wood Utility Config 3 Railroad Ties R-1 Aerial Drop 44'-2" 56'-7" YES SF PALO ALTO 134 3409 KENNETH DR Wood Utility Config 3 Clay Bath R-1 (7000 ) Aerial Drop 39'-1" 51'-4" NO SF PALO ALTO 135 795 STONE LN Wood Utility Config 2 Railroad Ties R-1 (8000 ) Aerial Drop 42'-10" 54'-11" NO SF PALO ALTO 136 3191 MANCHESTER CT Wood Utility Config 3 Railroad Ties R-1 Aerial Drop 42'-9" 54'-10" NO SF PALO ALTO 137 3090 ROSS RD Wood Utility Config 3 Railroad Ties R-1 Aerial Drop 43'-8" 55'-9" NO SF PALO ALTO 138 836 COLORADO AVE Wood Utility Config 3 Log Cabin R-1 Aerial Drop 43'-2" 55'-3" NO SF PALO ALTO 140 450 LOMA VERDE AVE Wood Utility Config 3 Railroad Ties R-1 Aerial Drop 33'-6" 45'-7" NO SF PALO ALTO 141 2801 SOUTH CT Wood Utility Config 3 Log Cabin R-1 Aerial Drop 38'-9" 51'-10" NO SF PALO ALTO 143 419 EL VERANO AVE Wood Utility Config 1 Log Cabin R-1 Undergr ound Vault N36 38'-3" 50'-4" NO SF PALO ALTO 144 201 LOMA VERDE AVE Wood Utility Config 3 Log Cabin RM- 30 Aerial Drop 42'-10" 53'-11" NO SF PALO ALTO 145 737 LOMA VERDE AVE Wood Utility Config 3 Log Cabin RM- 15 Aerial Drop 43'-3" 55'-4" NO SF PALO ALTO 147 181 EL VERANO AVE Wood Utility Config 3 Clay Bath R-1 Aerial Drop 38'-10" 50'-11" NO 2.e Packet Pg. 60 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 1 7 R e p o r t t o A R B ( w i t h o u t a t t a c h m e n t s ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Configuration #1 Configuration #2 Configuration #3 Figure 1: Proposed Vinculums/Verizon Design Configurations 2.e Packet Pg. 61 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 1 7 R e p o r t t o A R B ( w i t h o u t a t t a c h m e n t s ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Figure 2: Example of Wood Utility Pole Height Increase with Vinculums/Verizon Project (Node 147) Formal Review Project Plans and Changes Post Preliminary Review The proposed node locations and design configurations themselves remain unchanged from those presented for preliminary architectural review May 18, 2017. The project changes following the preliminary review include proposed paint colors for the wood utility poles/equipment, tree screening of the pole-mounted equipment from some surrounding views, and some reduction in the number of sectors for antennas at some nodes. The project plans now also contain the information requested by City Departments for review. New information includes:  pole structural calculations,  existing and proposed tree plantings,  tree protection measures,  surveys in some cases,  clarification of power and fiber connection points (aerial drop from pole for all but one node, which uses an underground vault for power and fiber instead of an aerial drop). 2.e Packet Pg. 62 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 1 7 R e p o r t t o A R B ( w i t h o u t a t t a c h m e n t s ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 The project plans indicate node locations and provide information about three equipment configurations. Proposed configurations contain some or all of the following equipment:  1 antenna,  3 radios,  1-2 electrical disconnect boxes,  Cabling,  Conduit,  Mounting assembly brackets, and  Emergency battery backup cabinet unit(s) (for the following four nodes only: Node 129, Node 131, Node 135, and Node 143), Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview The applicant requests the following discretionary approvals for each node location:  A Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility (Tier 3 WCF) Permit as outlined in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.42.110(h). Each small cell node must comply with or meet:  Development Standards, item (i) of PAMC Section 18.42.110 (Attachment C)  Conditions of Approval in PAMC Section 18.42.110(j),  Architectural Review findings in PAMC Section 18.76.020(d),  Conditional Use Permit (CUP) findings in PAMC Section 18.76.010(c), and  Additional requirements contained in the Master License Agreement and Undergrounding District requirements in PAMC Chapter 12.16. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve each Tier 3 WCF permit. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. Staff requests the ARB’s recommendations with respect to the Development Standards in PAMC Section 18.42.110(i) (Attachment C) and Architectural Review findings in PAMC Section 18.76.020(d) (Attachment D). 2.e Packet Pg. 63 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 1 7 R e p o r t t o A R B ( w i t h o u t a t t a c h m e n t s ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 Analysis3, 4 No staff recommendation is proposed at this time. However, to facilitate timely processing of the application and to provide the public an opportunity to provide comments in a public meeting, staff has scheduled this meeting. The Architectural Review Board is encouraged to consider the public testimony, this initial project analysis, and offer comments to the applicant. Federal Preemption & Radio Frequency (RF) Emissions Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, federal regulations preempt the state and local governments from regulating RF emissions generated by wireless communications facilities. The City’s authority in this area is limited to ensuring that a proposed installation complies with comprehensive emissions standards established by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). To this end, the city hired an Independent Consultant, Telecom Law Firm PC (“TLFPC”) to confirm the RF information submitted by the applicant. TLFPC evaluated the planned radio frequency emissions for each of the 15 proposed nodes based on:  antenna specifications,  sector directionality,  frequency, bands,  pole heights,  distances to adjacent 1-story and 2-story residences and  additional factors outlined in the TLFPC’s memos for each node. TLFPC also evaluated Verizon’s radio frequency safety engineering reports for each site produced by the applicant’s consultant, Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers. The TLFPC memos outline the height and distance of the control zone around each antenna and each node was found to comply with the FCC standards (Attachment E). Any further project design changes would need to be reevaluated for compliance with FCC standards. Noise The ambient noise environment is noted in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan EIR, and Municipal Code; it is referenced therein in goals, policies, requirements, and thresholds to address potential noise impacts from new development. Eleven (11) of the proposed nodes would not be a source of new ambient noise, since Configuration 3 does not include a fan 3 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. 4 The Palo Alto Municipal Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 2.e Packet Pg. 64 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 1 7 R e p o r t t o A R B ( w i t h o u t a t t a c h m e n t s ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 within a backup battery heat exchanger. However, the following four (4) proposed nodes listed in Table 2 may produce new ambient noise at unacceptable levels. Table 2: Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 1 Nodes with Noise Generating Equipment Node Adjacent Address Configuration CPAU Pole # SF PALO ALTO 129 2490 LOUIS ROAD Config 1 3121 SF PALO ALTO 131 891 ELBRIDGE WAY Config 2 3315 SF PALO ALTO 135 795 STONE LANE Config 2 3610 SF PALO ALTO 143 419 EL VERANO AVENUE Config 1 3867 These four nodes are under review with respect to the City’s Noise Ordinance and they might potentially conform to the Noise Ordinance for projects on public property; however, the Architectural Review Findings requires compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, which contains or relies upon additional noise policies and thresholds. In addition, the noise produced by these nodes may conflict with other Conditional Use Permit-related findings the Director must make. Any further project design changes would need to be reevaluated for consistency with the Noise Ordinance and with all noise-related Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and thresholds. Development Standards and Architectural Review Findings The City’s consultant TLFPC reviewed the proposed nodes with respect to the Development Standards of PAMC Section 18.42.110 regarding utilization of the smallest footprint possible, minimization of overall, mass, and size of the cabinet and equipment enclosure, minimization of visibility, utilization of stealth or camouflage design, and architectural compatibility. The TLFPC technical memorandums for each node are included as Attachment E. TLFPC concurred with the Planning Department that the applicant could:  Reduce the amount of pole mounted equipment by placing some in one or more small underground vaults at each node, unless site-specific conditions prevent it.  Reduce the standoff distance between the mounting assembly bracket and the utility pole.  Propose pole replacement to eliminate the need for the elongated bayonet.  Propose a shroud around the elongated bayonet if a safety code compliant design can be developed.  Propose a shroud for pole mounted equipment and wires to have a more streamlined cohesive look, but in a manner that does not increase the visual bulk of the site.  Paint the mounting assembly bracket, cabling, conduits, disconnect, and equipment to match the pole. Staff asserts that incorporating the items above into site specific design affords substantial reduction in the visual prominence of the project for the community over the life of the project. Further consideration should also be made regarding any node proposed for intersections/corners, any node with equipment oriented toward the direct view from a bikeway, any node with above-grade ground mounted equipment cabinets to address 2.e Packet Pg. 65 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 1 7 R e p o r t t o A R B ( w i t h o u t a t t a c h m e n t s ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 streetscape quality and reduce obstructions at the street level, any node adjacent to another wireless carrier, and any node with equipment immediately adjacent to a primary entrance walk to a residence. The September 12, 2017 project plans are included as Attachment F. TLFPC notes that the photo simulations provided by the applicant underrepresent the actual visual impact of the proposed site. For example, they do not depict the required RF signage and do not depict the cabling from the antenna canister to the equipment and between the equipment mounted on the assembly brackets. Further, in some instances, vehicles or other items in the simulations block depictions of equipment. TLFPC recommends that the applicant provide photo simulations from various angles depicting all the proposed installations from the top of the antenna and flush to grade. Regarding landscaping compliance and the further screening nodes from public view, the City’s Urban Forestry staff identified that it was possible plant ornamental trees in some locations on either or both sides of the wood utility poles. Such plantings could possibly help to interrupt direct views of pole mounted equipment, contribute to a more cohesive site specific design, and help maintain a residential neighborhood character. The applicant has coordinated with Urban Forestry staff to propose screen trees in the near vicinity of some nodes, as well as some larger street trees where spots are currently vacant. The applicant must submit site specific landscaping plans for plantings at the base of poles and around proposed ground mounted cabinets. Collocation 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 previously indicated that the following factors contributed toward their proposed siting and single carrier:  RF Design – Carries do not necessarily need small cells at the same pole locations because each carrier has its own coverage and capacity criteria.  Interference – antenna, 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 provide this separation.  Equipment – poles in the right of way are small and can support limited equipment. Placing additional equipment on the pole may exceed 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. Maximum Buildout It is important to note that, once a wireless facility is placed on a given pole, the Federal Spectrum Act allows for a streamlined process should a second carrier apply to collocate. Consequently and in order to promote transparency in the analysis process, the applicant is required by PAMC Section 18.42.110 to provide a study of the maximum build out permissible 2.e Packet Pg. 66 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 1 7 R e p o r t t o A R B ( w i t h o u t a t t a c h m e n t s ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13 by the Act. The applicant submitted a statement on maximum buildout within their project description, which is still under analysis. Environmental Review The project is under review 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. 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 Friday, November 24, 2017, which is 12 days in advance of the ARB meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on November 20, 2017 which is 17 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments Staff received a significant number of public comments and inquiries by telephone and email. Multiple members of the public have noted their preference to gather more information before commenting. Staff received comments of support and opposition. Supporters generally cited a desire for improved wireless coverage. Opposed persons generally cited concerns regarding aesthetics, noise, compatibility with nearby historic resources, consistency with the City’s undergrounding district policies, and radio frequency emissions/health and safety. Public correspondence received through noon on November 29, 2017 have been compiled and available online: bit.ly/WirelessLetters. Additional correspondence received after this time will be provided at ARB member at the December 7, 2017 meeting. Alternative Actions and Appeals of PCE Decisions Instead of the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may recommend: 1. Direct staff to return with the project with findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain prior to February 14, 2017; or 3. Recommend denial of the project based on findings suggested via an ARB motion. Report Author & Contact Information ARB5 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 Project Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Applicant Project Description (PDF) 5 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2.e Packet Pg. 67 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 1 7 R e p o r t t o A R B ( w i t h o u t a t t a c h m e n t s ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 14  Attachment C: Municipal Code Section 18.42.110 Wireless Communication Facilities (DOC)  Attachment D Municipal Code Section 18.76.020d Architectural Review Findings (DOCX)  Attachment E: Telecom Law Firm PC Memorandums, dated November 29, 2017 (PDF)  Attachment F: Project Plans September 12 2017 (DOCX) 2.e Packet Pg. 68 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : D e c e m b e r 7 , 2 0 1 7 R e p o r t t o A R B ( w i t h o u t a t t a c h m e n t s ) ( 8 6 3 2 : T i e r 3 W C F - V i n c u l u m s / V e r i z o n - C l u s t e r 1 ( 2 n d Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8910) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/15/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 2755 El Camino Real: Site and Design (2nd Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2755 El Camino Real [16PLN-00464]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Site and Design Review to Allow Construction of a 57 Unit Multi-family Residence at the Project Site. The Project Also Includes a Request for a Zoning Code Text Amendment Ordinance to Create a New Workforce Combining District and a Zoning Map Amendment Ordinance to Apply the New District to the Project Site. Council Will Consider These Ordinances Along With the Site and Design Review Application. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was Published for Public Comment on January 19, 2018 and Circulation Ended on February 20, 2018. Zoning District: Public Facilities (PF). For More Information Contact the Project Planner 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 included in Attachment K together with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan included in the Record of Land Use Action in Attachment B. 2. Recommend approval of the Site and Design Application to Council based on the findings and subject to conditions of approval included in the Record of Land Use Action in Attachment B. Report Summary The applicant requests approval of a four-story multi-family residential building with 57 3 Packet Pg. 69 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 dwelling units and one level of below grade parking. The project is intended to test the idea of smaller, “workforce” housing units in transit served areas and is located on a former VTA Park and Ride lot, which is zoned Pubic Facilities (PF) and designated as Major Institution/Special Facilities in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The project is subject to Site and Design review. The Major Institution/Special Facilities (MISP) land use designation allows for higher density multi-family housing close to transit centers. However, the City of Palo Alto Zoning Code does not currently allow multi-family housing on PF zoned properties. In addition, the project would not conform to the development standards of the PF zone district, particularly with respect to density or residential floor area. Therefore, the applicant also proposes the following legislative actions, which would be required to accommodate the proposed development: 1. Amendment of the Zoning Code to create a new combining district that could be applied to PF zoned properties within 0.5 miles of major fixed rail transit; and 2. Amendment of the Zoning Map to apply the new combining district to the subject site. The draft ordinances for these requested legislative actions are subject to the Planning and Transportation (PTC) and Council’s purview. Consistent with other development projects, the ARB’s recommendations focuses on whether the project is consistent with the ARB findings, which are outlined in Attachment B. Following preliminary reviews by the City Council, PTC, and ARB, the applicant has made a number of project changes, which are presented later in this report. The updated analysis section below reflects these changes. Key issues for the ARB to consider as they provide comments and a recommendation to the City Council include the following:  Consistency with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines  Consistency with the Context-based Design Criteria  Prominence of the corner entrance design  Relationship between the building and the street  Overall massing/articulation Background In October 2017, the City Council adopted the City’s Comprehensive Plan with updated transportation, land use, and housing policies. A week later, the Council endorsed a colleagues’ memo seeking to advance housing related policies to encourage diverse housing near jobs, transit and services (Attachment C). On February 12th, the Council endorsed a Housing Work Plan (https://tinyurl.com/Housing-Work-Plan) with some minor amendments. Included in this plan is a task to advance a workforce housing ordinance that eliminates unit densities and explores car-light housing projects near transit served areas. This project and the accompanying ordinances advance this housing policy. 3 Packet Pg. 70 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 The concept of the subject project and ordinance was discussed by the City Council in September 12, 2016 when it considered a prescreening application for the project. The subject project has been termed a “pilot” project to allow a workforce housing development and to evaluate the effectiveness of reaching the intended tenant mix, transportation demand management (TDM) strategies, and on-site parking at a ratio of approximately one space per unit. Such a project would necessarily require modification to base district zoning regulations. The subject application was filed in December 2016. The PTC conducted a study session on June 14, 2017 to provide preliminary feedback on the parameters of the Zoning Code Text Amendment and the Site and Design Application. The PTC subsequently reviewed the revised plans and the proposed ordinances on January 31, 2018 and recommended that Council approve both ordinances as well as the Site and Design application. The staff report from that meeting can be found online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63062. A video recording of the meeting is available at: http://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-63/. The ARB conducted a study session on June 15, 2017 to provide preliminary feedback on the proposed design. An earlier staff report, which includes background information on the site and the neighborhood context, is included in Attachment D. The complete report is also available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58267 and a video recording of the meeting is available at: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board- 64/. The Board’s comments and associated changes to the project are summarized in the following table. Staff’s analysis of these changes is included in the analysis section. ARB Comments/Direction Project Revisions Open Space: Several board members expressed concern about the podium open space at the rear of the building, which would be shaded by the proposed building and could create privacy concerns between the site and adjacent properties. Multiple board members indicated support for a rooftop deck to provide open space. The applicant has revised the project by removing the podium open space. Some open space is now provided at the rear of the building at grade and other space is provided on a rooftop deck located above the third level. Areas for landscape planting are also provided along the interior lot lines. Page Mill Road Streetscape: Board members expressed concern about the streetscape along Page Mill Road. Specifically, they commented on the proximity of the ground floor balconies to the public sidewalk and about the lack of articulation along the ground floor as the building transitioned toward the adjacent Silverwood complex. The streetscape along Page Mill Road has been revised. The previous design included a blank wall immediately abutting the sidewalk and with windows approximately six feet above grade. It also included patio areas for some of the first floor residents located behind an approximately one foot deep planter. The new design includes three feet of landscaping between the sidewalk and the planter along the length of the building as well as a planter of more 3 Packet Pg. 71 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 than three feet in depth along the length of the building. Ground floor balconies have been removed. Landscape Screening: Board members expressed concerns about the underground garage extending to the property line along the interior lot lines and how this affected landscaping. The basement has been redesigned to allow three to five feet of landscaping along all portions of the interior lot lines. Bicycle Parking: Several board members identified access to below grade bicycle parking as a significant concern. Many felt that the sloped driveway access to bike parking would be dangerous. One board member noted that short-term bicycle parking spaces would more likely be used for long-term bicycle parking given their convenience. Bicycle parking has been revised to be located at grade, as discussed further below. Vehicle Parking: Board members asked several questions about the lift parking and the functionality of the system. At least one board member noted that they would not be supportive of all spots being provided in a lift system configuration. Board members were not supportive of the tandem configuration. Several noted that there should be space for short-term pick-up and drop-off options (such as for uber/lyft or delivery services). Additional details regarding the lift parking systems are provided on Sheets 38 and 39 of the plans. Vehicle parking count, configuration, and the overall design of travel has been revised as discussed further below. Additional guest parking spaces have been added and a short-term pick- up/drop-off along El Camino Real is proposed. Roofline: Board members noted that the adjacent buildings have sloped roofs and felt that the project could be more responsive to the neighborhood if a roof, or appearance of a roof were provided given the neighborhood context. It was noted that the design did not provide clear distinction between the body and the roof, as recommended in the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The roofline has not been revised. See further discussion below under the analysis with respect to the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Exhaust Fan Tower: Board members expressed concern about the exhaust fan tower located one foot from the property line between the site and the adjacent Silverwood condominium complex. It was noted that this would likely discourage use of the corridor between the two sites. The exhaust fan has been removed and incorporated into the building design that vents to the roof. Massing and Floor Area: Board members The applicant revised the project to reduce 3 Packet Pg. 72 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 commented on the overall size of the project, recommending that the FAR and overall massing be reduced. One member noted that the dark brown stucco should be broken up more to reduce massing. the overall floor area ratio to 2.0:1 (previously 2.4:1) by reducing the size of some of the units, providing more studio units, and providing a total of 57 units versus the originally proposed 60 units. Revisions were made on all four sides of the building to break up the massing of the walls through articulation, changes in materials, the addition of windows, and the addition of vegetation/planters. Glass for Hallways: One board member noted that adding glass at the end of the long hallways would help to bring more natural light into the building. Additional glass has been added at the hallway ending along the interior lot line to bring more natural light into this hallway and break up massing. Glass has not been added for the hallway ending at the stairs along the rear of the building. Entrance: One board member noted that he liked the overall design but he felt the entrance at the corner of El Camino Real could be more prominent to really make a statement at this intersection. One commissioner voiced this same comment at the most recent hearing. It was also noted that the entrance doors were too small. The entrance has been redesigned to include more greenery, more bicycle parking, and create a better space through the use of planters and a bench. The curb at the corner would be tightened to create more space for pedestrians. Daylight/Air: Board members expressed concern about allowing reasonable daylight/air for adjacent residences. The building has been pulled back approximately 20 feet from the rear property line (previously about 6 feet), providing more space for daylight and air between the project site and the adjacent Silverwood condominium complex. The majority of the building paralleling the Sunrise Assisted Living complex is also set back more than 20 feet from the property line. Where it is closer than 20 feet at the second level (above the porte cochère), the third and fourth level are set back further. Project Description As shown in the plan set and discussed in the applicant’s project description in Attachments N and M respectively, the applicant is proposing to construct a 50-foot tall, four-story, multi- family apartment building that would include 40 studio units and 17 one-bedroom units (57 total units). A location map of the project site is included in Attachment A. 3 Packet Pg. 73 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 All units would be for rent (i.e. they would not be for sale as condominiums). Twelve (12) units would be deed restricted for a period of 99 years; six would be restricted at 140% of the County’s Average Median Income (AMI) and six would be restricted at 150% of AMI.1 Forty-five units would not be deed restricted, but would be designed to accommodate members of the local workforce. In addition to deed restricted units, the applicant would pay an affordable housing impact fee, estimated to be approximately $603,000. The building includes a below-grade parking garage with 64 parking spaces; 60 of these spaces would be provided via automated “puzzle parking” lift systems. Four additional at grade parking spaces are provided. A Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2.0:1 is proposed for the project. The applicant also proposes to dedicate an easement to the County of Santa Clara to allow for the future buildout of a right-hand turn lane and bike lane on Page Mill Road. Analysis2 The subject property is currently a vacant parking lot located at the northeastern corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. Adjacent zoning and land uses include the four-story Sunrise Assisted Living Senior Housing Facility to the northwest and the three-story Silverwood Condominium Complex to the northeast, both of which are located on parcels zoned Planned Community (PC). The PC Ordinance for these adjacent developments allow for a higher density, height, and FAR than what would have been allowed under the previous zoning regulations at these sites, which was CN and RM-40 for the Sunrise Assisted Living and RM-40 for the Silverwood Condominiums. Across El Camino Real is the PF zoned Mayfield Soccer Complex; across Page Mill Road there are retail uses, including a two-story AT&T building, and a recently approved mixed-use development project on parcels zoned Service Commercial (CS) at 425 Page Mill. The ten-story Palo Alto Square Office complex in the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road is zoned PC. Palo Alto Square and the nearby Stanford Research Park provide extensive employment opportunities within the City of Palo Alto. The project is located within 0.5 mile of the California Avenue Caltrain Station and within 200 feet of extensive VTA transit options (See Attachment E). Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans, and Guidelines3 The project site is designated ‘Major Institutions/Special Facilities’ in the Comprehensive Plan, 1 The AMI for a family of four is used as a baseline and is currently $113,300. However, for smaller units with one or two person occupancy, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) calculates median income at $79,300 and $80,560, respectively. As discussed later in this report, there is no standard definition of “workforce housing” in State law, however California Government Code Section 65008 defines “middle income housing” as 150 percent of the median in the County and this has been considered synonymous with the term workforce housing in the proposed ordinance. 2 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. 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 3 Packet Pg. 74 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 which is defined as “institutional, academic, governmental, and community service uses and lands that are either publicly owned or operated as non-profit organizations. Examples are hospitals and City facilities. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s encouragement of housing near transit centers, higher density multi-family housing may be allowed in specific locations.” Multi-family housing near a transit center would be consistent with this land use designation. Density allowances for housing within this land use designation are not defined. The subject property is not publicly owned or operated by a non-profit organization; it is privately owned. Goals and programs outlined in the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourage housing within proximity to public transit, employment opportunities, and commercial areas as well as a range in types of units to support the City’s fair share of regional housing needs. In particular, Housing Program H2.1.1 encourages consideration of amendments to the zoning code to allow high-density residential for mixed use or single use projects in commercial areas within one-half mile of fixed rail stations. The project would encourage high-density housing within one-half mile of transit and in close proximity to adjacent commercial uses, consistent with this program goal. In addition, Program H2.1.2 encourages high density residential development close to urban amentities and where there is sufficient roadway capacity. The proposed development would be located within close proximity to a wide variety of urban amenities, transit, and employment opportunities and there is sufficient roadway capacity. Comprehensive Plan Policies N-5.4 requires that all potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants be adequately buffered, or mechanically or otherwise mitigated, to avoid odor and toxic impacts that violate relevant human health standards. As discussed in the environmental analysis, Volatile Organic Compounds that may be present in the soils could be impactful to future residents if a vapor mitigation system is not installed in the subterranean garage. In addition Toxic Air Contaminant (TAC) screening levels were determined to exceed the Bay Area Air Quality Managagement District’s thresholds and could be impactful to future residents if not addressed. In order to ensure compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policy N- 5.4, conditions of approval 10 and 11 are included in the Record of Land Use Action. The findings in the draft Record of Land Use Action in Attachment B include a complete consistency analysis with the City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project, as conditioned, was found to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning Compliance4 The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) does not currently have a zoning designation that would allow for the proposed development. The project site is in the Public Facilities (PF) zone district. The PF district is designed to accommodate governmental, public utility, educational, and community service or recreational facilities. Multi-family housing is not a permitted or conditionally permitted use in the PF Zone District, though the new Comprehensive Plan encourages consideration of zoning amendments to encourage housing near transit centers. 4 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3 Packet Pg. 75 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 During the Council prescreening, some councilmembers expressed concerns regarding rezoning the site from a PF Zone. In response to this concern, the applicant has proposed to maintain the underlying zoning of the site but has requested a Zoning Code Text Amendment to create a new combining district that would permit residential uses in the PF Zone and test strategies for development of workforce housing. Provided City Council adopts the Zoning Code Text Amendments to establish the workforce combining district and apply the combining district to the project site, the proposed project would comply with all applicable requirements outlined in the municipal code. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the development standards of the new combining district is included in Attachment F. The PTC has recommended support for, and Council will consider, the proposed ordinances following ARB recommendation on the Site and Design application. Staff is addressing minor revisions to the Zoning Code Text Amendment ordinance based on additional input from members of the public and the PTC during the PTC hearing in January, which will be included in the staff report for Council. These revisions would not affect the site design or the project’s consistency with the regulations that would be established under the new zoning code text amendment. Context-based Design Criteria The text for the new combining district would require compliance with the context-based design criteria for multi-family residential developments, which are outlined in PAMC Section 18.13.060. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the context-based design criteria is included in Attachment G. As detailed in the analysis, the proposed project provides appropriate transitions between adjacent uses, which are similar in nature and/or complement the proposed use. Parking is provided primarily below-grade and designed to avoid views of parking from the public right-of-way as well as adjacent uses. It should be noted that several improvements were made since the June 2017 ARB hearing to improve the project’s consistency with the context-based design criteria. In particular, the landscaping along Page Mill Road provides better separation between ground floor residences and the public right-of- way while also improving the pedestrian experience by breaking up massing through the addition of vegetation (trees, grass, and planters) and better defining the base and body of the structure while still maintaining evidence of habitation. However, the project could still be more consistent with criterion 1, “massing and building facades,” in that the ground floor of the building does not include many windows or doors on the ground floor that are oriented toward El Camino Real and the roof line does not accentuate significant elements of the building such as the entry. Although further design considerations could be made for greater consistency with this criterion, staff believes that the findings for consistency with this criterion can be made, as outlined in Attachment G. Therefore, staff concludes that the project, on balance, is consistent with the context-based design criteria. Performance Criteria The text for the new combining district requires compliance with the performance criteria, consistent with the intent of PAMC Section 18.23.010, which requires the criteria for all developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. A detailed review of the 3 Packet Pg. 76 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 project’s consistency with the Performance Criteria is included in Attachment H. As detailed in the analysis, the proposed project appropriately locates noise producing equipment and the refuse enclosure so as to reduce noise and vibration; provides parking below grade; improves vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle access at and around the site; and provides appropriate lighting, consistent with the performance criteria. Therefore, staff concludes that the project is consistent with the performance criteria. South El Camino Real Design Guidelines and El Camino Real Design Guidelines The project is subject to the requirements of both the South El Camino Real and El Camino Real Design Guidelines and the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. In addition, this site is located within the California Avenue Strategic Site Pedestrian-Oriented Node and is specifically identified as a “strategic site for implementation of the City’s vision of El Camino Real, serving as a critical anchor for extending the momentum of the California Avenue intersection down to Page Mill Road.” The guidelines note that buildings on the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real should feature a prominent corner, extensive windows, and pedestrian amenities such as canopies, seating, and planters. In addition, it states that the former VTA site, in particular, should be redeveloped with a more intensive use of the site, and that a mixed-use building with structured/subsurface parking would be desirable. The proposed project does not include a mixed-use building but proposes a more intensive use of the site in a manner that is consistent with other City housing goals. A complete analysis of the project’s consistency with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines is included in Attachment I. On balance staff believes the project to be consistent with the El Camino Real design guidelines. However, staff noted that the following changes could improve the project’s consistency with specific sections of the guidelines:  Guidelines Section 3.3.4: The transformer could be better screened; however, staff notes that the applicant has made significant revisions based on staff’s comments to reduce the visibility of the transformer by moving it from the frontage along El Camino Real to the rear of the building along Page Mill Road. Given the required clearance space for the transformer and City of Palo Alto utility’s restrictions on the placement of the transformer, further screening of the transformer would be difficult. All other equipment, including noise producing equipment such as HVAC is screened.  Guidelines Section 4.1.5: The project could have more clear definition between the base, body and roof. However, it is noted that revisions such as the addition of the roof deck above the third level, revisions to building setbacks, the addition of planters and other greenery, and changes to the driveway entrance have improved the overall definition between the base, body, and the roof.  Guideline Section 4.3.2: Greater transparency could be provided along the El Camino Real façade. Staff had also suggested in the PTC staff report that improvements to the design could be made for consistency with Guidelines Section 3.3.3 by further breaking up massing above the porte 3 Packet Pg. 77 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 cochère and above the main entrance. The plans submitted since the PTC review include additional windows above the porte cochère facing the interior lot line and a change in material above the entrance to break up these walls. Although staff would prefer additional greenery to help break up the massing, these also serve to reduce massing in these identified locations and improve consistency with this section of the guidelines. The project is also consistent with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. In particular, automobile parking and HVAC equipment is screened from the public right-of-way, the project does not use bright colors intended to attract attention, there is not superfluous detail added in the architecture, and perimeter landscaping as well as the required good neighbor fence is provided. Open Space Design As noted previously, board members expressed concerns for the podium open space design and shaded open space area. The revised plans have addressed these concerns by eliminating the podium design for open space and perimeter landscaping. Much of the open space area is now provided on a roof deck above the third floor. Privacy is still maintained for adjacent residences at the Silverwood Condominium by providing landscaping along the northeastern edge of the deck area for screening. The deck also helps to break up the massing along Page Mill Road as well as at the rear of the property facing the Silverwood Condominiums and the height limit is still maintained. Parking In response to input from the ARB, PTC and Council, vehicle parking has been revised significantly. The previous plans included 45 parking spaces for a total of 60 units (30 studio and 30 one bedroom units). The current plans include 68 parking spaces for 57 units, including 40 studio units and 17 one bedroom units. Under conventional zoning code requirements, the proposed development would require 94 parking spaces (75 parking spaces for residents [1.25 per studio and 1.5 per one-bedroom] and 19 parking spaces for guests [33 percent if parking is assigned]), which could be reduced by up to a 30 percent using available adjustments, for a total of 65 spaces. Where all spaces were previously provided in a lift system, some spaces have now been provided outside the lift system for guest parking to address comments from the ARB. The workforce housing combining district regulations would require one space per unit, including guest parking. The applicant proposes a total of 68 parking spaces in total, equivalent to 1.2 spaces per unit, which exceeds this requirement. Sixty-four (64) of these spaces are provided below grade and four are provided at grade. In accordance with condition of approval 12, six spaces would be provided for guests, including two within the lift system and four at grade. Parking Design Sixty of the vehicle spaces are provided via three individual lift systems located below-grade. The separate lift systems allow for concurrent use of the different lifts so that more than one 3 Packet Pg. 78 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 car can park or be retrieved at a given time. PAMC Section 18.54.020(b) allows for off-street parking to be provided via a lift system when used for multi-family residential uses. Based on previous comments from the ARB, the lifts have been redesigned so that the systems do not include tandem spaces. The project is consistent with parking screening requirements and lift stall size requirements outlined in this section of the code. In accordance with PAMC Section 18.54.020(b)(4)(D), additional information is required to be submitted to address proposed maintenance, emergency procedures, and backup systems for the lift system. Condition of Approval 13 is included to address this requirement. Bicycle Parking A total of 57 long-term and six short-term bike parking spaces are required under the PAMC and would continue to be required with the combining district overlay. The applicant is providing 69 long-term bike parking spaces, including one cargo bicycle parking space, and sixteen short-term spaces, an increase in both in comparison to the previous plans. All bicycle parking is provided at grade, consistent with board member’s recommendations, making it more easily accessible and convenient for residents to use. Overall the number of bicycle parking spaces, both short term and long term have increased Multi-Modal Access The project proposes right-turn in/right-turn out access on El Camino Real via a drive aisle leading to four at grade parking spaces for guest parking and 64 below grade parking spaces. The proposed vehicular site access is in approximately the same location as the existing site access along El Camino Real and the curb cut at Page Mill Road would be removed. The main entrance is at grade, making it pedestrian and bicycle friendly. The applicant has proposed to dedicate for public access a portion of the existing property to the County of Santa Clara and to upgrade the curb to facilitate future improvements proposed by the County. These improvements include adding a new right-turn lane, which would help to reduce congestion at this intersection, as well as a new bicycle lane, improving safety for cyclists. Additional curb improvements are proposed at the corner of Page Mill and El Camino to tighten the curb radius, thereby allowing for more sidewalk space and calming traffic turning onto El Camino Real. This change also reduces pedestrian crossing time at this intersection. This change would not negatively affect any current or planned bicycle lanes, nor would it affect traffic patterns on El Camino, which is already wide enough to allow parking and a bus stop in front of the project site. As discussed in the TIA and shown in the project plans, the project will also improve the existing bus stop along the El Camino Real frontage, placing it slightly closer to the intersection, which was agreed upon in coordination with VTA. An improved bus stop bench with a shelter is also proposed by the applicant to replace the existing bus stop bench. A space for easy pick-up and drop-off for transportation network companies (e.g, lyft and uber) or delivery services will be provided immediately north of the drive aisle on El Camino in the location of the existing bus stop. The Traffic Impact Analysis is included as Appendix G of the environmental analysis in 3 Packet Pg. 79 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 Attachment K. As summarized in this analysis and incorporated into the environmental analysis, the project would not have a significant impact on traffic or circulation. Transit Demand Management A Draft Transit Demand Management (TDM) Program is included in Attachment J. The TDM program includes the following key components:  Caltrain GoPasses for all residents  Valley Transit Authority EcoPasses for all residents  Bicycles for resident use  Carpool Matching Services  Parking unbundled from the housing unit  Stipend ($100 monthly) to use toward transportation network companies (e.g. uber, Lyft) for those that do not own a car In addition to what is proposed in the TDM program, the City’s transportation division has included Conditions of Approval of the project outlining additional components that must be included in the TDM program. The URBEMIS model is used to analyze estimated potential trip reductions. As outlined in the TIA, a nine percent reduction in vehicle trips is assumed in accordance with Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority‘s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines based on the project’s proximity to transit. As stated in the TDM plan prepared by Nelson Nygaard, the TDM plan is anticipated to reduce vehicle trips by an additional 35 percent. The local preference required in accordance with the new ordinance would likely further reduce single-occupancy vehicle use and VMT by requiring the applicant to lease to tenants based on proximity of the housing to the resident’s place of employment. Consistency with Application Findings As outlined in Attachment B, Record of Land Use Action, the project is consistent with the Architectural review findings. In particular, the proposed development activates a high-visibility corner of the City within an identified transit-oriented pedestrian node along El Camino Real, converting a paved parking lot to a high-density multi-family residential use. The use of the site is consistent with goals outlined in the comprehensive plan for the City, which generally encourage housing in transit-oriented locations. As discussed above, staff also finds the project to be consistent with the context based design criteria, performance criteria, and the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The PTC has also found the project to be consistent with the Site and Design findings included in Attachment B, which are included for the ARB’s reference. 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, a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was 3 Packet Pg. 80 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13 circulated on January 19, 2018 and circulation ended on February 20, 2018. The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration is included in Attachment K. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan is included as Exhibit A in the Record of Land Use Action in Attachment B. Mitigation has been included, in particular, to reduce construction noise; to ensure the safety of workers and nearby residents from contaminants that may be present in soils; and to ensure the proper treatment of any cultural or tribal cultural resources in the unlikely event that they are found to present during construction. With the incorporation of mitigation, all impacts have been reduced to a less than significant level. It should be noted that the proposed project, as designed, would not have a significant impact on traffic circulation. However, a retail commercial or office use in this same location would command increased parking and likely result in increased single-occupancy vehicle trips to the area, which would be more impactful on traffic than the proposed project. 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 March 2, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on February 28, 2018 which is 15 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments Twelve oral comments were received during the prescreening with Council on September 12, 2016. The minutes from the prescreening hearing include a transcript of these oral comments and can be found here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54337. Some comments expressed support for the project primarily due to its contribution to new housing stock within the City. Comments that expressed concerns related primarily to traffic impacts, parking (both parking loss and concerns with reduced parking for the units), rezoning from a public facilities zoning, and the project’s inconsistency with the adjacent condominiums. Two additional oral comments were received during the PTC hearing on June 14, 2017 and no public comments were received during the ARB study session on June 15, 2017. Comments received during the PTC hearing are included in the transcript from the hearing at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61559. At the formal PTC hearing on January 31, 2018 there were an additional fifteen speakers expressing various opinions about the project and the proposed ordinances, many of which were similar in nature to the comments received at Council in 2016. A Transcript of these oral comments can be found here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp. An additional 137 written comments (including one comment letter signed by 123 individuals) were received regarding the proposed project. Several comments noted concerns related to re- zoning of the property and parking/traffic and several t expressed general support for some of the ideas but offered advice as to other considerations that should be required as part of the 3 Packet Pg. 81 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 14 proposal. The other 124 comments expressed support for the project and urged the support of additional transit-oriented housing. These written comments are included in Attachment L. 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 the project be denied based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB5 Liaison & Contact Information Claire Hodgkins, Associate 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: Draft Record of Land Use Action (DOCX)  Attachment C: Colleagues Memo (PDF)  Attachment D: June 15, 2017 ARB Staff Report w/o Attachments (PDF)  Attachment E: Public Transportation Map (PDF)  Attachment F: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment G: Context-Based Design Criteria (DOCX)  Attachment H: Performance Criteria Consistency (DOCX)  Attachment I: South El Camino Real Design Guidelines (DOCX)  Attachment J: Transit Demand Management Plan (PDF)  Attachment K: Environmental Analysis (DOCX)  Attachment L: Public Comments (PDF)  Attachment M: Project Description (PDF)  Attachment N: Project Plans (DOCX) 5 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 82 2 A B GRANT AVENUE SHERIDAN AVENUE PEPPER AVENUE PAGE MILL ROAD PAGE MILL ROAD EL CAMINO REAL PAGE MILL ROAD EL CAMINO REALEL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL F S3) PF CN CN PC-2293 PC-4354 PC-4463 PC- R GM CS PC-4831 CS(D) This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Special Setback abc Known Structures Tree (TR) abc Zone District Notes Zone Districts Curb Edge abc Zone District Labels Project Site 0'126' 2755 El Camino Real CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2018-01-19 10:36:09 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\chodgki.mdb) 3.a Packet Pg. 83 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : L o c a t i o n M a p ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Attachment B APPROVAL NO. 2018- RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 2755 EL CAMINO REAL: SITE AND DESIGN REVIEW, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN [FILE NO 16PLN-00434] On , 2018, the City Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approved the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as well as the Site and Design Review to allow construction of a multi-family residential housing building totaling 39,220 square feet (sf) with both below and at-grade parking located at 2755 El Camino Real making the following findings, determination, and declarations: SECTION 1. BACKGROUND. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On December 23, 2016, Windy Hill Property Venture applied for a Site and Design review [16PLN-00464] for the development of an exclusively multi-family residential building on a 0.449 acre parcel (APN 132-36-084) to replace a vacant parking lot formerly used by the Valley Transit Authority (VTA) as a park- and-ride lot. Surrounding uses include office, retail, public recreation (soccer fields), and multi-family residential housing primarily in areas Zoned Planned Community (PC). B. Staff has determined that, with adoption of the Ordinance in Attachment C, which creates a new Workforce Housing Combining District under 18.30(J) and applies that combining district to the project site at 2755 El Camino Real through a Zoning Map Amendment, the proposed project is in compliance with the applicable development standards of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. C. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project and considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) and recommended adoption of the MND, approval of the MMRP, and approval of the Site and Design on January 31, 2017 subject to conditions of approval. D. Following staff and Planning and Transportation Commission review the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the project and considered the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) and recommended adoption of the MND, approval of the MMRP on March 15, 2018 subject to conditions of approval. E. On , 2018, the City Council reviewed the project design and the MND and MMRP. After hearing public testimony, the Council voted to approve the Site and Design subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of this Record of Land Use Action. SECTION 2. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan approved by the City Council on , 2018. The Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment with mitigation as proposed. The MND is available for review in Attachment K and all mitigation measures as stated in the approved Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. The MMRP is included in Exhibit A of this Record of Land Use Action. 3.b Packet Pg. 84 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) SECTION 3. SITE AND DESIGN OBJECTIVE FINDINGS. The project is consistent with the Site and Design Objective Findings outlined in Chapter 18.30(G).060 of the PAMC. Objective (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. Surrounding uses immediately adjacent to the site include a high density multi-family residential condominium complex and a high density senior living facility both zoned Planned Community (PC). Uses across Page Mill Road and El Camino Real include soccer fields as well as office and retail uses, including Palo Alto Square and the nearby Stanford Research Park, both of which provide extensive job opportunities within the City of Palo Alto. The project site is also located within close proximity (200 feet or less) of extensive bus services provided primarily by the Valley Transit Authority (VTA) as well as within 0.5 miles of the California Avenue Caltrain Station. The proposed project is consistent with Objective A because it provides high density housing in an area adjacent similar high density uses as well as in close proximity to transit opportunities, services, and job opportunities, consistent with several goals and policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Use of this transit- oriented site for multi-family residential housing with lower parking requirements reduces anticipated traffic that would be generated from most other potential uses of the site such as office or retail. Given the high volume of traffic at this intersection and high density uses surrounding the site, this use would be very compatible with other adjacent uses. In addition, most parking is provided below ground and vegetation screening space is provided between the project and adjacent sites. The project also dedicates land needed by the County of Santa Clara to develop a long-sought right-hand turn lane from Page Mill Road onto El Camino Real and a potential future bike lane along Page Mill Road. Revisions to the curb along El Camino Real and Page Mill would also create a tighter turn radius to slow traffic turning onto El Camino Real and provide more sidewalk area, making the intersection safer for pedestrians. The street trees, wider sidewalk area, vegetation planting on site, and improved bus stop also improve the pedestrian experience at this corner. The building also activates this corner, a long-sought goal in the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines for the continuation of the pedestrian experience between pedestrian nodes and corridors. Therefore, construction and operation of the use would be in a manner that is orderly, harmonious and compatible with existing developed uses of adjoining and nearby sites. Objective (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. As currently zoned, the project site has limited uses and the site continues to be used as a vacant parking lot for surplus parking. High density multi-family housing in close proximity to existing business would generate greater use of retail services and provide opportunities for nearby office employees to live in close proximity to work, ensuring the desirability of investment, as well as the conduct of business and research in adjacent areas. Further, workforce housing, as proposed by the applicant, provides an opportunity for more affordable housing for those that would typically have to live and spend money in nearby cities with more affordable housing opportunities. Objective (c): To ensure that sound principles of environmental design and ecological balance shall be observed. The proposed project is consistent with Objective C in that the project situates housing in a location close to extensive transit opportunities as well as adjacent retail and office uses, which helps to reduce vehicle miles traveled from the project site. An extensive Transit Demand Management plan also encourages increased transit use, providing VTA EcoPasses and the Caltain GoPass to all residents, as well as a bike share program, carpool matching services, and other services. It includes reduced parking that is unbundled, in order to discourage residents from having more than one vehicle, again reducing overall vehicle miles traveled to and from the project site. The building is also designed to comply with Calgreen Tier 2 requirements and includes drought resistant, low water-use plantings. The project will comply with C3 and MWELO requirements. Although several trees on site are planned to be removed, none are protected and more trees will be added. 3.b Packet Pg. 85 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Objective (d): To ensure that the use will be in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project is consistent with Objective D in that the project promotes medium density residential development within the El Camino Real corridor and areas in close proximity to transit. As outlined in Table 1 below, the project is consistent with several policies and goals outlined in the Housing Element, Natural Element, Land Use and Design Element, and Transportation Element. With implementation of conditions of approval, which require design features to reduce exposure to air contaminants from the California-Olive-Emerson plume and air contaminants from vehicles and generators on El Camino Real, the project would be consistent with Policy N-5.4, which requires that toxic air contaminants be mitigated. Therefore, the proposed use of the site, with the conditions of approval, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Table 1: Comprehensive Plan Analysis 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 Major Institution/Special Facilities (MISP) In accordance with the 2017 Comprehensive Plan Update, appropriate land uses in the MISP designation include higher density multi-family residential uses in some locations, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s encouragement of housing near transit centers. The proposed development includes a high density multi- family residential use on a site zoned MISP that is located in close proximity to extensive VTA transit opportunities and within 0.5 mile of a Caltrain station stop. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this land use designation. Housing Element Policy H2.1: Identify and implement strategies to increase housing density and diversity, including mixed-use development and a range of unit styles, near community services. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and mixed-income housing to support the City’s fair share of the regional housing needs and to ensure that the City’s population remains economically diverse. The proposed municipal code amendment included as part of the project would eliminate the maximum housing density requirement for projects on PF zoned parcels within specific transit oriented areas. The proposed development includes 57 small sized residential units in a transit rich area with nearby community services. It also includes a workforce housing component which would make at least some of the units more affordable to residents. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this policy. Program H2.1.1: To allow for higher density residential development, consider amending the zoning code to permit high-density residential in mixed-use or single use projects in commercial areas within one-half a mile of fixed rail stations and to allow limited exceptions to the 50-foot height limit for Housing Element Sites within one- quarter mile of fixed rail stations. The project includes an amendment to the zoning code to permit high density residential on PF Zoned properties. The project site is located adjacent to the California Avenue Business District and within one-half a mile of fixed rail transit. Therefore, the project is consistent with this program. 3.b Packet Pg. 86 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Program H2.1.2: Allow increased residential densities and mixed use development only where adequate urban services and amenities, including roadway capacity, are available. The project allows for increased residential densities in close proximity to urban services and amenities. Additionally, the project will improve the existing road conditions by dedicated a new right turn lane. Program H2.1.4: Amend the Zoning Code to create zoning incentives that encourage the development of smaller, more affordable housing units, including units for seniors, such as reduced parking requirements for units less than 900 square feet and other flexible development standards. The proposed code amendment would eliminate the maximum density requirements for exclusively residential projects in some areas while still limiting FAR and height in order to encourage the development of smaller, more affordable housing units. Other flexible development standards include such things as reduced parking requirements in comparison to current standards and more flexibility in setbacks based on adjacent uses. Program H2.1.10: As part of planning for the future of El Camino Real, explore the identification of pedestrian nodes consistent with the South El Camino Design Guidelines, with greater densities in these nodes than in other areas. The project is located in one of the key nodes identified in the South El Camino Real design guidelines as a target area for improving pedestrian connections and increasing pedestrian activity. The proposed project would increase density at this node consistent with this policy. Land Use and Community Design Element Policy L-1.1: Limit future Urban development to currently development lands within the urban service area. The proposed project includes urban development for a desired use within the city within the urban service area. Policy L-1.5: Encourage land uses that address the needs of the community and manage change and development to benefit the community. The project encourages the development of multi-family housing units that are smaller and that include a workforce housing component in order to make housing more affordable. More affordable housing addresses a need of the community. The project, including the ordinance and the development, is also designed to reduce single-occupancy vehicle use, a benefit to the community. Policy L-2.3: As a key component of a diverse, inclusive community, allow and encourage a mix of housing types and sizes designed for a greater affordability, particularly smaller housing types, such as studios, cottages, clustered housing… The proposed project includes smaller, and therefore presumably more affordable, units. Although this housing time may not be desirable to all types of residents, it includes housing sought by some demographics, for example, young tech workers that may be employed nearby at Stanford Research Park. Therefore, the project is consistent with this policy. Program L2.4.7: Explore mechanisms for increasing multi-family housing density near multi-modal transit centers. Support the creation of affordable housing units for middle to lower income level earners, such as City and school district employees, as feasible. The project is a mechanism for increasing multi-family housing near multi-modal transit centers. Although the project as proposed does not include a preference to specific employees, it includes housing units offered at lower than market rate prices and includes preference for local employees or students. 3.b Packet Pg. 87 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Policy L-3.4: Ensure that new multi-family buildings, entries and outdoor spaces are designed and arranged so that each development has a clear relationship to a public street. The proposed development includes an entry located on the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road, activating the corner in a manner consistent with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The planned outdoor space also increases eyes on the street. Policy L-4.13: Recognize El Camino Real as both a local serving and regional serving corridor, defined by a mix of commercial uses and housing. The project includes proposed housing in an area with extensive service and office uses along El Camino Real. Policy L-6.1: Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The project is located in an area with adjacent, similar, high density residential uses as well as extensive services and employment opportunities. The project includes landscape screening between uses and is oriented toward the street with parking provided below ground or behind the building. Therefore the project is compatible with surrounding development. Policy L-9.2: Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the project, including by locating it behind buildings or underground wherever possible…encourage other alternatives to surface parking lots that minimize the amount of land devoted to paring while still maintaining safe streets, street trees, a vibrant local economy and sufficient parking to meet demand. The project creatively integrates parking by providing it primarily underground, with a few at-grade parking spaces provided for guest use behind the building. The project looks at appropriate parking requirements based on the use and encourages the minimization of parking in transit-oriented areas, offering a robust TDM program and methods to both discourage use of a car while encouraging use of alternate transportation. Therefore, the project is consistent with this policy. Transportation Element Policy T-1.3: Reduce GHG and pollutant emissions associated with transportation by reducing VMT and per-mile emissions through increasing transit options and through the use of zero-emission vehicle technologies to meet City and State goals for GHG reductions by 2030. The proposed project encourages transit-oriented development and preference to local employees/students/retired individuals to reduce overall vehicle miles traveled. Policy T-1.9: Continue to encourage the provisions of amenities such as seating, lighting and signage, including real-time arrival information, at bus and shuttle stops and train stations to increase rider comfort, safety and convenience. The project includes improvements to the existing bus VTA bus stop in front of the project site. Policy T1.19.1: Provide facilities that encourage and support bicycling and walking. The proposed development encourages and supports bicycling and walking by providing housing in a transit oriented location close to nearby services and employment. It also includes both long-term and short- term bicycle parking that is provided at grade and includes a robust TDM plan that includes transit passes and other methods to encourage alternative methods of transportation. 3.b Packet Pg. 88 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Policy T-3.11: Consider the objectives of the Grand Boulevard Initiative and the South El Camino Boulevard Design Guidelines when designing roadway and pedestrian improvements along El Camino Real. The proposed project includes increased street trees, wider sidewalks, a tighter curb radius, and overall activates the corner in a manner that is consistent with specific goals outlined in the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines for this specific site. The above mentioned right-of-way improvements are called out as encouraged improvements the Green Boulevard initiative and the South ECR Guidelines. Therefore, the project is consistent with these policies. Policy T-5.1: All new development projects should manage parking demand generated by the project, without the use of on-street parking, consistent with the established parking regulations. As demonstrated parking demand decreases over time, paring requirements for new construction should decrease. Program T5.1.1: Evaluate the need to update parking standards in the municipal code, based on local conditions, different user’s needs and baseline parking need. Allow the use of parking lifts for office/R&D and multi-family housing as appropriate. Program T5.1.4: Study the feasibility of unbundled parking for…multi-family residential developments that are well-served by transit and demonstrated walking and bicycle connections Based on research of other similar projects in the region, including one within the City of Palo Alto transit oriented development is demanding lower parking requirements than those currently identified by the City of Palo Alto. The proposed project includes reduced parking requirements that are still projected to be higher than the actual project need. The project includes unbundled parking in order to further discourage residents from owning a vehicle and encourage their use of provided, free transit services. Program T6.6.6: Improve pedestrian crossings by creating protected areas and better pedestrian and traffic visibility. Use a toolbox including blub outs, small curb radii, high visibility crosswalks and landscaping. The project includes improvements to the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road the provide for more visibility for pedestrians while also serving to calm traffic turning onto El Camino Real from Page Mill Road. Therefore, the project is consistent with this program. 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 all public works engineering requirements with respect to soil management prior to and during construction to ensure that stormwater runoff does not degrade water quality in the area. Policy N-21: Reduce pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities. 3.b Packet Pg. 89 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) SECTION 4. ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD 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: As detailed above under Objective D of the Site and Design Findings, the proposed project is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. In particular, the Comprehensive Plan Housing Element emphasizes the need to explore and implement strategies that increase housing densities in close proximity to services as well as in close proximity to transit. The Housing Element also encourages amendments to the zoning code to create zoning incentives that encourage the development of smaller, more affordable housing units such as reduced parking requirements for units less than 900 square feet. The proposed project includes smaller units, a workforce housing component, and reduced parking requirements with unbundled parking, all of which serve to make units more affordable and available to local workers. The proposed project requires Zoning Code Text Amendments to create a new combining district as well as a Zoning Map Amendment to apply that combining district to the project site as detailed in the staff report. With adoption of the ordinance in Attachment B, the proposed project would be consistent with the zoning code. There are no coordinated area plans that encompass the project site. The proposed project is consistent with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines, the performance criteria in PAMC Section 18.23 and the context-based design criteria for multi-family housing. Although not a requirement, the project is also consistent with recommendations outlined in the Grand Boulevard Initiative for development along El Camino Real, an initiative led by Caltrans. 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 proposed development activates a high-visibility corner of the City within an identified transit-oriented pedestrian node along El Camino Real, converting a completely paved parking lot to a high-density multi- family residential use and thereby enhancing living conditions on the site. The proposed development includes a four- story building with 57 units. Adjacent uses include high density residential condominiums and senior living complexes that are zoned PC. These are three and four stories high, respectively, and therefore similar in height to the proposed development. Across El Camino and Page Mill the Palo Alto Square Complex is ten stories in height. Landscape screening is provided between adjacent uses and above grade portions of the building are set back approximately 20 feet or more in most locations from the adjacent development. Therefore, the proposed project provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land sues and land use designations. The existing conditions on site include some non- native species of trees that would be replaced with lower water use trees and landscaping. As discussed above, outlined in the staff report, and detailed in Attachment G, the proposed project is consistent with the 3.b Packet Pg. 90 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) context-based design criteria of the applicable zoning district. The design of the proposed project also creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community in that it includes increased perimeter landscaping along the street and interior lot lines, activates the corner with a clearly defined entrance, provides extensive at grade bicycle parking to encourage bicycle use, and provides for housing close to transit, services and job opportunities. Although the total amount of open space is lower than what is typically required, the space provided is quality and appropriate for the site, based on its location. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The design is of high aesthetic quality, utilizing quality materials and incorporating greenery, where appropriate to reduce massing. The colors are not bright, in accordance with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines, and the main entry, sidewalks, and landscaping reinforce the pedestrian scale of the project. The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site as discussed further under criteria #2. Construction techniques avoid the use of pile driving, opting for less noise alternatives to construction of the below-grade parking, as discussed further in the environmental analysis. 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 proposed project design is functional and allows for ease and safety of vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Specifically the project includes all bicycle parking at grade and includes shared bicycles for resident’s use. In addition, the project includes pedestrian friendly features such as wider sidewalks and a tighter curb radius at the corner of Page Mill and El Camino, which provide better safety and visibility for pedestrians. It also includes a TDM program to incentivize use of transit and makes improvements to a bus stop currently located at the site. The property includes vehicle access to the site in the same location it is currently provided. As outlined in the Traffic Impact Analysis, this location is appropriate to ensure the safe circulation of vehicles entering and exiting onto El Camino Real. Most parking is provided below grade and lift system parking has been provided in three separate systems to allow for multiple cars to be accessed simultaneously. The open space is proposed in a manner that helps to reduce massing and increases eyes on the street. Specific signage is not proposed as part of the project; however, the proposed concept for signage shows that it would be pedestrian oriented. 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 building materials, textures and colors are complimentary to the environmental setting and the landscape design utilizes drought tolerant and native plants that are appropriate to the site. 3.b Packet Pg. 91 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) All of the plant material proposed will be drought tolerant and locally adaptive to the region. The planting plan will comply with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and water budget, to include MAWA and ETWU calculations. Native species will be included and used appropriately as well as a few non-native species to reflect suitable site conditions and hydrozones. The extensive number of proposed trees would provide desirable habitat for avian species as well as screening in desired locations on site. Low waste, drip irrigation for shrub planting and bubblers for trees will be the standard of care for irrigation procedures 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. The project will use low water-use, drought resistant plants and will comply with C3 and MWELO requirements. SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval. PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "2755 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, California,” stamped as received by the City on February 20, 2018 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. 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. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program associated with the project and attached here as Exhibit A is incorporated by reference and all mitigation measures shall be implemented as described in such document. 6. WORKFORCE HOUSING: The applicant shall lease 10 percent of the units, for a total of six (6) units, at 140% of Area Median Income (AMI) and shall lease 10 percent of the units, for a total of six (6) units, at 150% of AMI. As required in accordance with the 18.30(J).090, all workforce housing units provided shall be subject to a deed of trust, and/or regulatory agreement recorded against the property for execution by the City Manager in a form approved by the City Attorney, to ensure the continued affordability of the workforce housing units. All workforce housing units shall remain affordable to the targeted income group for 99 years. 3.b Packet Pg. 92 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 7. ENFORCEMENT OF WORKFORCE HOUSING RESTRICTIONS AND LOCAL PREFERENCE: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant and the Director of Planning and Community Environment shall agree to a process for monitoring, reporting, and validating workforce housing obligation in compliance with Condition of Approval 6 as well as the preferential leasing requirements, as required in compliance with the workforce housing combining district ordinance. The applicant shall monitor and report on these requirements, as agreed upon, annually for no less than five years. After three (5) years of successful monitoring, the applicant may request, in writing, from the Director of Planning and Community Environment a modified reporting schedule for compliance. 8. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT: The applicant shall implement the approved TDM plan in order to achieve the goal of reducing motor vehicle trips to the site by a minimum of 35%. As outlined in the plan, the applicant shall submit monitoring reports to the Transportation Division to show compliance. Where the monitoring reports indicate that performance measures are not met, the director may require program modifications and may impose administrative penalties if identified deficiencies are not addressed within six months. 9. PENALTIES FOR NON-COMPLIANCE: Failure to meet any code requirements or conditions of approval of this project shall result in non-compliance and are subject to the City of Palo Alto’s Administrative Penalty Schedule. 10. TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS: To comply with Comprehensive Plan Policy N-5.4 the applicant shall implement the following measures to reduce exposure of proposed residences to toxic air contaminants emissions from vehicles on El Camino Real: a. Submit to the City of Palo Alto a ventilation proposal prepared by a licensed design professional for all on-site buildings that describes the ventilation design and how that design ensures all dwelling units would be below the excess cancer risk level of 10 in one million established by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. b. If the proposed buildings would use operable windows or other sources of infiltration of ambient air, the development shall install a central HVAC system that includes high efficiency particulate filters (a MERV rating of 13 or higher). These types of filters are capable of removing approximately 90 percent of the DPM emissions from air introduced into the HVAC system. The system may also include a carbon filter to remove other chemical matter. Filtration systems must operate to maintain positive pressure within the building interior to prevent entrainment of outdoor air indoors. c. If the development limits infiltration through non-operable windows, a suitable ventilation system shall include a ventilation system with filtration specifications equivalent to or better than the following: (1) American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air- Conditioning Engineers MERV-13 supply air filters, (2) greater than or equal to one air exchanges per hour of fresh outside filtered air, (3) greater than or equal to four air exchanges per hour recirculation, and (4) less than or equal to 0.25 air exchanges per hour in unfiltered infiltration. These types of filtration methods are capable of removing approximately 90 percent of the DPM emissions from air introduced into the HVAC system. d. Windows and doors shall be fully weatherproofed with caulking and weather-stripping that is rated to last at least 20 years. Weatherproof should be maintained and replaced by the property owner, as necessary, to ensure functionality for the lifetime of the project e. Where appropriate, install passive (drop-in) electrostatic filtering systems, especially those with low air velocities (i.e., 1 mph) 3.b Packet Pg. 93 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) f. Ensure an ongoing maintenance plan for the HVAC and filtration systems. Manufacturers of these types of filters recommend that they be replaced after two to three months of use. g. The applicant shall inform occupants regarding the proper use of any installed air filtration system. 11. VAPOR MITIGATION SYSTEM: The developer shall comply with the recommendations in the final RMP prepared by ICES (ICES 2014; included in Appendix E of this Initial Study) to mitigate vapor intrusion and reduce exposure to future occupants. These include: a. Installation of a vapor membrane system that envelops the below grade portion of the proposed building, including areas below and above the groundwater table. b. Design and operation of the HVAC system to control air flows from sub-grade parking levels upward into occupied levels. c. Ventilation of the sub-grade parking level with a fan triggered by CO sensors d. Maintaining a positive pressure in the residential space relative to the sub-grade parking levels e. Design and build elevator hoistways within the building to have air relief vents f. Conduct post-construction Indoor Air Monitoring, quarterly for a minimum of two years with potential to reduce frequency to semi-annually following the initial two years 12. GUEST PARKING: Parking shall be unbundled from the rental price of the units, as outlined in the TDM Program. Lift parking shall be designed to accommodate at least two guest parking spaces. 13. LIFT SYSTEM: The applicant shall submit an analysis and report, prepared by a qualified professional, for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment that demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed parking lift system with respect to operational details, regular and emergency maintenance schedule, and procedures and backup systems prior to building permit issuance. 14. EASEMENT RECORDATION: The proposed dedication of an easement along Page Mill Road to the County of Santa Clara in order to accommodate a future right hand turn lane from Page Mill to El Camino Real shall be recorded with the County prior to issuance of a building permit. 15. SIDEWALKS: The applicant shall coordinate with Caltrans, the County, and the City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Department, as appropriate, to reduce sidewalk closures during construction and ensure that a safe path of travel is maintained for pedestrians in this area. 16. NOISE: In accordance with PAMC Section 9.10.040 no person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine or device, or any combination of same, on commercial or industrial property, a noise level more than eight dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. 17. 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 3.b Packet Pg. 94 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 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. 18. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Estimated Development Impact Fees in the amount of $1,235,900; Residential In-lieu fees in the amount of $602,920.00; plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 19. 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. 20. 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 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. 21. The applicant shall include an offer of dedication for a public access easement for the additional dimension of sidewalk between the property line and back of walk and/or building edge that meets the El Camino Real Master Plan requirements. 22. 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. 23. 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 3.b Packet Pg. 95 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 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. 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. 25. DEWATERING: Proposed underground garage excavation 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 1 through October 31 due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level; if the proposed project will encounter groundwater, the applicant must provide all required dewatering submittals for Public Works review and approval prior to grading permit issuance. Public Works has dewatering submittal requirements and guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 26. GRADING & EXCAVATION PERMIT: An application for a grading & excavation permit must be submitted to Public Works when applying for a building permit. 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 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. 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. 28. 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. 3.b Packet Pg. 96 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 29. 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 grading or building permit issuance. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. 30. SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the site plan that says, “The contractor using the city sidewalk to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians using the sidewalk. Pedestrian protection must be provided per the 2007 California Building Code Chapter 33 requirements. If the height of construction is 8 feet or less, the contractor must place construction railings sufficient to direct pedestrians around construction areas. If the height of construction is more than 8 feet, the contractor must obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works at the Development Center in order to provide a barrier and covered walkway or to close the sidewalk.” 31. 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. 32. CALTRANS: Caltrans review and approval of this project is required. Caltrans right-of-way across El Camino Real extends from back-of-walk to back-of walk. The City has a maintenance agreement with Caltrans that requires the City to maintain the sidewalk and to issue Street Work Permits for work done on the sidewalks by private contractors. Caltrans has retained the right to review and permit new ingress/egress driveways off El Camino Real as well as the installation of Traffic Control devices as part of this project. 33. Applicant shall submit a copy from Caltrans and Santa Clara County for the work proposed within their right- of-way, prior to issuance of a City permit. 34. Based on the City’s GIS there may be plume monitoring wells within the project site. However, based on coordination with the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), none of these wells are actively used for monitoring. Plot and label the wells on the plans and identify wells to be removed. Removal of these wells shall be done in coordination with the RWQCB and the SCVWD. Destruction of these wells shall be implemented by a qualified contractor and the applicant, owner, or designee shall file and obtain the required well destruction permits from the SCVWD for well destruction and provide evidence of said permits to PWE prior to Building permit issuance. 35. Where applicable, please call out the City standard detail number (i.e. “Palo Alto City Standard Detail 313 – Storm Manhole”), and include a sheet with all applicable City standard details in the plan set. 36. STORM WATER HYDRAULICS AND HYDROLOGY: Provide an analysis that compares the existing and proposed site runoff from the project site. Runoff shall be based on City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards for 10 year storm event with HGL’s 0.5 foot below inlet grates elevations and 100-year storm with HGL not exceeding the street right-of-way. As described on the City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards. Please provide the tabulated calculations directly on the conceptual grading and drainage plan. This project may be required to replace and upsize the existing storm drain system to handle the added flows and/or depending on the current pipe condition. The IDF tables and Precipitation Map for Palo Alto is available County of Santa Clara County Drainage Manual dated October 2007. The proposed project shall not increase runoff to the public storm drain system. 3.b Packet Pg. 97 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 37. STORM DRAIN LOGO: The applicant is required to paint the “No Dumping/Flows to Matadero 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. Include maintenance of these logos in the Hazardous Materials Management Plan, if such a plan is part of this project. For any new public catch basins in the public road right-of-way, applicant shall place medallions next to the inlets. Medallions are also available from Environmental Compliance Division. 38. Please provide VTA’s approval of proposed bus stop relocation on El Camino Real. PUBLIC WORKS UTILITIES DIVISION 39. Proper clearance for the transformer, including 3 feet on each side and 8 feet at the front shall be provided. The plans shall be revised accordingly. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 40. 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. 41. 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. TREE REMOVAL OR PLANTING—PROTECTED & RIGHT-OF-WAY TREES. Existing trees (Publicly- owned or Protected) to be removed, as shown accurately located on all site plans, require authorization by a Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit prior to issuance of any building, demolition or grading permit. This will also be referenced in a separate Street Work Permit from Public Works Engineering. Complete the applicant information portion, and sign the Public Tree Care Permit for planting of a new street tree. Submit via email or over the counter at the Development Center with an 8 ½” x 11” copy of the site plan for our records – this may be completed at building permit stage. Find the application here: http://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/trees/. c. ADD PLAN NOTE. For each tree to be removed or planted that states, “Tree Removal. Contractor shall obtain a completed Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit # (contract or to complete) separate from the Building or Street Work Permit. Permit notice hanger and conditions apply. Contact (650-496-5953).” 3.b Packet Pg. 98 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 42. NEW RIGHT-OF-WAY TREES—PERFORMANCE MEASURES. 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 Plan tree planting shall state the Urban Forestry approved species, size and using Standard Planting Dwg. #604a, and shall note the tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. Wooden cross-brace is prohibited. c. 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.” d. 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. e. Automatic irrigation bubblers shall be provided for each tree. Standard Dwg. #513a shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. 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. Bubblers mounted inside an aeration tube are prohibited. 43. NEW TREES—SOIL VOLUME. Unless otherwise approved, new right-of-way trees each new tree shall be provided with a minimum volume of rootable soil area. Rootable soil shall mean compaction of less than 90% over the area, not including sidewalk base areas except when mitigated. For trees in narrow parking lot islands, sidewalk or asphalt areas, mitigation may use an Alternative Base Material underlayment [in lieu of compacted base rock] method such as structural grid (Silva Cell) or engineered soil mix (ESM). 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. 44. SPECIAL PLAN NOTES: 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. “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” DURING CONSTRUCTION 45. 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. 46. 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 3.b Packet Pg. 99 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 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. 47. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, (David L. Babby, arborresources@comcast.net), or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 48. TREE 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. 49. 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. 50. 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 51. 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). 52. 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. 53. 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. 3.b Packet Pg. 100 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) POST CONSTRUCTION 54. 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. Building Division 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.: 55. On the ground floor, the emergency escape for dwelling unit occupants with bedrooms facing the interior court will travel through the driveway tunnel. This will be allowed with the conditions that the tunnel is open on three sides to allow the escape of smoke and gases and is sprinklered and is built with fire-resistive construction consistent for an exit passage. The applicant will submit an Alternate Methods and Material application for the above conditions to the Building Division for review and approval. 56. The review and approval of this project does not include any other items of construction other than those written in the ARB project review application included with the project plans and documents under this review. If the plans include items or elements of construction that are not included in the written description, it or they may not have been known to have been a part of the intended review and have not, unless otherwise specifically called out in the approval, been reviewed. Watershed Protection Division The following conditions 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.: 57. DISCHARGE OF GROUNDWATER: The project is located in an area of suspected or known groundwater contamination with Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). If groundwater is encountered then the plans must include the following procedure for construction dewatering (PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040): Prior to discharge of any water from construction dewatering, the water shall be tested for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using EPA Method 601/602 or Method 624. The analytical results of the VOC testing shall be transmitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) 650-329-2598. Contaminated ground water that exceeds state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm drain system or creeks. If the concentrations of pollutants exceed the applicable limits for discharge to the storm drain system then an Exceptional Discharge Permit must be obtained from the RWQCP prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system. If the VOC concentrations exceed the toxic organics discharge limits contained in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (16.09.040(m)) a treatment system for removal of VOCs will also be required prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. Additionally, any water discharged to the sanitary sewer system or storm drain system must be free of sediment. 58. CARWASH: In accordance with PAMC 16.09.180(b)(11) New Multi-family residential units and residential development projects with 25 or more units shall provide a covered area for occupants to wash their vehicles. A drain shall be installed to capture all vehicle wash waters and shall be connected to an oil/water separator prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system. The oil/water separator shall be cleaned at a frequency of at least once every six months or more frequently if recommended by the 3.b Packet Pg. 101 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 59. manufacturer or the Superintendent. Oil/water separators shall have a minimum capacity of 100 gallons. The area shall be graded or bermed in such a manner as to prevent the discharge of storm water to the sanitary sewer system. This requirement can be exempted if no washing is allowed on-site via rental/lease agreement and any hose bibs must be fitted with lock-outs or other connections controls and signage indicating that car washing is not allowed. 60. UNPOLLUTED WATER: Unpolluted water shall not be discharged through direct or indirect connection to the sanitary sewer system (PAMC 16.09.055). And PAMC 16.09.175 (b) General prohibitions and practices Exterior (outdoor) drains may be connected to the sanitary sewer system only if the area in which the drain is located is covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading, and appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent is provided. For additional information regarding loading docks, see section 16.09.175(k) 61. COVERED PARKING: Drain plumbing for parking garage floor drains must be connected to an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100 gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system (PAMC 16.09.180[b][9]) 62. ARCHITECTURAL COPPER: Per PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) on and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt, provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory. 63. CONDENSATE FROM HVAC: Per PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. 64. COPPER PIPING: Per PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical. The plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing. 65. MERCURY SWITCHES: Per 16.09.180(12) Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps. 66. COOLING SYSTEMS, POOLS, SPAS, FOUNTAINS, BOILERS and HEAT EXCHANGERS: Per PAMC 16.09.205(a) It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas, fountains boilers and heat exchangers to the storm drain system. 67. Storm Drain Labeling: Per PAMC 16.09.165(h) Storm Drain Labeling Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No dumping - Flows to Bay," or equivalent. UTILITILES- WATER, GAS, WASTEWATER Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit 68. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load 3.b Packet Pg. 102 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., 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). 69. 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. 70. 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). 71. 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. 72. The applicant's engineer may require submitting 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. 73. 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. 74. 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. 75. 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. 76. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 77. 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. 3.b Packet Pg. 103 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 78. 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. 79. A separate water meter and backflow preventer is required to irrigate the approved landscape plan. 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. 80. A new water service line installation for domestic usage may require. For service connections of 4-inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant's contractor must provide and install a concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required control equipment in accordance with the utilities standard detail. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 81. A new water service line installation for irrigation usage is required. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 82. 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. 83. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must conform to utilities’ standard details. 84. A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans 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. 85. 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”. 86. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW Utilities’ procedures. 87. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters unless otherwise reviewed and approved by CPAU. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees unless otherwise approved by CPAU. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. Applicant’s engineer to provide profile drawings for all proposed WGW utility services/lateral crossing other existing utilities mains/services. 88. To install new gas service by directional boring, the applicant is required to have a sewer cleanout at 3.b Packet Pg. 104 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 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. 89. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. 90. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for all utility work in the El Camino Real right-of-way. The applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the WGW engineering section. 91. 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. 92. The applicant shall obtain a construction permit from Santa Clara county valley water district if required for the utility service line to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. GREEN BUILDING 93. CALGreen Checklist: If the project is a new construction residential building, then the project must meet the California Green Building Code Mandatory requirements outlined in Chapter 4, (with local amendments) plus Tier 2 minimum pre-requisites and electives outlined in Appendix A4* (with local amendments). The project must hire a Green Building Special Inspector for a pre-permit third-party design review and a third-party green building inspection process. The project must provide a preliminary GB-1 sheet for planning entitlement approval. Submittal requirements are outlined on the Development Services Green Building Compliance webpage. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/compliance.asp PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) *Note: Projects subject to Tier 2 shall not be required to fulfill any requirements outlined in Appendix A4.2 Energy Efficiency. All energy efficiency measures are found in the 2016 California Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18. 94. EVSE Transformer Location: If the project triggers the EVSE requirements in Part B of these comments, then applicant must identify transformer requirements associated with EVSE mentioned and show the appropriate transformer location and size on the Planning Application. The applicant must contact the Electric Engineering Department within Utilities to confirm the any transformer requirements associated with the proposed EVSE. For questions, contact the Electric Engineering mainline at 650- 566-4500. Local Energy Reach Code for Residential Projects 95. Energy Efficiency Option 1: No Photovoltaic System. If the project includes new construction, then the project triggers the Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. For all new single-family residential and multi- family residential, non-residential construction, the performance approach specified within the 2016 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed new-single family residential or multi-family construction is at least: 10 percent less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design if the proposed building does not include a photovoltaic system. (Ord. 5383 § 1 (part), 2016) Green Building Requirements for Residential Projects 96. CALGREEN CHECKLIST: If the project is a new construction residential building, then the project must meet the California Green Building Code Mandatory requirements outlined in Chapter 4, (with local amendments) plus Tier 2 minimum pre-requisites and electives outlined in Appendix A4* (with local 3.b Packet Pg. 105 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) amendments). The project must hire a Green Building Special Inspector for a pre-permit third-party design review and a third- party green building inspection process. The project must select from the City’s list of approved inspectors found on the Green Building Compliance Webpage. PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) *Note: Projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 shall not be required to fulfill any requirements outlined in Appendix A4.2 Energy Efficiency. All energy efficiency measures are found in the 2016 California Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18. *Note: Projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 shall not be required to fulfill any requirements outlined in Appendix A4.2 Energy Efficiency. All energy efficiency measures are found in the 2013 California Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18. 97. MODEL WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: If the new 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) and the project will require a separate permit for Outdoor Water Efficiency. See Outdoor Water Efficiency Submittal Guidelines and permit instructions at the following link. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/outdoor_water_efficiency_.asp 98. 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. 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. 99. CONSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION: For residential construction projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 requirements, the project must meet the enhanced construction waste reduction at 80% construction waste reduction. PAMC 16.14.260 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. https://www.greenhalosystems.com 100. EVSE: If the project is a new multifamily residential project, then the project must comply with the City of Palo Alto Green Building Ordinance 5393. 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 16.14.420 for definitions on the types of EVSE parking. (Ord. 5393 § 2, 2016). 101. EVSE: If the project is a new multifamily residential project, with attached parking, then the project must comply with the City of Palo Alto Green Building Ordinance 5393. For resident parking, the project must supply one Conduit Only, EVSE-Ready Outlet or EVSE Installed for each newly constructed residence in a multi-family residential structure featuring (1) a parking space attached to the residence and (2) a shared electrical panel between the residence and parking space (e.g. a multi-family structure with tuck-under garages). See PAMC 16.14.420 for definitions on the types of EVSE parking. (Ord. 5393 § 2, 2016) 102. EVSE TRANSFORMER LOCATION: If the project triggers the EVSE requirements, then the applicant must identify transformer requirements associated with EVSE mentioned and show the appropriate transformer location and size on the Permit Plans. The applicant must contact the Electric Engineering Department within Utilities to confirm the any transformer requirements associated with the proposed EVSE. For questions, contact the Electric Engineering mainline at 650-566-4500. 3.b Packet Pg. 106 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) SECTION 6. Term of Approval. Site and Design Approval. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the Site and Design approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: Senior Assistant City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment 3.b Packet Pg. 107 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) MITIGATION MONITORING + REPORTING PROGRAM PROJECT NAME 2755 El Camino Real Multi-family Residential Project APPLICATION NUMBER 16PLN-00464 Windy Hill Property Ventures (Tod Spieker) 530 Emerson Street, Suite 150 Palo Alto, CA 94301 DATE January 19, 2018 APPLICANT The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2755 El Camino Real Multi-family Residential Project identifies the mitigation measures that will be implemented to reduce the impacts associated with the project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was amended in 1989 to add Section 21081.6, which requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to proposed development. As stated in section 21081.6(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, “... the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” Section 21081.6 also provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring programs and indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be enforced during project implementation, shall be defined as part of adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The mitigation monitoring table lists those mitigation measures that would be included as conditions of approval for the project. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been devised which identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoring each measure. 3.b Packet Pg. 108 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 2 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIO-1: Nesting Bird Protection Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance. Construction of the project and any other site disturbing activities that would involve vegetation or tree removal, shall be prohibited during the general avian nesting season (February 1 – August 31), if feasible. If nesting season avoidance is not feasible, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist, as approved by the City of Palo Alto, to conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey to determine the presence/absence, location, and activity status of any active nests on or adjacent to the project site. The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding the site shall be established by the qualified biologist to ensure that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided. To avoid the destruction of active nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected by the MBTA and CFGC, nesting bird surveys shall be performed not more than 14 days prior to scheduled vegetation clearance and structure demolition. In the event that active nests are discovered, a suitable buffer (typically a minimum buffer of 50 feet for passerines and a minimum buffer of 250 feet for raptors) shall be established around such active nests and no construction shall be allowed within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). No ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Nesting bird surveys are not required for construction activities occurring between August 31 and February 1. Applicant or designee/Construction contractor Prior to and during Construction CPA Planning Department CULTURAL RESOURCES CR-1: Resource Recovery Procedures Resource Recovery Procedures. In the event that archaeological or paleontological resources are unearthed during project construction, all earth disturbing work within the vicinity of the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist or paleontologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. After the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume. A Native American representative shall be retained to monitor any mitigation work associated with Native American cultural material. Applicant or designee/Construction contractor During Construction CPA Planning Department CR-2: Human Remains Recovery Procedures Human Remains Recovery Procedures. If human remains are unearthed, State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to the origin and disposition Applicant or designee/Construction contractor During Construction CPA Planning Department 3.b Packet Pg. 109 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 3 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation pursuant to the Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission. TCR-1: Unanticipated Discovery Procedures Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. In the event that cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during construction, all earth disturbing work within the vicinity of the find must be temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find and an appropriate Native American representative, based on the nature of the find, is consulted. If the City determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with state guidelines and in consultation with Native American groups. The plan would include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan would outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the archeologist and the appropriate Native American tribal representative. Applicant or designee/Construction contractor During Construction CPA Planning Department GEOLOGY AND SOILS GEO-1: Geotechnical Design Considerations Geotechnical Design Considerations. The project applicant shall implement all measures and recommendations set forth in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Romig Engineers, Inc. in January 2013. These include but are not limited to:  Foundation design (mat foundation, basement water proofing, lateral loads, and settlement)  Foundation hold down anchors  Basement walls  Slabs-on-grade (general slab considerations and exterior flatwork) Earthwork (clearing and subgrade preparation, material for fill, temporary slopes and excavations, basement excavation support, temporary dewatering for basement excavation, surface drainage, and compaction) Applicant or designee/Construction contractor Prior to issuance of the grading permit; shall be shown on the building permit CPA Public Works Department HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS HAZ-1 Construction Risk Management Mitigation Construction Risk Management Mitigation. The developer shall comply with the recommendations and tasks in the final RMP prepared by ICES (ICES 2014; included in Appendix E of this Initial Applicant or designee/Construction Contractor Prior to building permit and during Construction CPA Planning Department 3.b Packet Pg. 110 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 4 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation Study) to reduce exposure of construction workers and surrounding receptors to contaminated on-site soil, groundwater and soil vapor during development. The developer shall:  Develop a Site Health and Safety Plan that includes provisions to monitor and protect construction workers from benzene or TCE-contaminated soil vapor exposure;  Develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for construction to prevent or minimize potential contaminated runoff from on-site soils;  Obtain the relevant underground construction permits and approvals to ensure that dewatering of contaminated groundwater and subsequent disposal or reuse of groundwater is conducted in accordance with local and state regulations;  Follow recommended dust control measures to reduce worker and public exposure to on-site contaminants that may be attached to airborn dust particles;  Conduct recommended site preparation activities, including monitoring well destruction, in a manner that ensures cross-contamination of sites will not occur;  Comply with excavation and shoring guidelines regarding the proper handling, storage, and disposal of contaminated and/or wet impacted soil to ensure that workers or nearby residents would not be exposed should such soils be encountered;  Characterize and properly reuse or dispose of excavated soil to ensure that construction workers or nearby residents are not exposed to contaminated soil; Comply with groundwater extraction and disposal guidelines in order to minimize the volume of extracted groundwater and ensure that appropriate remediation occurs. NOISE N-1: Construction- Related Noise Reduction Measures Construction-Related Noise Reduction Measures. The applicant shall apply the following measures during construction of the project.  Mufflers. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and all internal combustion engine driven machinery with intake and exhaust mufflers and engine Construction contractor During Construction CPA Planning Department 3.b Packet Pg. 111 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 5 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation shrouds, as applicable, shall be in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. During construction, all equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards.  Electrical Power. Electrical power, rather than diesel equipment, shall be used to run compressors and similar power tools and to power any temporary structures, such as construction trailers or caretaker facilities.  Equipment Staging. All stationary equipment shall be staged as far away from the adjacent senior living center and multi-family residential development as feasible.  Equipment Idling. Construction vehicles and equipment shall not be left idling for longer than five minutes when not in use.  Workers’ Radios. All noise from workers’ radios shall be controlled to a point that they are not audible at sensitive receptors near construction activity.  Smart Back-up Alarms. Mobile construction equipment shall have smart back-up alarms that automatically adjust the sound level of the alarm in response to ambient noise levels. Alternatively, back-up alarms shall be disabled and replaced with human spotters to ensure safety when mobile construction equipment is moving in the reverse direction.  Disturbance Coordinator. The applicant shall designate a disturbance coordinator who shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The noise disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site.  Additional Noise Attenuation Techniques. During the demolition, site preparation, grading, and building phases of construction, temporary sound barriers rated to Sound Transmission Class 20 or higher shall be 3.b Packet Pg. 112 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d City of Palo Alto  Mitigation Monitoring + Reporting Program P a g e | 6 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation installed and maintained facing the northwestern and northeastern boundaries of the project site. Temporary sound barriers shall block line of sight between noise- generating construction equipment and adjacent residential windows and shall be placed as close to the source equipment as feasible. Mobile sound barriers may be used as appropriate to attenuate construction noise near the source equipment. During the building construction phase, temporary sound barriers shall be applied to generators and cranes used on-site. Monitoring. The applicant shall retain a qualified acoustic engineer to monitor representative construction noise during all phases of construction. The acoustic engineer shall document hourly noise levels at the project site boundary adjacent to sensitive receptors and provide this data to the City. If measured hourly noise levels from construction activity exceed 70 dBA by at least 10 dBA for two or more hours in a day, the acoustic engineer shall notify the City within 24 hours, and the applicant shall implement additional noise attenuation measures sufficient to achieve this noise standard. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC T-1: Bus Stop Relocation Coordination Bus Stop Relocation Coordination. The applicant shall coordinate with the City of Palo Alto, the Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority, and the Stanford Marguerite Shuttle operator to relocate the bus stop during construction activities to minimize disruption to transit operation. Applicant or designee Prior to and during construction CPA Planning Department 3.b Packet Pg. 113 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t R e c o r d o f L a n d U s e A c t i o n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d City of Palo Alto COLLEAGUES MEMO November 06, 2017 Page 1 of 4 (ID # 8630) DATE: November 6, 2017 TO: City Council Members FROM: Council Member Fine, Vice Mayor Kniss, Council Member Wolbach SUBJECT: COLLEAGUES' MEMO REGARDING ZONING UPDATES TO ENCOURAGE DIVERSE HOUSING NEAR JOBS, TRANSIT, AND SERVICES Objectives: Palo Alto and the Bay Area region are experiencing a housing crisis, years in the making, which causes significant economic, social, and environmental harm. While Palo Alto may never be a truly affordable place to live, the City Council has an obligation to current and future residents to explore policies that expand housing choices for people of different incomes, generations, and needs. This memo intends to begin the process to: 1. Update and improve the zoning code and other regulations to facilitate a greater variety and quantity of both below market rate (BMR) and moderately-sized market-rate housing; and 2. Increase housing density near jobs, transit, and services; and 3. Streamline the approval process for new housing projects. Recommendation: We recommend our colleagues refer this memo to staff to return to Council with a Work Plan outlining the process and resources to study and implement the proposals listed in the Discussion section (and other relevant recommendations to support the Objectives). Following Council approval of the Work Plan, proposals should be reviewed by the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) and ultimately by Council for adoption. Some proposals will require less work than others, and so may be considered in advance of others. Discussion: There are many policy tools to promote additional moderately-sized and reasonably-priced homes, especially near job centers, transit, and services. The following suggestions should be considered by the PTC and staff as a starting point. Any changes should be appropriately applied in different areas of our community with sensitivity to location and current land use patterns. For example, CD, CN, CS, CC1, CC2 zones in Downtown should be treated differently than an RM zone in a predominantly residential neighborhood. ●Housing Floor Area Ratio (FAR): ○Increase housing FAR where appropriate. 10 3.c Packet Pg. 114 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C o l l e a g u e s M e m o ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) November 06, 2017 Page 2 of 4 (ID # 8630) ○ Allow non-retail commercial FAR to convert to residential FAR. ● Affordable Housing: ○ Explore increasing affordable housing (Below Market Rate - BMR) percentage requirements in market-rate developments up to 20%, based on economic analysis. ○ Explore implementing inclusionary BMR program for rental units. ○ Height and density for BMR projects: Allow additional height (not exceeding the city-wide height limit) or FAR for projects that contain substantially more BMR units than required. ● Units/Acre: ○ Explore eliminating housing unit limits where/when possible, and use FAR in place of units/acre. ○ Explore housing unit minimums rather than unit maximums (e.g. require building at least 80% of the units allowed under applicable zoning or land use designation). ○ Implement a no net-loss policy when housing is redeveloped and preserve existing non-conforming cottage clusters. ● Parking: ○ Allow residential projects to consolidate parking and TDM efforts with other projects or the Palo Alto TMA. ○ Explore bringing underutilized parking spaces into a public market. ○ Car-light housing: Explore car-light housing with reduced or eliminated off-street parking requirements. (e.g. TransForm’s GreenTRIP Certification) ○ Transportation Demand Management (TDM): explore reducing residential parking requirements for projects which provide effective TDM measures. ● Retail/Residential Mixed-Use Projects: Encourage mixed-use zoning with ground-floor retail, community, or non-profit space; and one or more floors of housing; but no commercial office uses. ● Transit-Oriented Development: Expand and augment the Pedestrian Transit-Oriented Development (PTOD) zone. ● And other compatible housing-related implementation programs from the Comprehensive Plan update. Background: The current housing shortage is a threat to our city’s prosperity, diversity, stability, environment, and community character. In City-sponsored polling in 2016, 76% of Palo Alto residents indicated that housing was an “extremely serious” or “very serious” problem. Housing is one of our Council Priorities for 2017. Our new Comprehensive Plan will encourage exploration of policy changes to enable more housing. 3.c Packet Pg. 115 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C o l l e a g u e s M e m o ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) November 06, 2017 Page 3 of 4 (ID # 8630) The housing crisis has many symptoms including displacement, separated families, long commutes, lack of diversity, environmental impacts, etc. The City is attempting to address several of these. This memo’s recommendations focus on the central cause of these symptoms: the lack of adequate housing options to meet current and growing demand. Government and academic research consistently point to the need for more housing at a variety of price-points as essential to solving the housing crisis. To prevent urban sprawl and congestion, new housing is best located near transit, jobs, and services. Few Palo Altans prefer to see new office buildings instead of housing, or luxury penthouses instead of apartments which working professionals and families can afford. Rather than indefinitely continue the practice of responding to each site or housing proposal on its own - and rather than struggling to adapt our policies in each case - we suggest proactively identifying and changing policies which are counterproductive toward our housing goals. Palo Alto has made progress. We preserved Buena Vista and helped keep over 100 families in our community. We are considering new affordable and market-rate housing proposals. We have taken steps toward making permanent an annual office-cap. But we can still do more to address the other side of our jobs-housing imbalance. Doing so requires we understand and reduce some of the barriers to creating more housing. Some of Palo Alto’s regulations operate in practice to skew development away from reasonably-priced housing. Instead, we currently incentivize commercial development over housing, large housing units over smaller ones, and pricier housing over more affordable. Of particular concern are our consistently low limits on numbers of units per-acre, low-FAR allowances for housing (including in mixed-use projects), requirements for more parking than is used, and requirement for on-site (rather than adjacent or nearby) parking. Creating more housing for a range of ages and incomes is the most equitable and environmentally sustainable path for Palo Alto. As a collective-action problem, the housing crisis requires all cities to share in the solution. Cities which have added to the regional demand by creating jobs have a particular obligation to permit housing in a manner appropriate for their local character. Palo Alto’s housing production has lagged behind our commitments, while several neighboring communities have pursued new housing development near jobs, transit, and services. Palo Alto can do its part to address the housing shortage by increasing housing density in a responsible manner. Resource Impact: A modest amount of existing planning and legal staff and consultant resources will be required to develop the proposed Work Plan and return to Council. Development of a Work Plan can be accomplished within existing departmental budgets and staff capacity. The amount of detail and supporting analysis associated with elements of the Work Plan that may be required will 3.c Packet Pg. 116 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C o l l e a g u e s M e m o ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) November 06, 2017 Page 4 of 4 (ID # 8630) be dependent on the process and the time frame desired for this discussion and its return to Council. Thereafter, depending on what Council chooses to pursue and on what timeline, implementation of some or all of the proposals may require additional resources, such as consultants and specialists, and adjustments to other priorities and timelines. Staff will provide additional information in the initial Work Plan. 3.c Packet Pg. 117 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C o l l e a g u e s M e m o ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8018) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 6/15/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 2755 El Camino Real: Housing on Former VTA Site (Study Session) Title: QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2755 El Camino Real [16PLN-00464]: Consideration of a Site and Design Review to Allow the Construction of a New Four-Story Multi-Family Residential Building with 60 Units and one Level of Below-Grade Parking. This project will also require legislative actions that are not subject to ARB review. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study is Being Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: PF (Public Facility). For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Conduct a study session on the proposed project. No formal direction is provided to the applicant and Boardmembers should refrain from forming and expressing opinions either in support or against the project. Report Summary The applicant seeks early feedback from the ARB concerning a proposal to develop a four-story multi-family residential building with 60 dwelling units and one level of partially below-grade parking as a “pilot project” on a site zoned Public Facilities (PF). The proposal is currently being reviewed pursuant to CEQA and is expected to request the following actions: 1. Amendment of the Land Use Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to allow for multi-family housing projects within the Major Institution Special Facilities land use designation; 2. Amendment to the Zoning Code to create a new combining district that would allow housing on the subject property and that could be applied to other sites in the PF zone 3.d Packet Pg. 118 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : J u n e 1 5 , 2 0 1 7 A R B S t a f f R e p o r t w / o A t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 within 0.5 mile of fixed rail transit in the future, through a legislative process within Council and the PTC’s purview; 3. Amendment to the Zoning Code to apply the new combining district to the subject site 4. A Site and Design review to allow for construction of the proposed project. Staff is seeking early feedback from the ARB regarding the design of the proposed development. Staff is still analyzing and gathering information with respect to the required legislative actions and some information is not yet available. Some of the outstanding analysis includes completing the environmental review, evaluating and making recommendations on the regulatory framework for the new combining district, consideration of the broader policy implications of the request, how it might apply to other properties in the city, and consideration of enforcement and penalty related interests to ensure desired housing populations with low vehicle ownership reside in the housing development, if approved. Thus, no recommendation is requested at this time and the project will require a hearing before the ARB at a future date. For its part, the ARB may want to comment on the following topics, or other items individual board members find appropriate:  Overall design of the project (massing, materials, articulation)  Architectural relationship to other improvements in the area  Consistency with the El Camino Real and South El Camino Real Design Guidelines The site is a former VTA Park and Ride lot, which is zoned Pubic Facilities (PF) and is designated Major Institution/Special Facilities in the Comprehensive Plan. A location map is included as Attachment A. The project plans are included as Attachment G. Background Project Information Owner: Pollock FRB, LLC Architect: BDE Architecture Representative: Windy Hill Property Ventures Legal Counsel: Not Applicable Property Information Address: 2755 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Evergreen Park Lot Dimensions & Area: 19,563 square feet (0.449 acre) Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Yes, COE Plume Protected/Heritage Trees: Not Applicable Historic Resource(s): Not Applicable 3.d Packet Pg. 119 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : J u n e 1 5 , 2 0 1 7 A R B S t a f f R e p o r t w / o A t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Existing Improvement(s): No existing buildings Existing Land Use(s): Vacant parking lot (previous VTA Park and Ride lot) Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Planned Community (PC-4463) Zoning (land use: multi-family residential [Silverwood Condominium Complex]) West: Planned Community (PC-4831) Zoning (land use: residential care facilities [Sunrise Assisted Living Senior Center]) East: CN and CS Zoning (land uses: Veterinarian Office, Retail [AT&T], and recently approved mixed-use development project) South: Public Facilities (PF) AS-3 and Planned Community (PC-4637) (land uses: Mayfield Soccer Complex and research office [Palo Alto Square] respectively). Aerial View of Property: Source: Palo Alto Geographic Information Systems Technology (GIST), 2017 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Public Facilities (PF) Comp. Plan Designation: Major Institution/Special Facilities (MISP) Context-Based Design Criteria: Applicability determined by combining district requirements Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable 3.d Packet Pg. 120 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : J u n e 1 5 , 2 0 1 7 A R B S t a f f R e p o r t w / o A t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes (note that nearby residential uses are zoned PC). Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action Prior to the proposed project, multiple developments have been considered at this site, but ultimately not pursued. More recently the applicant presented a similar conceptual project to the City Council. City Council: On September 12, 2016. City Council conducted a prescreening, as is required for these types of legislative changes prior to application submittal in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.79.030(A). The staff report for the Council hearing is located here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53711 No action was taken at the prescreening hearing. Preliminary feedback provided by Councilmembers is discussed below. PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None A transcript of the Council prescreening for this project is included in Attachment C. During the prescreening hearing, Councilmembers raised several key considerations regarding the potential rezoning of the site as well as how the rezoning and/or change in land use would fit in to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. Although several councilmembers supported the idea of housing at this particular site, others expressed concern or urged caution regarding the rezoning request, proposed density, and limited parking. Some Councilmembers expressed an interest in rezoning the site to a CN Zone. Multiple Councilmembers supported the idea of reducing or eliminating restrictions on unit density in order to allow for more, smaller units while still restricting height, setbacks, and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in order to manage building mass. However, one or more councilmembers expressed concerns about using this project site to dictate appropriate development standards without looking comprehensively at how this might be applied to other sites in the future. In addition, several councilmembers supported reduced parking requirements for sites near local transit provided that a TDM plan be required. Council encouraged staff to research other projects where this was done in the past and their performance with respect to traffic and parking. 3.d Packet Pg. 121 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : J u n e 1 5 , 2 0 1 7 A R B S t a f f R e p o r t w / o A t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 The initial prescreening concept plan was brought forth as a workforce housing project and the applicant highlighted the benefits of the project’s location not only to alternative transit but also to office uses, including Stanford Research Park and Palo Alto Square. Several questions were raised during the hearing about potential deed restrictions and/or preferences for local workers (particularly teachers, government employees, etc.) as well as senior citizens; the applicant had indicated that it was still looking into the details of how that would work. In addition, councilmembers expressed an interest in making those units more moderately priced for these types of workers. The formal application has not provided a proposal with respect to plans for preferences or deed restrictions that reflect a workforce housing component to the project. In addition, no affordable housing has been proposed and the applicant has not proposed any plan for making some units more moderately priced for these types of workers. However, these ideas are still being explored. The applicant had also discussed the possibility of a bike kitchen that would be open to the public in order to address some councilmember’s interests in seeing retail uses on the ground floor. However, the applicant is currently proposing a bike kitchen combined with bike parking on the ground level, which, per the PAMC standards would not be allowed to be open to the public. It should be noted that councilmembers expressed mixed opinions about whether retail should be provided at this location. Neighborhood Setting and Character The subject property is located at the northeastern corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road and is zoned as Public Facility (PF). It was formerly used as a VTA park and ride lot; however, the VTA Board formally deemed this site as “surplus” and subsequently sold the site. Adjacent zoning and land uses include the four-story Sunrise Assisted Living Senior Housing Facility to the northeast and the three-story Silverwood Condominium Complex to the northwest, both of which are located on parcels zoned Planned Community (PC). Across El Camino Real is the Mayfield Soccer Complex, which is zoned PF; across Page Mill Road there are retail uses, including a two-story AT&T building, and a recently approved mixed-use development project on parcels zoned Service Commercial (CS). The ten-story Palo Alto Square Office complex in the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road is zoned PC. Project Description As shown in the plan set and discussed in the applicant’s project description in Attachments G and F respectively, the applicant is proposing to construct a 50-foot high, four-story, multi- family apartment building that would include 31 studio units and 29 one-bedroom units. The building also includes a partially below-grade parking garage with 65 parking spaces; 60 of these spaces would be provided via automated “puzzle parking” lift systems. A Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2.24:1 is proposed for the project. The proposed project, as described, does not neatly conform to any nearby zoning district. It would not meet the requirements of the CS, CN, or CC zone districts because the project does not include mixed-use development; neither would it meet the RM-40 zone district requirements for Floor Area Ratio, height, or density. 3.d Packet Pg. 122 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : J u n e 1 5 , 2 0 1 7 A R B S t a f f R e p o r t w / o A t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 The applicant is proposing a Zoning Code Text Amendment to create a new combining district that could be applied to sites within the PF Zone and within 0.5 mile of fixed use transit. The new combining district would outline the requisite development standards for any site that applies the combining district through a Zoning Map Amendment, which would be subject to the PTC and Council’s review. Under the current Comprehensive Plan the proposed project would also require a Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment to the Land Use and Community Design Element to allow for a high-density multi-family residential use in the Major Institution Special Facilities land use designation. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: Staff anticipates that the following discretionary applications will be subject to ARB review:  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. 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 requisite findings for the ARB to approve the project are provided in Attachment B. Because the purpose of this session is to provide early input and no recommendation is requested, the specific findings for this project are not included and no action is requested. In addition, the following legislative actions required to process the project are not subject to ARB review:  Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 19.04.080.  Zoning Code Text Amendment: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.80.080. This type of legislative change requires a prescreening before Council, which has been completed. A request for a zoning text amendment requires at least one public hearing before the PTC and the PTC shall forward its recommendations to the City Council for final action.  Zoning Map Amendment: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.80.060 and 18.80.070 and is similar to the process described above. Because all of these applications and legislative actions require hearings before the PTC and Council, some of these processes may move forward simultaneously. 3.d Packet Pg. 123 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : J u n e 1 5 , 2 0 1 7 A R B S t a f f R e p o r t w / o A t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Analysis1 Staff has identified the following issues for ARB’s consideration and comment, and summarizes each below: A. Conformance with the Comprehensive Plan B. Zoning Code and Map Compliance C. Conformance to the El Camino Real Guidelines D. Multi-Modal Access/Parking Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan2 The project site is designated ‘Major Institutions/Special Facilities’ in the Comprehensive Plan, which is defined as “institutional, academic, governmental, and community service uses and lands that are either publicly owned or operated as non-profit organizations.” Multi-family housing would not be consistent with this land use designation as currently defined. In addition, the density proposed, although supported by goals outlined in the Housing Element, is not consistent with the densities outlined for multi-family uses in the Land Use and Community Design Element. Thus, the proposed project would require an amendment to the text of the Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Community Design Element to permit high density housing in the Major Institutions/Special Facilities land use designation. The Comprehensive Plan Housing Element includes Policy H2.1 to “identify and implement strategies to increase housing density and diversity, including mixed-use development and a range of unit styles, near community services. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and mixed-income housing to support the City’s fair share of the regional housing needs and to ensure that the City’s population remains economically diverse.” The proposed project does not propose a mixed-use development; however, it does include smaller units that may, therefore, be more moderately priced than other units and that would further contribute to the City’s fair share of the regional housing needs. Under this policy the Housing Element includes multiple programs for implementing this policy, including the following programs with which the proposed project would be consistent:  Housing Program H2.1.1: To allow for higher density residential development, consider amending the zoning code to permit high-density residential in mixed use or single use projects in commercial area within one-half mile of fixed rail stations and to allow limited exceptions to the 50-foot height limit for Housing Element sites within one – quarter mile of fixed rail stations.  Housing Program H2.1.2: Allow increased residential densities and mixed use 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. 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. No recommendation is requested at this time. 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 3.d Packet Pg. 124 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : J u n e 1 5 , 2 0 1 7 A R B S t a f f R e p o r t w / o A t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 development only where adequate urban services and amenities, including roadway capacity, are available.  Housing Program H2.1.5: Use Sustainable neighborhood development criteria to enhance connectivity, walkability, and access to amenities, and to support housing diversity.  Housing Program H2.1.10: As part of planning for the future of El Camino Real, explore the identification of pedestrian nodes (i.e. perals on a string”) consistent with the South El Camino Design Guidelines with greater densities in those nodes than in other area Zoning Compliance3 The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) does not currently have a zoning designation that would allow for the proposed development. The project site is located in the Public Facilities (PF) zoning district. The PF district is designed to accommodate governmental, public utility, educational, and community service or recreational facilities. Multi-family housing is not a permitted or conditionally permitted use in the PF Zone District. During the prescreening, some councilmembers expressed concerns regarding rezoning of the site from a PF Zone to another zone. In response to this concern, the applicant has proposed to maintain the underlying zoning of the site but has requested a Zoning Code Text Amendment to create a new combining district that would permit residential uses in the PF Zone. The ordinance creating a new combining district will outline the requisite development standards for the new building, including unit density, floor area ratio, height, setbacks, parking and related standards. Staff has not developed draft ordinance language yet. In general, staff is considering language that would only allow for this combining district to be applied to sites proposing housing projects within the PF Zone and within 0.5 miles of a fixed rail station. Development standards would not restrict the maximum number of dwelling units but would still require a restriction on height and floor area ratio. This is intended to encourage the development of smaller units while still restricting overall massing. The applicant is proposing a floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.24:1 and a height of 50 feet for its proposed development at 2755 El Camino Real. A key component of the proposed combining district would also include an allowance for reduced parking requirements in conjunction with an approved Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. This is discussed in further detail below. The text for the new combining district would require Site and Design review for projects proposed within the overlay. It is anticipated that any site applying the combining district would still be subject to consistency with other applicable guidelines to that area (e.g. the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines). Staff’s recommendations for other typical development standards such as setback, daylight plane, lot coverage, and open space requirements are also still being considered. 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3.d Packet Pg. 125 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : J u n e 1 5 , 2 0 1 7 A R B S t a f f R e p o r t w / o A t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 To apply a new combing district to a site, a Zoning Map amendment is required. Therefore, the applicant is requesting an ordinance that would first create the new combining district and then apply the new combining district to the subject property. The proposed ordinance and any future request for a Zoning Map Amendment to apply the combining district to a particular parcel would require a recommendation from the PTC and Council approval. South El Camino Real Design Guidelines The project is located on the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road and is therefore subject to the requirements of the South El Camino Real and El Camino Real design guidelines. In addition, this site is located within the California Avenue Strategic Site Pedestrian-Oriented Node and is specifically identified as a strategic site for implementation of the City’s vision of El Camino Real, serving as a critical anchor for extending the momentum of the California Avenue intersection down to Page Mill Road. The guidelines note that buildings on the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real should feature a prominent corner, extensive windows, and pedestrian amenities such as canopies, seating, and planters. In addition, it states that the former VTA site, in particular, should be redeveloped with a more intensive use of the site, and that a mixed-use building with structured/subsurface parking would be desirable. The project design includes an at grade entrance facing the corner of Page Mill and El Camino Real with partially subsurface parking. The bench for the transit stop will be replaced and planters are provided along both Page Mill and El Camino Real; however, there are few other pedestrian amenities along the frontage. The project includes an entirely residential building. Because of the proposed use, other than the main entrance, the building has been raised to provide privacy from the public right-of-way, consistent with the guidelines for this type of use. For exclusively residential projects, the South ECR Guidelines identify different setback requirements. Specifically, the project is required to be set back between 20 and 24 feet from the curb along the El Camino Real frontage and this serves as the build-to-line for the project. A portion of the project is set back 22’6” from El Camino Real but the majority of the building frontage is set back beyond 24 feet; therefore, the project does not meet the required build-to- line requirements of 75 percent built up to the build-to-line. Further setbacks are only allowed if they provide a public amenity. Landscaping is not a public amenity but is encouraged. The addition of benches or similar pedestrian oriented features within this area would serve as a public amenity. Although the new garage entrance and exit is located on El Camino Real, which is typically discouraged, the location of this garage on El Camino Real rather than Page Mill Road is supported by the Transportation Division. Further refinements may be required in coordination with VTA with respect to the existing bus stop in this area. The side street setback line along Page Mill within the boulevard zone, identified as the first 50 feet from the El Camino Real frontage should be between 8 and 12 feet from the curb while the remaining portion, referred to as the transition zone, should be 16 feet from the curb. All dimensions on the plans are provided to the 2’6” planter wall rather than to the building setback; however, it appears the project is set back approximately 14 feet from the curb, 3.d Packet Pg. 126 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : J u n e 1 5 , 2 0 1 7 A R B S t a f f R e p o r t w / o A t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 transitions to approximately 12’6” and then transitions further to an approximate 20 foot setback. Staff recognizes the complexity of designing to the lot shape but believes that improvements can be made to better comply with the setbacks identified in the guidelines. Staff also notes that the dimensions from the curb are measures from the location of the new curb that would be designed as part of the proposed project. The corner in particular should be built up to the build-to-line to better define the corner. Awnings may project further into the right-of-way. The use of dark tinted glass for the entrance area is also discouraged in accordance with the guidelines because it prohibits transparency and lacks visual interest. Dark tinted glass appears to be proposed at the front entrance. With respect to the building design, more articulation between the base, body, and parapet would be appropriate and improvements could be made to better correspond with the adjacent developments. Specifically, staff notes that one way both of these could be better resolved is to consider a partial roof form that creates an expressed roof line (but still provides screening and open area for the equipment on the interior) rather than a parapet wall. This would provide articulation for the roof and would provide a better transition between the proposed development and adjacent buildings. Multi-Modal Access & Parking Parking The proposed project includes 31 studio units and 29 one bedroom units. Under the current zoning code requirements, the proposed development would require 102 parking spaces (82 parking spaces for residents [1.25 per studio and 1.5 per one-bedroom] and 20 parking spaces for guests [33 percent if parking is assigned]). However, the current code does allow up to a 20 percent parking adjustment for housing near transit and/or for transportation and parking alternatives. Therefore, the applicant would be required to provide anywhere from about 82 (with a 20 percent reduction) to 102 parking spaces under the current code requirements. The applicant is proposing that the standards in the new combining district overlay require 0.75 spaces per unit, which would be equivalent to 45 parking spaces, but is providing 65 parking spaces, equivalent to 1.08 parking units per stall. Of the 65 proposed spaces, two spaces are ADA compliant, two spaces are EV charging stations, and 61 spaces are provided via puzzle parking lift systems. Guest parking is not addressed. Staff is seeking the PTC’s input with respect to parking ratio standards as well as components that commissioners would want to see included in the TDM plan for such a development. The applicant has provided a list of key elements that will be included in their proposed TDM plan; this is included in Attachment D. Per Council direction, staff is working with the selected traffic consultant and the City’s transportation Division to identify projects that may have implemented similar projects (i.e. transit oriented residential development with reduced parking requirements). Staff has also programmed a larger study/survey of housing types in various locations as part of this year’s work program. (This study was included in the Housing Element as Implementation Program H3.3.7.) A total of 60 long-term and six short-term bike parking spaces are required under the PAMC 3.d Packet Pg. 127 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : J u n e 1 5 , 2 0 1 7 A R B S t a f f R e p o r t w / o A t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 and would continue to be required with the combining district overlay. The applicant is providing 66 long-term and eight short-term spaces, which exceeds the code requirements. The proposed puzzle parking lift systems are consistent with 18.54.020(b), which allows for off- street parking to be provided via a lift system when used for multi-family residential uses. In addition, the project is consistent with parking screening requirements and lift stall size requirements outlined in this section of the code. The applicant is proposing three separate lift systems in order to allow for concurrent use of the different lifts so that more than one car can park or be retrieved at a given time. Questions were raised by both members of the public and one or more Councilmembers during the prescreening hearing about overflow parking from the proposed development affecting parking availability on streets in adjacent neighborhoods. On January 23, 2017 the City adopted the Evergreen-Park Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking Program (RPP). 2755 El Camino Real was excluded from the RPP program boundaries so residents would not be eligible to purchase a permit to park in the adjacent neighborhood. Therefore, staff does not anticipate that parking from the proposed development would affect adjacent neighborhoods. However, the combining district overlay would need to take into account how reduced parking on other sites that may apply for application of this overlay may affect surrounding areas for those sites. Multi-Modal Access The project proposes right-turn in/right-turn out access to the partially below grade parking via El Camino Real. The proposed vehicular site access is in approximately the same location as the existing site access along El Camino Real. The curb cut along Page Mill Road would be removed. Primary pedestrian access to the site is provided at the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino. Following the prescreening process with Council and initial input from staff, the applicant has lowered the main entrance at the corner of Page Mill and El Camino Real to grade level in order to provide a more pedestrian and bike friendly entrance. Although the proposed project does not require a public benefit, the applicant has proposed to convey a portion of the existing property to the County of Santa Clara and upgrade the curb in order to facilitate future improvements proposed by the County to add a new right-turn lane. Additional curb improvements are proposed at the corner of Page Mill and El Camino to tighten the curb radius, thereby allowing for more sidewalk space and calming traffic turning onto El Camino Real. A Draft Traffic Impact Analysis is currently being prepared but is not yet available for public distribution. The report will analyze the project with the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County Valley Transit Authority standards and will be included in the environmental analysis prepared for the proposed project. Environmental Review 3.d Packet Pg. 128 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : J u n e 1 5 , 2 0 1 7 A R B S t a f f R e p o r t w / o A t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 This study session is a preliminary review process in which commissioners may provide comment, but no formal action will be taken. Therefore, no review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is required at this time. An initial study and associated technical studies are currently being prepared in order to determine the level of environmental analysis required. Next Steps In order to make a recommendation with respect to the proposed project the PTC must consider the environmental analysis in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15025(c). Therefore, the type of environmental analysis required for the proposed project will dictate the timeline for subsequent hearings with the PTC and other recommending and elected bodies. 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 June 2, 2017 which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on June 5, 2017 which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments Twelve oral comments were received during the prescreening with Council on September 12, 2016. The minutes from the prescreening hearing are provided in Attachment C and include a transcript of these oral comments. Some comments expressed support for the project primarily due to its contribution to new housing stock within the City. Comments that expressed concerns related primarily to traffic impacts, parking (both parking loss and concerns with reduced parking for the units), rezoning from a public facilities zoning, and the project’s inconsistency with the adjacent condominiums. An additional 117 written comments were received regarding the proposed project. One comment noted concerns related primarily to re- zoning of the property and parking/traffic. Two of the comments expressed general support for some of the ideas but offered advice as to other considerations that should be required as part of the proposal. The other 114 comments expressed support for the project and urged the Council to support the addition of more housing units. These written comments are included in Attachment E. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information 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) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3.d Packet Pg. 129 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : J u n e 1 5 , 2 0 1 7 A R B S t a f f R e p o r t w / o A t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13  Attachment B: ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Council Prescreening Transcript (PDF)  Attachment D: Transporation Demand Management Plan Elements (PDF)  Attachment E: Written Public Comments (PDF)  Attachment F: Project Description (PDF)  Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) 3.d Packet Pg. 130 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : J u n e 1 5 , 2 0 1 7 A R B S t a f f R e p o r t w / o A t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 16 15 82 83 84 14 85 19 20 1086 87 318 13 12 21 11 88 Hewlett Pack Building 4C Building 3A VarianBuilding 3 Building 4 2 Building 4A 562 - Bldg 3 1B 1C 1A 1 2A Kendall Court Apartments 562 - Bldg 1 6 5 1 2 3 DayCare 3 4 F Molly Stone's Market County Courthouseand Jail North County Mental Health Center Fry's Electronics Gas Station #2 Bldg 5 Bldg 3 Bldg 4 Bldg 6 College Terrace Library Lot C-5 Parking Lot Bank ofthe West Building 2 Building 3 Building 4 Fire Station # 2 Bldg 2 Bldg 1 A B Building 6 Palo Alto Square2 Bldg 8 Bldg 7 Building 1 A Building 7 B California Station Country Sun PARKING GARAGE 10-670 ACORN HOUSE (CHILD CARE CENTER) 86 2 10-081 10-080 EV 2 UNIT 80 10-079EV 2UNIT 79 10-078 EV 2UNIT 78 10-077 EV 2UNIT 77 10-076 EV 2 UNIT 76 10-075 EV 2UNIT 75 10-055 EV 2UNIT 55 10-074ESCONDIDO IIBARNESMIDRISE 10-072 EV 2 UNIT 72 10-073 EV 2UNIT 73 10-069 EV 2UNIT 69 10-068 EV 2UNIT 68 10-067 EV 2UNIT 67 10-066 EV 2UNIT 66 10-065 EV 2UNIT 65 10-064 EV 2UNIT 64 10-062 EV 2UNIT 6210-056 EV 2UNIT 56 10-057EV 2UNIT 57 10-059 EV 2UNIT 59 10-060EV 2UNIT 60 10-061 EV 2UNIT 61 10-058 EV 2UNIT 58 10-063ABRAMSMIDRISE 76S 10-042 EV 1UNIT 42 10-041 EV 1UNIT 41 10-040 EV 1UNIT 40 0-049 10-465STUDIO 6 10-470STUDIO 5 10-071EV 2UNIT 71 10-070 EV 2UNIT 70 10-63410-633 10-632 10-631 10-626 10-623 10-622 10-621 10-616 10-615 10-611 10-61210-613 10-624 10-60710-606 10-605 10-60410-603 10-602 10-601 10-519 10-515 10-511 10-507 10-503 10-439 10-435 10-431 10-427 10-41910-423 10-41510-411 10-403 10-407 10-37110-367 10-35910-363 10-35510-351 10-343 10-347 10-339 10-335 10-327 10-331 10-323 10-319 10-315 K J H G E B D C A 10-680MulberryHouse 1 Cameron Park Jerry Bowden Park John Boulware Park WallisPark Weisshaar Park Lot C-6 Lot C-7 Lot C-8 LotC-9 Hansen Way Park Blvd Substation Train Station, California Avenue Matadero Well Substation Mayfield Park SC CountyCourthouseand Jail Hewlett Packard CPI CPI Stanford Palo AltoPlaying Fields 10' Path10' Path Lot C-2 Lot C-1 Lot C-3 Parking Garage Lot C-4 Lot C-5 Garage Parking TH te Hill 1500 900 500 300 400 200 1200 600 800 Curtner Avenue Magnolia Dr South Cypress Lane Cowper Street Ramona Street Alma Street spar Court El Carmelo Avenue outh Street Hanover Street College Avenue California Avenue Hanover Street Ramos Way ( P rivate ) Page Mill Road Hansen Way Hanover Street a Avenue Tippawingo St Julie Ct Matade r o Avenu e Chimalus Drive Kendall Avenue Whitsell Avenue Barron Avenue Magnolia Dr North La Donna Avenue Magnolia Drive Military Way Fernando Avenue Matadero Avenue Lambert Avenue Hansen Way El Camino Real Margarita Avenue Matadero Avenue Wilton Avenue Oxford Avenue Harvard Street California Avenue Wellesley Street Princeton Street Oberlin Street Cornell Street Cambridge Avenue College AvenueWilliams Street Yale Street Staunton Court Oxford Avenue El Ca min o Real Park Bo ule vard Park Avenue Leland Avenue Stanford Avenue Birch Street Ash Street Grant Avenue Sheridan Avenue Jacaranda Lane El Camino Real Sherman Avenue Ash Street Page Mill Road Mimosa Lane Chestnut Avenue Portage Avenue Pepper Avenue Olive Avenue Acacia Avenue Emerson Street Park Boulevard Orinda Street Birch Street Ash Street Page Mill Road Ash Street Park Boulevard College Avenue Cambridge Avenue New Mayfield Lane Birch Street California Avenue Park Boulevard Nogal Lane Park Boulevard Washington AvenueStreet Colora do Av en ue S tre et Emerson Street Ramona Street Bryant Street South Court El Dorado Avenue Alma Street Alma Street High Stre et Emerson Bryant Street Emerson Street Nevada Avenue North California Avenue Ramona Street High Street Oregon Expressway Ramona Street C olorad o A ve nu e Waverley Street Kipling Street South Court Sedro Lane Peral Lane Madeline Ct Sheridan Avenue Lane 66 Lane 66 La Selva Drive Olmst e d Road El Dorado Avenue Page Mill Road lus Drive Abrams Court Barnes Court e y La n e t Olmsted Road Olmsted Road Pet Wellesley St Yale St Alma Street Birch Street This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Half Mile Radius from Cal Ave Caltrain Station VTA Lines 101, 102, 103, 182 El Camino Real Bus Routes (Rapid (522 VTA) and Local Routes (22 VTA)) Dumbarton Express Route and 104 Bus line Route VTA Caltrain Stations City Jurisdictional Limits Boundary Project Site - Parcel to be rezoned to PF (WH) 0' 800' 27 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l Pr o p o s e d Z o n e C h a n g e an d Pu b l i c T r a n s p o r t a t i o n Ar e a M a p CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo AltoRRivera, 2018-01-22 17:28:542755 ECR Zoning Map Amendment Map (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) 3.e Packet Pg. 131 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : P u b l i c T r a n s p o r t a t i o n M a p ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d ATTACHMENT F ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 2755 El Camino Real, 16PLN-00464 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.30(J) (WORKFORCE HOUSING COMBINING DISTRICT ) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Specifications Site Area (ft) None required 19,563 sf (.0049 ac) No change Site Width (ft) 113 No change Site Depth (ft) 188 No change Minimum Setbacks Front Yard (ft) Subject to decisionmaking body (1) No structures existing 11 feet, 9 inches Rear Yard (ft) 10 feet(2) N/A (parking lot) 18 feet, 9 inches to building; 3 feet to subterranean garage/ramp Interior Side Yard 5 feet(2) N/A 5 feet Interior Side Yard if abutting residential zone district (ft) (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) 10 feet N/A N/A Street Side Yard (ft) Subject to decisionmaking body (1) N/A 8 feet, 2 inches at closest point Maximum Site Coverage None Required None Required None Required Landscape/Open Space Coverage 20% (3) N/A 27% Usable Open Space 75 square feet (sf) per unit N/A 77 square feet per unit Maximum Height (ft) Standard 50’ N/A 50’ 3.f Packet Pg. 132 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : Z o n i n g C o m p a r i s o n T a b l e ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Within 150 ft. of a residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site 35’, except as limited by applicable daylight plane requirements N/A N/A 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 N/A N/A Maximum Residential Density (net) None Required N/A None Required Maximum Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) – Residential-Only Projects 2.0:1 Parking Lot 2.0:1 Vehicle Parking Parking requirements shall be no less than one space per unit or bedroom, whichever is greater. The decisionmaking body may reduce this standard based on a parking study. Any incidental retail shall be subject to the parking requirements outlined in Section 18.52. 34 existing 68 parking spaces provided (~1.2 per unit, inclusive of guest parking) Bicycle Parking Bicycle parking requirements shall be in accordance with Section 18.52.040. All bicycle parking must be provided at grade. (for proposed project: 57 long-term; 6 short term) N/A 69 long term [including 1 cargo]; 16 short term TDM Plan A transportation demand management (TDM) plan shall be required and shall comply with the TDM pursuant to Section 18.52.050(d) and associated administrative guidelines. N/A See TDM plan in Attachment J 3.f Packet Pg. 133 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : Z o n i n g C o m p a r i s o n T a b l e ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Notes: 1. A 12-foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage. 2. In order to encourage below-grade parking, garage ramps and subterranean structures may encroach into the required setback provided that sufficient landscaping is still provided between the project site and adjacent properties. 3. Landscape/Open space may be any combination of landscaping or private and common open spaces. 4. Useable open space includes a combination of common and private open space. 3.f Packet Pg. 134 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : Z o n i n g C o m p a r i s o n T a b l e ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Attachment G Context-Based Design Criteria 2755 El Camino Real 16PLN-00464 Pursuant to PAMC 18.13.060(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a multi-family residential district. The purpose is to encourage development in a multi- family residential district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Massing and Building Facades Project Consistency Massing and building facades shall be designed to create a residential scale in keeping with Palo Alto neighborhoods and to provide a relationship with street(s) Given the busy roadways adjacent the project site, the project is appropriately set back from both Page Mill Road and El Camino Real in a manner that is consistent with recommendations for exclusively residential projects along El Camino Real, as outlined in the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The building orients the main entrance and entrance courtyard toward the corner to activate it, as is recommended in the guidelines for this specific project site as well as other corner sites in general. Projecting porches provide a human scale and signify habitation; however, these are appropriately placed so as not to be located too close to the sidewalk, which could impact the privacy and safety of future residents. Landscaping provides appropriate buffering while still maintaining a human scale to these ground floor residences. The project includes a flat roof, which is consistent with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. 2. 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 The project site is located adjacent PC Zoned properties that allow for higher density and higher Floor Area Ratio than in most areas of the city, similar to the proposed development. The projects adjacent the site are also three to four stories tall (approximately 45 feet and approximately 39 feet for the Sunrise Assisted Living and Silverwood condominiums, respectively), where the project is four stories tall (approximately 49 feet) with a portion of the fourth floor being a roof deck, which reduces massing along the frontage and adjacent to the three-story building along Page Mill Road. 3. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides open space with private balconies for most of the residents and a large roof deck. The roof deck provides a better location for common open space than an at grade facility at the rear of the building because it provides more solar access and views of the City. The roof deck and balconies are oriented toward the street to increase eyes on the street in accordance with the context- 3.g Packet Pg. 135 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : C o n t e x t - B a s e d D e s i g n C r i t e r i a ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) based design criteria. Landscaping is provided along the north side adjacent the Silverwood condominiums to maintain privacy for residences at the condominium. Planters, trees, and use of colored pavers are all proposed as part of the common open space design. 4. Parking Design Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project’s parking is located and accessed at the rear of the site, and the majority of parking spaces are located within a below-grade garage. Existing landscape screening at the Sunrise Assisted Living Center complex site as well as the new proposed landscaping provided along the perimeter of the proposed development provides screening between these existing sites and the four above grade parking space proposed along the interior of the building. 5. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood This finding does not apply; the project site is less than one-half acre. 6. Housing Variety and Units on Individual Lots Multifamily projects may include a variety of unit types such as small-lot detached units, rowhouses/townhouses, and cottage clusters in order to achieve variety and create transitions to adjacent existing development Not applicable. The project is a multi-story rental project located on a single existing lot rather than many units on individual lots. The proposed 49’3” tall building is in keeping with the scale of the adjacent Sheridan building at approximately 45 feet with a stair tower at a maximum height of 50’ 3” and the adjacent Silverwood Condominium complex is approximately 40 feet. 7. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project. Green building design considers the environment during design and construction. Green building design aims for compatibility with the local environment: to protect, respect, and benefit from it. In general, sustainable buildings are energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high- quality spaces and high recycled content materials. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is subject to the California Green Building Code (CalGreen, Tier 2) and includes a variety of sustainable elements. 3.g Packet Pg. 136 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : C o n t e x t - B a s e d D e s i g n C r i t e r i a ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Attachment H Performance Criteria 18.23 2755 El Camino Real 16PLN-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 or Site and Design 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. 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Project Consistency 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 project includes placement of the trash/recycling enclosure within the underground parking garage and within appropriately sized containers. This enclosure is located as far from abutting residences as reasonably possible. The site includes chutes for all three waste streams from all floors as well as accessible access to the enclosure for all users. 18.23.030 Lighting 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 adjacent residents. The footcandles along all property lines are generally 0.1 or less. 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities 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. The project is exclusively multi-family residential; therefore this requirement is not applicable. 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping 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 The project is adjacent to residential uses within nonresidential zones and therefore provides cypress trees along the interior lot lines between the site and adjacent uses. In addition, vines will be used along the rear of the building to increase greenery and visually reduce massing. Mechanical equipment is screened in that it is primarily located 3.h Packet Pg. 137 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : P e r f o r m a n c e C r i t e r i a C o n s i s t e n c y ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. within the building on the first floor/basement or otherwise located on the roof and screened by parapet walls 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration 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 parking for the project is primarily located below ground with all lift systems enclosed so as to reduce noise for adjacent residential uses. All refuse storage and equipment is also located within the basement with only HVAC equipment provided on the roof. The CEQA analysis outlines noise levels and concludes that noise levels from this equipment would be less than significant; they would not have a distinguishable effect on existing noise levels at the site. 18.23.070 Parking 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’s parking is located below grade with only guest parking provided at grade. These guest parking spots are located along the interior lot line and screened from adjacent uses with planned trees, as well as existing trees on the adjacent property. 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access 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 easy access for all modes of transportation. The project includes short- term and long-term bike parking at grade. The project eliminates a curb cut along Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway creating a safer pedestrian experience. The project will also dedicate land to the right-of-way to facilitate the County’s plan to include a new right turn lane and a new bike lane along Page Mill Road to improve bike safety. 18.23.090 Air Quality 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. Future uses are required to comply with these performance standards. 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials 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 1. The proposed residential use does not include storage of hazardous materials. 3.h Packet Pg. 138 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : P e r f o r m a n c e C r i t e r i a C o n s i s t e n c y ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Attachment I South El Camino Real Design Guidelines 2755 El Camino Real, 16PLN-00464 The South El Camino Real Design Guidelines are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments along South El Camino Real. The purpose of the guidelines is primarily to provide a set of guiding principles to anticipate, evaluate, and encourage appropriate development. The guidelines are intended to create a dynamic mixed-use corridor that serves the diverse needs of the City and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users and for abutting neighbors and businesses. South El Camino Real Guideline Project Consistency Section 2.2 Pedestrian Oriented Nodes, Section 2.2.1., California Avenue Area District Vision: Development in the California Avenue Segment of El Camino Real should reinforce the area's origin as an historical node with an urban, pedestrian-oriented design approach that takes advantage of California Avenue's relatively high levels of pedestrian activity.  New Buildings should front El Camino Real with prominent facades. Street level facades should have numerous pedestrian amenities.  Renovations of existing buildings should support the area as an activity node with carefully-conceived pedestrian amenities, and improved materials and signage. The proposed project is a new building along El Camino Real and includes a prominent entrance area at the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill. The project includes balconies and windows facing El Camino Real though few are on the ground floor due to the proposed design. The project includes low planter walls that can also serve as seating areas as well as a new, sheltered bus stop. New street trees provide improvements to the pedestrian experience along the right-of-way. Section 2.2.1.2 California Avenue Area Strategic Sites: Page Mill Road/El Camino Real Corner. Buildings should feature a prominent corner to anchor the large-scale intersection. The El Camino Real frontage should feature extensive windows, as well as pedestrian amenities such as an arcade or canopy, seating, and planters. Valley Transit Authority Transit Center at the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real/Former Nursery site. Existing park-and-ride use should be incorporated into a more intensive use of the site that would take advantage of the prominent location. A mixed-use building with structured/subsurface parking would be desirable. Aggregation of adjacent underutilized parcels such should be encouraged. The El Camino Real frontage at this site features planters and includes a canopy around the entrance area. The design also includes low planter walls that could serve as seats as well as an improved bus stop shelter with bench and a small bench at the entrance. The design does not include extensive windows along the El Camino Real frontage, which may be more desirable. Although there is no arcade proposed, the revised design includes a porte cochère that leads to parking in the rear instead of including a parking garage entrance, which is more desirable and breaks up massing along the frontage. Consistent with the recommendations for this specific lot, this is a more intensive use of the site. Although a mixed-use building was identified as being desirable, more recently, Council has expressed an interest in encouraging more residential uses at this site given the proximity to existing offices (PAS and SRP) and transit. Parking is subsurface, consistent with the guideline. Aggregation of adjacent parcels is unlikely given the existing active uses of adjacent sites. 3.i Packet Pg. 139 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S o u t h E l C a m i n o R e a l D e s i g n G u i d e l i n e s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Section 3.1.1 Effective Sidewalk Width: In order to create a 12-foot effective sidewalk width along El Camino Real, buildings should be set back from the El Camino Real property line sufficient to maintain 12 feet of effective sidewalk width, inclusive of the existing width of the public sidewalk (measured from the back-of-curb to the building face). The project provides an effective 12 foot sidewalk width, consistent with this policy. Note that the building is set back further in accordance with guidelines for exclusively residential projects. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.1.2 Sidewalk Setback Design: The design of the sidewalk setback should create an urban "downtown" character. The sidewalk must be at least 12 feet wide, typically paved continuously from curb to building face. The sidewalk area should feature amenities such as street trees with tree grates, planters, benches and removable cafe furniture. Tree wells with ADA-compatible metal grates should be consistently located within the effective sidewalk area adjacent to the buildings. Street trees with ADA compatible grates are provided both on El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. The bus stop is being relocated and improved along the El Camino Real frontage to provide covered seating for bus/shuttle users. A small gathering area identifies the entrance at the corner of Page Mill and El Camino Real and provides planters, benches, and short-term bicycle parking. The building is set back further, consistent with guidelines for exclusively residential projects. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.1.3 Build-to lines: Buildings should be built up to the sidewalk to reinforce the definition and importance of the street. It is recommended that buildings be designed with "build-to" lines, where the building mass/façade is built up to the setback line continuously, except for articulation such as doorways, recessed window bays, small plazas, driveways, and small parking areas to the sides of buildings. Where the facade is set back from the built-to line, low walls and hedges are encouraged to maintain the continuity of the streetscape. The project is not built up to the sidewalk; however, the project meets the guidelines under Section 7 for exclusively residential projects. The guidelines for exclusively residential projects require that the build-to line be set back 20 to 24 feet from El Camino Real. Landscaping and a defined entrance gathering area at the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real help to maintain the continuity of the streetscape both along the frontage and along the street side yard facing Page Mill Road. Sufficient sidewalks as well as street trees improve the streetscape in comparison to existing conditions. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.1.3a: On parcels located in node areas, a minimum of seventy-five percent of the El Camino Real frontage must be comprised of building mass built up to the build-to/setback line. More than 75 percent of the El Camino Real frontage is built up to the build-to/setback line of 20-24 feet. The project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.1.4 Corner Parcels: For corner parcels, the building should be built up to the setback line in order to define the corner. The remaining portion of the side street frontage should include features such as low walls, trellises and hedges to continue the street wall. The main entrance is located at the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real. The building is built up to the exclusively residential setbacks at this corner and provides a well-defined entrance area with low planter wall seating and landscaping. Along the side street, low walls with landscaped planters provide privacy for the residential units while still defining the streetscape. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.1.4a: In node areas, the building should continue at the side street setback line for a minimum of fifty percent of the side street setback property frontage The side street setback used for exclusively residential projects is between 8-12 feet for the first 50 feet and 16 feet thereafter. The project is located between 8-12 feet from the property line along Page Mill Road and then transitions further back as it transitions to the adjacent development. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. 3.i Packet Pg. 140 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S o u t h E l C a m i n o R e a l D e s i g n G u i d e l i n e s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Section 3.1.5 Minimum Height: Buildings should have a minimum height of 25 feet in order to provide a presence in scale with El Camino real. The proposed building is 49’3” tall where the adjacent Sheridan building is approximately 45 feet with a stair tower at a maximum height of 50’ 3” and the adjacent Silverwood Condominium complex is approximately 40 feet. The project is consistent with this guideline in that the proposed project provides a presence along El Camino Real. Section 3.1.6 Entries: All buildings should have entries facing El Camino Real. Recessed entries that provide space for seating and gathering are encouraged. The entrance faces the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. The entrance area includes landscaping and provides low planter walls that also serve as temporary seating area. Although this area could include more seating to better serve as a "gathering space" the proposed space is appropriate for the exclusively residential use given the high-volume traffic at this intersection. The project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.1.7. Increased setback: Increased setbacks are permitted only if the additional setback provides a public amenity such as a wider sidewalk, outdoor seating or outdoor dining. If a building is to be set back beyond the recommended dimension, the setback should not exceed 20 feet so that a comfortable pedestrian environment and well defined streetscape is established. Low walls should be used to define streetscape along the edge of the increased setback. The majority of the project is set back 20-24 feet along El Camino Real in accordance with Section 7 of the guidelines, which addresses exclusively residential projects. The majority of the building is set up to the 20- 24 foot build to line. A small portion of the frontage is dedicated to an activated corner with the entrance to the building, landscaping, a bench, and low walls to define the courtyard entrance area. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.1.8 Relationship to context: New buildings should relate to and compliment surrounding buildings and street frontages. Projects should relate to adjacent buildings with complimentary building orientations and compatible landscaping Most of the building is set back approximately 20 feet or more from the adjacent residences to provide daylight/space between the existing adjacent buildings and the proposed project. This is also designed so that the building is built up to the recommended street setbacks in order to define the streetscape. The new building is similar in height to the adjacent buildings. Mature landscaping has been provided on adjacent residences and new landscaping is proposed along the streetscape and interior lot lines for screening purposes. This landscaping would be compatible with adjacent landscaping. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.1.1 Limited Driveway Access From El Camino Real: New developments should minimize driveways and curb cuts to reduce impacts on El Camino Real traffic flow and on-street parking. Where curb cuts are unavoidable, width should be minimized, and their impact lessened by extending the sidewalk paving material across the driveway. Although the project includes driveway access from El Camino Real, this would not be a change from existing conditions at the project site; which already include a curb cut to access the existing parking lot. The curb cut along Page Mill Road will be removed. Staff explored options for the driveway in coordination with transportation and determined that maintaining the driveway on El Camino Real was preferred for traffic flow. The curb cut for this drive aisle is the minimum necessary to accommodate access. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. 3.i Packet Pg. 141 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S o u t h E l C a m i n o R e a l D e s i g n G u i d e l i n e s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Section 3.2.2 Shared driveways: Where two parking lots abut and it is possible for a curb cut and driveway to serve several properties, owners are strongly encouraged to enter into shared access agreements. The agreements must include deed restrictions so that the shared access is transferred to future owners Not applicable; the driveways for adjacent sites could not be shared with the proposed project. Section 3.2.3 Side Street Driveway Access: Where possible, driveway access to frontage properties should be from intersecting side streets Although the proposed project includes access to and from El Camino Real; the adjacent side street is also a major thruway rather than a smaller side street. Transportation evaluated traffic flow options and indicated that maintaining the access along El Camino Real rather than Oregon Expressway was preferred. Therefore, although a different location would be more consistent with the guidelines, it is not the preferred design choice for traffic flow and the project is still consistent with this guideline. Section 3.2.5 Limitation on parking Lot frontage: Surface parking areas, including driveways, should not occupy more than 50 percent of a property frontage along El Camino Real, and continuous parking lot frontage may not exceed 120 feet. The project includes parking primarily below grade and the access driveway does not occupy more than 50 percent of the frontage along El Camino Real. Access to the garage and at grade parking would not be visible from El Camino Real or Page Mill Road. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.2.6 Landscape Treatment of Parking Setback: The landscape setback for surface parking areas should be planted with trees and shrubbery that provide a strong visual edge along the street. Trees should be spaced no less than 20 feet on center to achieve a canopy effect. Low walls and shrubs can also provide an effective way to screen the lower portion of parked cars from the sidewalk. Not applicable. Only four parking spaces are provided at grade and these parking spaces are not visible from the street. The perimeter of the site is landscaped with trees to provide a visual buffer and greenery. Section 3.2.7 Ample Landscaping: landscaping such as trees, shrubs, vines, or groundcover should permeate parking areas. Open parking areas should have a 6-foot landscape buffer along adjacent properties. Every six spaces should be separated by 4-foot minimum width landscape "fingers" planted with trees. Landscaping is provided along the property line. Only four surface parking spaces are proposed, therefore, landscape fingers are not necessary. Although six feet of landscaping would be preferred, it is not feasible, and the 5 foot landscaping buffer meets the intent of this guideline. Section 3.2.8 Architectural Elements: Architectural elements such as pergolas, arcades and low fences can further enhance the function and appearance of parking areas. Care should be taken to maintain sight lines within surface parking areas, with landscaping no higher than 30 inches in height. The design includes a porte cochère that leads to parking in the rear. Additional parking is provided below grade. Landscaping at the entrance maintains the line- of-sight triangle and provides only low shrubs or trees with a canopy taller than 10 feet to avoid line of site concerns. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.2.9 Easily Understood Wayfinding: Parking lots should be arranged so that drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians can find their ways easily. Generously scaled pathways should traverse parking areas so that pedestrian access is clear, safe, and pleasant. The grade level drive aisle and guest parking is located in an easily accessible area and all bicycle parking and pedestrian access is provided at grade. The four parking spots at grade level have easy access to the adjacent lobby and bike parking area. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. 3.i Packet Pg. 142 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S o u t h E l C a m i n o R e a l D e s i g n G u i d e l i n e s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Section 3.2.10 Pedestrian Passageways: Pedestrian passageways leading from rear parking areas to the El Camino Real sidewalk are encouraged. Passageways should be animated with features that provide interest such as windows, trellises, benches and planting. The porte cochère that leads to the rear parking is also easily accessible for pedestrians and bicyclists. However, urban forestry has recommended adding climbing vines to the exterior of the porte cochère. Landscaping is provided between the adjacent property and the proposed access from El Camino Real. Section 3.2.11 Shared Use Agreements: Property owners are encouraged to enter into agreements for the shared use of parking spaces. Where peak demand differs and spaces can be shared, the number of required spaces could be reduced at the discretion of the City, as permitted in the Zoning Ordinance. Where peak demand is effectively the same, the required number of spaces should still be provided, but by agreement, access between parking lots can be "shared" allowing people visiting one business to remain parked and walk to other businesses in the area. Not applicable; the proposed project does not include multiple uses to allow for shared parking. Immediately adjacent uses are similarly residential so shared use of those parking spaces would not be appropriate. Section 3.3.1 Usable Amenities: Landscape and hardscape features should not just be visually appealing, but also function as open space amenities to be used and enjoyed. Open Spaces such as plazas, seating areas and activity areas should be located at building entries, along or near well- travelled pedestrian routes to encourage frequent and spontaneous use. Amenities should be functional as well as visually appealing, with seating, tables, canopies and covering trellises. Landscape and hardscape features create privacy for the residential use but also provide a relationship with the street. Although the project open space (other than landscaping) is not located on the ground level along well traveled pedestrian routes, the common space is appropriately designed given the high-volume traffic at this intersection. The amenity space is functional as well as visually appealing, with seating, a BBQ, a fireplace, and landscaping. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.3.2 Site Landscaping: Landscaping should permeate the site, creating "outdoor rooms." The site plan should treat the site as an integrated building and landscape composition, rather than a building surrounded by obligatory strips of landscape buffer. Parking areas, spaces between buildings and property edges should be designed with the same care that is given to prominent areas. Given the size of the site and required setbacks, minimal space is available for creating "outdoor rooms." However, the applicant has created a useful entrance area that is defined through the use of a canopy, low planter walls with vegetation, and a bench. Landscaping screening is provided between interior lot lines and where more space is available at the rear a pet play area is provided. Street trees are also provided, consistent with these guidelines. Section 3.3.3 Property Edges: Property edges and spaces between buildings should be designed with the same care that is given to prominent areas. Consideration has been given to all sides of the property; however, staff would recommend increased greenery, particularly above the entrance and on the porte cochère, particularly between lot lines. Section 3.3.4 Screening: All mechanical equipment should be screened from view from all public right-of-ways, pedestrian paths and adjacent residences. Screens should be designed to be consistent with the building architecture in form, material and detail, as well as the site's landscape elements. All mechanical equipment is well screened, with the exception of the transformer, which has been revised from its previous location on El Camino Real. The applicant has explored multiple locations for the transformer and has located as far from El Camino Real as feasible. Although further screening of the transformer from Page Mill would be desirable; the required eight feet of clearance in front of the transformer is required. 3.i Packet Pg. 143 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S o u t h E l C a m i n o R e a l D e s i g n G u i d e l i n e s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Section 3.3.5 Low Walls: Low walls should be used for screening parking areas and mechanical equipment, for providing spacial definition and for providing seating areas near entries. Low walls provide spacial definition; creating privacy for residential units while still maintaining a connection with the streetscape. It can also be used for seating along the frontages and adjacent the site entrance. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.3.6 Materials: Wall materials should be consistent and compatible with building materials. High quality, durable materials such as masonry, cement, stucco and decorative metal railing is encouraged. The project uses high quality building materials and materials for the low walls for planters throughout the project site. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 3.3.7 Paving: Accent paving at plazas, seating areas, driveway entries and pedestrian pathways is strongly encouraged. Internal streets and drives are encouraged to use pavers and other accent paving to minimize impervious surface and for visual appearance. Although the project does not include accent paving for the driveway entry; which could be an improvement, the project does include accent paving at the site entrance to improve and activate the corner. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. 3.3.8 Cooperative Design Approach: A cooperative, rather than defensive design approach is encouraged when adjacent uses are compatible. As more properties engage in a cooperative design approach, areas will feel more like a neighborhood or district, as opposed to a collection of individual projects, and will experience more efficient and effective pedestrian and vehicle circulation. Given the design of the existing adjacent sites, a more cooperative design approach would be difficult while still providing appropriate screening. The applicant explored options for providing a pathway between the project site and Sheridan Avenue, connecting into the existing pathway at Sunrise Assisted Living; however, the owner at the adjacent property expressed concerns for the safety of their residents, some of which suffer from dementia, if gates are unsecured. 3.3.9 Privacy of Adjacent residential uses: Privacy of existing residential properties must be protected through screening and landscaping. Fencing, shrubbery, trellises and high windows should be used to protect views into residential properties. Fencing along the property line and screening trees help to protect views into residential properties. The common deck area also provides landscaping along the northeastern side facing the Silverwood condominiums to allow use of the deck without creating privacy concerns for adjacent residences. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.1.1 Rear daylight plane: Buildings abutting established residential areas shall have a rear daylight plane. For buildings abutting established residential areas, no structure except for television and radio antennas, chimneys and flues, shall extend above or beyond a daylight plane measured five feet above the rear property line and an angle of forty-five degrees (consistent with zoning regulations). Not applicable. Although the adjacent use along the rear of the property is residential; the site is not zoned residential. The adjacent property is a PC zone and the use of the site is high density and three levels. The building on the project site is set back further than the building on the adjacent property (10 feet) and no daylight plane is required for that adjacent property. The new ordinance would require that the daylight plan match those on adjacent properties (consistent with what is already required on PF Zoned properties). Section 4.1.2 Side and Front Daylight Planes-No requirement: it is recommended that buildings in the south El Camino Real area not to be required to have front and side daylight planes (this is a proposed modification to current zoning regulations). The project does not include a front or side daylight plane, consistent with the proposed zoning development standards. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.1.3 Reinforce the definition of the street: Building mass should reinforce the definition and importance of the street. Buildings shall conform to the build-to lines as outlined in Section 3 of the design guidelines to create a consistent streetwall. Not applicable. The project follows setbacks consistent with Section 7 of the design guidelines, which include different build-to lines for exclusively residential projects. 3.i Packet Pg. 144 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S o u t h E l C a m i n o R e a l D e s i g n G u i d e l i n e s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Section 4.1.4 Building Composition: Building mass should be articulated to reflect a human scale, both horizontally and vertically. Examples of such building elements include articulated facades, corner elements, inset windows, highlighted entry features and prominent cornices and rooflines. There is a primary entry feature that reinforces the definition of the street and provides a human scale and easy access for pedestrians and bicyclists in particular. Some variation is provided along all sides of the building and balconies help to further break up the massing. Urban forestry has recommended that greenery, such as trellises/green walls be used more to break up the massing and provide further visual interest. Overall, the applicant has made significant improvements to break up massing on all four sides of the building through various approaches, including planters, variation at different levels, articulation, and variation in materials and color. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.1.5 Articulated facades: Base, Body and Roof: In order to create a cohesive streetscape, building facades should be articulated with a building base, body and rood or parapet edge. This creates a shared point of reference that allows different buildings to relate to each other, regardless of individual architectural styles or approaches. The proposed project includes a canopy and landscaping at the ground level to define the base of the building. The roof deck on the third floor along page mill helps to provide definition from the fourth level and but the body and roof could use further definition. Section 4.1.6 Orientation: Buildings facing El Camino Real should be oriented parallel to the El Camino Real right-of-way to create a cohesive, well-defined streetscape. The project entrance opens to the corner to better define the corner, consistent with the guidelines. The building parallels both El Camino Real and Page Mill Road with a well-defined entrance. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.1.7 Corners: Corners should be addressed with special features such as prominent entries, massing and architectural elements. As noted above, a well-defined entrance at the corner of Page Mill and El Camino Real is provided. This is set apart through canopies, landscaping, low walls, and special paving materials. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.1.8 Expression of Use: Building forms should be articulated as an expression of the building use. For example, the various uses in a mixed-use building should be apparent through the pattern or scale of entries and windows, and through building elements such as arcades, awnings and balconies. The project is exclusively residential and balconies, windows and a large deck provide eyes on the street to show evidence of habitation. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.2.1 Relations of entries to the street: Buildings should have entries directly accessible and visible from El Camino Real. Buildings with the main entry on the side should include architectural elements that make the entry visible from El Camino Real and include a generously proportioned sidewalk from the street to the entry. In multi-use buildings, each building use and ground floor tenant space should have at least one functional entrance directly visible and accessible from the street. This exclusively residential building includes a clear entrance at the main intersection corner and generously proportioned sidewalks. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.2.2 Architectural expression of building entries: Entries should be marked by architectural features that emphasize their importance. Features such as tall building features, projecting overhangs, special lighting, awnings and signage can signify the location and importance of an entry. The entrance is clearly marked by a large projecting overhang and signage. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. 3.i Packet Pg. 145 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S o u t h E l C a m i n o R e a l D e s i g n G u i d e l i n e s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Section 4.3.1 Façade transparency: Building facades should animate the street, providing visual interest to passers-by. "Transparency" means that one can see or have a sense of what is behind a building façade, creating an interesting and lively street face. The façade transparency could be improved, particularly along El Camino Real. However, it should be noted that windows along the El Camino Real frontage would show views into bicycle parking and a storage closet; which may not be desirable. Improved transparency into the bicycle shop may be more desirable though. Section 4.3.2 Wall Openings: Transparent doors and windows must extend at least 75% of ground floor facades facing El Camino Real or side streets, and 50% of second floor facades. Facades should have ample, articulated doors and windows to create visual interest and allow one to see inside. No more than 20% of window space may be covered by window signs. As outlined in the staff report, this project is not consistent with this guideline. However, the guideline appears to be oriented toward a commercial retail or office use rather than an exclusively residential use where transparency of this scale may not be as desirable. Section 4.3.3 Glazing: Glazing should not prevent one from seeing inside a building. The use of reflective or dark-tinted glass is discouraged, especially at ground level, because it prohibits transparency and lacks the visual interest of clear window openings. The project includes glazing in some locations on the ground floor. However, this seems appropriate in some locations based on the use. Staff will look to the architectural review board to provide further guidance on whether the project should be improved for better consistency with this guideline. Section 4.3.5 Expression of Habitation: Residential or mixed- use residential projects should incorporate elements that signal habitation such as entrances, stairs, porches, bays and balconies that are visible to people on the street. This residential project includes elements that signal habitation, including entrances, balconies, and a deck. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.3.6 Design consistency on all facades: All exposed sides of a building should be designed with the same level of care and integrity. Buildings should be attractive and visually engaging from all sides, unless in a zero lot-line condition. The project considers all sides of the building, making them attractive and visually engaging. Improvements could be made to increase articulation through use of greenery or other methods, consistent with urban forestry’s recommendations. However, there is consistency in the quality of design on all facades. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.3.7 Architecturally Valid Details: Architectural details and features should be architecturally valid, not just decorative. Features should be related to the building's structure, function and/or engineering, rather than "tacked on" or arbitrary. The project does not include "tacked on" features. All balconies, windows, and other details of the façade are architecturally valid. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.3.8 Articulation and Depth: Building elevations should have variation and depth, rather than a false front treatment. Varied massing, projections and recesses can be used to create a sense of articulation and depth. Structural elements such as columns, parapets, rooflines and window fenestration can inform building design, as can functional elements such as location of entries, circulation spaces and special rooms. The building design includes varied massing and recesses to create articulation. The roofline could be improved to provide further articulation; however, overall the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.3.9 Rhythm and Scale: Building facades should be designed to have a rhythm and pattern measured according to human movement and scale. Architectural elements such as expressed structural bays and individual display windows (as opposed to continuous bands of glazing) can contribute to the rhythm and pattern of the facade, creating visual interest and an inviting pedestrian environment. Vertical proportions of doors, windows and projections should achieve human scale. Doors and windows achieve human scale and the project does not include continuous bands of glazing. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. 3.i Packet Pg. 146 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S o u t h E l C a m i n o R e a l D e s i g n G u i d e l i n e s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Section 4.3.10 Street Frontage Character: The street frontage should have continuous ground floor commercial uses characterized by display windows, recessed entries, and amenities such as arcades, awnings and seating areas. Grade- level and partially subgrade parking should be fronted with habitable building space such as storefront and building lobbies. The building lobby leads out to the main intersection corner and is clearly defined. The project is exclusively residential and therefore does not include ground floor commercial uses. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.4.1 Amenities: Building design should offer amenities to users and the public such as protection from the elements and places for people to gather or retreat. Elements such as arcades, balconies, awnings, roof gardens and seating areas enhance the user's experience and provide architectural interest. The project includes a clear entrance with a green canopy above as well as an improved, covered bus stop bench and cover to protect transit users from the elements. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.4.3 Disabled Access: Disabled access should be seamlessly incorporated into the building design. Facilities should be designed to provide inviting access that all users will want to use. Disabled access is seamlessly incorporated into the design. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.4.4 Integral to Building Structure and Use: Amenities and functional requirements should be integrated into the overall project design. For example, awnings should be individually placed in bays and over windows, as opposed to a continuous horizontal awning that ignores building structure or use. Code and functional requirements such as life safety, disabled access, servicing and security provisions should blend into the overall design, rather than appearing added on as an afterthought. Awnings and disabled access seemed blended into the overall design rather than added as an afterthought. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.4.5 Screening of Service, Trash and Utility areas: Service, trash and utility areas should be screened or enclosed in structures that are consistent with the building design, in terms of materials and detailing. These are provided in the basement and will be wheeled out to a designated area at the front of the property for pickup and wheeled back down by property management. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.5.1 Flat roofs and parapets encouraged: Flat roofs with parapets are strongly encouraged. Gabled and hip roofs are generally discouraged except when mixed use or residential projects are reflecting an appropriate residential character based on surroundings or adjacent building forms. Although the project includes a parapet, as is encouraged, more articulation could be provided in the roofline to better reflect similar roofs at the two adjacent properties. Section 4.5.2 Parapet Design: Parapets should be provided to articulate flat roofs and hide roof mounted equipment. Parapets should have strong cornice detailing to provide scale and visual interest. A parapet roof is provided to hide HVAC equipment. However, strong cornice detailing does not appear to be provided. Section 4.5.3 Functional Integrity of roofline: Roofs and architectural elements should have functional integrity and should not be used primarily to create a "style" or "image." False roof structures such as mansards are strongly discouraged A false roof is not provided. The parapet hides HVAC equipment, providing a functional use. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. 4.5.4 Roof Lines Consistent with Building and Context: Roof Lines and roof shapes should be consistent with the design and structure of the building itself as well as with roof lines of adjacent buildings. The roof line is consistent with the proposed style of the building, which has a more modern appearance; however, it is inconsistent with adjacent rooflines. 3.i Packet Pg. 147 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S o u t h E l C a m i n o R e a l D e s i g n G u i d e l i n e s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Section 4.5.5 Roof Forms Reflect Façade Articulation: Roof forms should reflect the façade articulation and building massing, as opposed to a single-mass roof over an articulated façade. The proposed roof could be improved to provide better articulation. Section 4.5.6 Roof Materials: Roof materials should reflect the character and use of the buildings. Highly reflective or brightly colored roof materials are strongly discouraged. The project uses roof material that reflects the character of the building. No bright colors are used. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.5.7 Screening or Rooftop Mechanical Equipment: Rooftop Mechanical equipment should be screened with either an equipment screen or penthouse. The Screen or penthouse should have a material and form similar to the building. The project includes HVAC equipment on the roof that is screened by a parapet. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.8.1 Materials Integrity and Durability: Exterior Building material and finishes should convey a sense of integrity, permanence and durability. The selection of appropriate materials and finishes has a powerful impact on the perception of quality. The project uses high quality building materials (See materials board). Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 4.8.2 Mix of Materials: Juxtaposition of contrasting materials, such as masonry and glass, can create interest when carefully integrated. Thoughtful attention should be given to the selection of the full range of materials in a project--from the wall finishes, paving and roofing to window frames and door hardware. The project uses quality materials and uses appropriate materials for windows, doors, and paving finishes. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. 4.8.3 Materials Reflect Articulation of Building Elements: Change in materials should be used to articulate building elements such as base, body parapets caps, bays, arcades and structural elements. Change in materials should be integral with building facade and structure, rather than an application. Materials should not change at outside corners or in the same plane of the facade. The project includes changes in color and material along different planes of the façade to create visual interest. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 5, Signage Not Applicable. Signage is not currently proposed as part of the project; although the minimal signage being considered is shown for reference purposes. Any specific future signage proposed would be required to meet all of the guidelines under Section 5. Section 7.1 El Camino Real Residential Setback: Exclusively residential projects are required to be setback between 20 to 24 feet from the El Camino Real curb. The majority of the project is built to approximately 21- 22 feet, 3inches from the El Camino Real Curb. Only the entrance area, which provides an open, pedestrian friendly area to define the corner is set back slightly further. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 7.1.2 El Camino Real Setback Design: The 20-foot El Camino Real setback on exclusively residential buildings shall include an effective sidewalk measuring at least twelve feet wide, lined by double rows of trees. Low screen walls and shrubbery may be used to create privacy between the sidewalk and adjacent residences. The project provides a 12' effective sidewalk width and includes street trees and low screen planter walls to define the sidewalk. Vegetation screening is also provided between property lines. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. 3.i Packet Pg. 148 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S o u t h E l C a m i n o R e a l D e s i g n G u i d e l i n e s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Section 7.1.3 El Camino Real Build-To Line: The 20 to 24-foot El Camino Real setback required for exclusively residential project shall also serve as the build to line. This will ensure that new projects contribute to the overall continuity of the streetscape. Buildings may only be set back from the setback/build-to line if the additional set-back provides amenities such as a wider sidewalk or outdoor seating. In no cases should an increased setback have a frontage greater than twenty feet. The majority of the project is built to approximately 21- 22 feet, 3inches from the El Camino Real Curb. Only the entrance area, which provides an open, pedestrian friendly area to define the corner is set back slightly further. Therefore the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 7.1.4 Sidestreet setback: on corner properties, exclusively residential projects are required to be setback 16 feet from the sidestreet property line, with a sidewalk measuring at least eight feet wide lined by double rows of trees. Low screen walls and shrubbery may be used to create privacy between the sidewalk and adjacent residences. Stoops and porches may project eight feet into the setback. Although the project is not built 16 feet from the side street property line, guideline 7.2.1 encourages the project to be built up to 8-12 feet from the property line for corner properties. The project is consistent with this guideline. Low screen walls are used to define the sidewalk. Section 7.1.5 Parking: Parking must be located behind buildings or in underground or podium structures. Parking should be accessed from side streets where possible, and should have a minimum appearance on streetscape and function. The proposed parking garage entrance is not visible from El Camino Real or Page Mill Road. The at-grade parking spaces are also not visible from the public right-of-way. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline Section 7.2.1 50-foot "boulevard Character" Zone: The portion of a residential project within fifty feet of the El Camino Real setback shall have a prominent massing and presence appropriate to the scale and importance of the thoroughfare. Buildings in this zone should have a dignified character, with units grouped below a single or large scale roof forms. The side street build-to line within the Boulevard zone shall range from eight to twelve feet. The project provides an 8’7” setback along the Boulevard zone, consistent with this guideline. Section 7.2.2. Transitional Zone: The portion of a residential project beyond the fifty-foot Urban Character Zone should be designed to provide a transition between the urban character of El Camino Real and the more residential character of adjacent neighborhoods. Buildings in this zone should transition from the scale of El Camino Real development to a scale compatible with adjacent existing residences. Row houses and apartments with balconies and stoops can provide an appropriate transition in many instances. Units may be grouped into a single building but should feature individual entries, porches and balconies. Where adjacent existing development is urban in character, this zone may take on a similarly urban character. Although the project does not transition to provide individual unit entrances, as outlined in this guideline, the project is consistent with the nature of the site. Adjacent uses along Page Mill Road are not low density residential neighborhoods. The adjacent use is similarly a high density residential use subject to PC zoning. In addition, the side street is a high traffic volume County thruway rather than a smaller, residential street. Therefore the project is appropriately designed based on the context of the site. Section 7.2.3 Side street Build-to lines: On Corner properties, the side street build-to line within the Boulevard Zone shall be 8 to 16 feet from the property line. The side street build-to line within the transitional zone shall be 16 feet. This will ensure that the corner is well defined and that a transition is made to existing adjacent residential properties. A request may be made for a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) for the 8' to 16' setback. The portion of the project within the boulevard zone is located 8'7" from the property line, consistent with this guideline. Although the project does not transition to 16 feet, the adjacent use is similarly a high density residential use subject to PC zoning rather than a low density residential use. Therefore the project is appropriately designed based on the context of the site. 3.i Packet Pg. 149 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S o u t h E l C a m i n o R e a l D e s i g n G u i d e l i n e s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Section 7.2.4 El Camino Real entryway: Exclusively residential buildings shall each have a prominent pedestrian entryway facing El Camino Real. The entryway should include elements such as overhangs, awnings, columns, low walls, steps and ramps to create a strong presence. The proposed project includes an entrance at the corner of the site. The entry includes a green canopy as well as low planter walls and decorative pavers to define the entrance and create a strong presence. The change in material at the entrance also helps to define the entrance. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 7.2.5 Entry design: Building and unit entries should be the most prominent feature of the façade. The importance of the entry should be emphasized through unique massing, level of detail, and materials. Design should be compatible with the overall building design. The project is designed such that the most prominent feature is the entrance at the corner at El Camino Real and Page Mill. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 7.2.6 Entry Scale: Building and unit entries should have a scale appropriate to the context and number of units provided access. Entries facing El Camino Real, providing access to a number of units, should have an appropriately prominent scale and high level of design. Side street and internal entries with access to a smaller number of units or just one unit, should have a more residential scale. The entry facing el Camino Real provides access to a number of units and, in turn, is prominent in scale and includes a high level of design. Other access points are more pedestrian in scale. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 7.2.7 Active Street frontage: Residential Project should maintain an active ground-floor street frontage. Uses such as lobbies, community rooms, and habitable outdoor terraces and plazas should be situated along ground floor street frontages. Windows and doorways should be designed to create an interesting streetscape. The lobby has been revised to be provided at grade and a large entrance area activates the corner. The entrance includes doorways to the bike kitchen and bicycle parking as well as the lobby. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 7.2.8 Architectural Character and Scale: The architecture which fronts El Camino Real in the Boulevard Zone should be substantial in character and scale with a strong presence. Buildings should have a dignified character, and should address the street to provide a strong street edge. Building and detail scale should be appropriate to the boulevard-scale of El Camino Real. The proposed project within the boulevard zone is built up to the recommended build-to line to define the streetscape. The detail scale is appropriate to the boulevard scale of El Camino Real. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 7.2.9 Roof Forms: Flat roofs with parapets are strongly encouraged along El Camino Real to provide a cohesive appearance. Roofs in the transitional zone may be either flat or gabled, depending on the neighborhood contact, and should be articulated to indicate individual units. Parapets on flat roofs should be articulated with well-designed details. Roofs over corners and major entries should be more strongly articulated for architectural legibility. The proposed project includes a flat roof, consistent with the recommendation of this guideline. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 7.2.10 Façade Articulation: Building massing should be articulated to create a strong rhythm in the building facades and should emphasize groupings of units. Typically, facades in the urban character zone will emphasize groups of units, while facades in the Transitional zone will emphasize individual units. Facades should be articulated with bays, terraces, balconies, awnings, stoops and recessed openings to provide visual interest and scale. The façade along both the El Camino Real right-of-way and the Page Mill Road right-of-way are articulated by balconies to provide visual interest and scale. And emphasize individual units. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. 3.i Packet Pg. 150 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S o u t h E l C a m i n o R e a l D e s i g n G u i d e l i n e s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Section 7.2.11 Partially-Recessed or Underground Garage treatment: Where parking is provided in a partially- submerged/split-level garage, the ventilated garage façade should be completely screened with architectural and landscape devices. Ventilation opening size should be minimized and screened with decorative grillwork and landscaping. Stoops should extend beyond the garage facade, particularly on side street frontages, and be spaced no more than 50 feet apart. Screening of the podium should not rely entirely on landscaping. Exposed podiums may not extend more than 5 feet above grade along any frontage. The proposed project is raised four feet above grade at the residences. However, the entrance is provide at grade, consistent with staff’s recommendations. Landscaping and low walls screen the podium along the streetscape. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. Section 7.2.12 privacy of street-level residences: Residences at or near street level should be designed to ensure privacy of the residents from passersby. Low walls (no more than four feet in height), hedges and grade changes should be used to create privacy while maintaining a relationship to the street. Where the grade change (including partially submerged parking) is used, the raised portion should be designed to read as the base of the building, with an architectural treatment consistent with the rest of the building. The project includes a grade change, along with low walls and landscaping to create privacy between the ground level residences and the public right-of-way. Therefore, the project is consistent with this guideline. 3.i Packet Pg. 151 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : S o u t h E l C a m i n o R e a l D e s i g n G u i d e l i n e s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 2755 El Camino Real TDM Plan - DRAFT WHPV Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | i 2755 El Camino Real Workforce Housing TDM Plan REVISED DRAFT November 2017 3.j Packet Pg. 152 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : T r a n s i t D e m a n d M a n a g e m e n t P l a n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) INTRODUCTION The purpose of this plan is to support a robust and context-sensitive transit-oriented development at 2755 El Camino Real. This will be achieved by: §Establishing a baseline understanding of the using conventional (ITE) suburban trip and parking generation modelling; §Reducing those baseline figures in consideration of the transit-oriented location of the site in Palo Alto and the greater Peninsula transportation network; §Proposing the specific transportation demand management (TDM) programs and policies for the development given its context; and, §Modelling the impacts of the aforementioned location and TDM programs utilizing the URBEMIS and GreenTRIP models, which adjust conventional average rates to quantify the impact of a development’s location, physical characteristics and any demand management programs. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION Proposed Project and Site Plans Windy Hill Property Ventures (WHPV) is planning to construct 57 new housing units in Palo Alto at the 19,563 square-foot lot situated at 2755 El Camino Real. Proposed for the site are 39 studio units and 18 1-bedroom units, all of which are rentals. The site, a former park-and-ride facility for Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) transit service, is at the northwestern corner of the intersection of El Camino Real (California State Route 82) and Page Mill Road (Santa Clara County Route G3). The project also includes a variety of off-site improvements including an improved bus shelter located at the front of the project along El Camino Real and the restriping a portion of the red curbing along EL Camino Real north of the project site to include additional loading space in the project area. Proposed Parking The current vehicle parking requirement for multi-family residential land use in Palo Alto is set at 1.25 parking spaces for each studio, 1.5 parking spaces for each 1-bedroom unit and 19 parking spaces for guests (33 percent if parking is assigned), for a total requiring a minimum of 94 parking spaces for the site. The Municipal Code also allows for reductions in requirements due to proximity to transit as well as transportation and parking alternatives.1 Combined, these reductions can add up to 30%, reducing the required number of spaces to 65. The developer has proposed to build 68 parking spaces, including ADA-compliant spaces and spaces for electric vehicle charging. The remaining 60 spaces would be consolidated by a “stacker” system. The majority of spaces would be one floor underground in the basement level, with guest parking spaces at grade level. 1 See Appendix A for Code language. 3.j Packet Pg. 153 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : T r a n s i t D e m a n d M a n a g e m e n t P l a n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 2755 El Camino Real Workforce Housing TDM Plan Windy Hill Property Ventures Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2 For bicycle parking, the current requirement is one long-term (Class I) space per dwelling unit and 0.1 short-term (Class II) space per dwelling unit. The developer has proposed a total of 76 bicycle parking spaces, including 68 long-term spaces and 8 short-term spaces. The bike room would be located on the first floor of the building. Baseline Vehicle Trip and Parking Generation The baseline figure was informed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual’s 9th Edition. The average rate of total weekday trips per dwelling unit for low- rise apartments2 is 6.59. Therefore, the baseline estimation of this site’s weekday trip generation totals 376 trips. This figure is certainly a ceiling to the possible number of trips, because that average figure, which is set at 50% entries and 50% exits, implies that, if visitors are not included, the average resident will leave their home location at least 3 times on a weekday. When applying ITE parking generation standards using the same quantity and land use code from the Parking Generation Manual (4th Edition), the traditional model will generate 70 parking spaces. Existing Context On a regional scale, the lot is immediately adjacent to the boundary of the California Avenue Priority Development Area (PDA). The area, defined originally in 2006 by the California Avenue Pedestrian Transit-Oriented District3, is one of many PDAs identified by regional planners as areas of focused job and housing growth throughout the Bay Area due to their proximity to high- capacity transit nodes. Existing Transit Service The site of the proposed project is along El Camino Real, the main arterial road serving the east side of the San Francisco Peninsula. The site is a ½-mile walk to the southbound platform of the California Avenue Caltrain station. From the California Avenue station, Caltrain provides direct connections to San Francisco, San Jose, and many cities along the Peninsula. On a weekday, 28 northbound and 29 southbound trains stop at California Avenue. The site is also immediately adjacent to northbound buses running along the El Camino Real Corridor. Transit services available on site include the following: Figure 1 Transit Service Summary Transit Agency Route Number Destinations Service Hours Bus Frequency Range Walking Distance to nearest stop Caltrain Local and Limited- Stop Series San Francisco (King and 4th) to San Jose Weekdays (5:47 am – 1:07 am) Saturdays etc. Sundays etc. 11 to 60 minutes 0.5 miles (California Avenue) 2 ITE Code 221 3 The property is not subject to the overlay district. 3.j Packet Pg. 154 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : T r a n s i t D e m a n d M a n a g e m e n t P l a n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 2755 El Camino Real Workforce Housing TDM Plan Windy Hill Property Ventures Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3 (100 and 200) (Diridon and Tamien) and Gilroy VTA Rapid 522 Palo Alto Transit Center to Eastridge Transit Center Weekdays (5:40 am – 10:57 pm) Saturday (8:00 am – 11:05 pm) Sunday/Holiday (9:04 am – 7:29 pm) 10 to 28 minutes (Weekdays) 13 to 30 minutes (Weekends/Holidays) 0.25 miles (California Avenue and El Camino Real) VTA 22 (Local) Palo Alto Transit Center to Eastridge Transit Center 24 Hours a day, 7 days a week 10 to 60 minutes (Weekdays) 15 to 80 minutes (Weekends/Holidays) Immediately outside VTA 89 California Avenue Caltrain Station to Palo Alto Veterans Hospital Weekdays (6:43 am- 6:37 pm) 13 to 45 minutes 0.25 miles (California Avenue and El Camino Real) VTA 102 (Express) South San Jose to Palo Alto Weekdays (Northbound 6:44-9:01 am; Southbound 3:15-5:33 pm) 10 to 30 minutes Immediately outside VTA 104 (Express) Penitencia Creek Transit Center to Palo Alto Weekdays (Westbound 6:45-7:35 am; Eastbound 4:22- 4:52 pm) 30 to 50 minutes 0.05 miles (across El Camino Real) VTA 182 (Express) Palo Alto to IBM/Bailer Avenue Weekdays (Southbound departure at 7:29 am; Northbound arrival at 6:14) N/A (Only one run in each direction) Immediately outside Dumbarton Express DB1 Stanford Research Park to Union City BART Station Weekdays (5:26 am – 8:43 pm) 17 to 60 minutes 0.05 miles (across Page Mill) Stanford University Marguerite Research Park (RP) Palo Alto Transit Center to Research Park (Peak Direction) Weekdays (6:31 am – 10:18 am and 3:23 – 7:33 p.m.) 20 to 40 minutes Immediately outside Stanford University Marguerite Shopping Express (SE) Palo Alto Transit Center to San Academic Year Weekdays (3:15 pm – 10:35) and Academic 50 to 60 minutes for regular service; 2 hours for summer/holidays Immediately outside 3.j Packet Pg. 155 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : T r a n s i t D e m a n d M a n a g e m e n t P l a n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 2755 El Camino Real Workforce Housing TDM Plan Windy Hill Property Ventures Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4 Antonio Shopping Center Year Weekends (9:35 am – 11:08 pm) Summer weekends and Academic holidays (9:45 am – 11:08 pm) Currently, the bus stop immediately outside the project site consists of the minimum requisite signage and sidewalk width. It includes a bench and additional waiting area setback from the sidewalk. The development and design team is interested in working with the Palo Alto Transportation Division (PATD) and the VTA about new and revitalized amenities for the bus stop. Future Transit Service The recently approved VTA Transit Service Redesign will have very slight changes to the site’s transit service. Average weekday frequency of the 22 will decrease to an average of 15-minute headways, while average weekday frequency of the 522-Rapid will improve to an average of 12- minute headways.4 Otherwise, there are no changes for the alignments and frequencies of any other routes serving the site. The site is in the realm of two of the most prominent and consequential transit capital projects in the Bay Area. The first, the Caltrain Modernization Program entails the electrification of Caltrain’s trunk line, a major component across multiple strategic plans. Based on a prototypical schedule analysis, California Avenue would see a total of 66 average weekday daily trains5. This would be a 15.8% increase over the current number of weekday trains serving the station. The second project is the implementation of Bus Rapid Transit along El Camino Real, which is being incrementally rolled out, beginning in San Jose and Santa Clara in 2017-2018. Existing Bicycle Facilities There are multiple bicycle facilities, going in multiple directions, in proximity to the site. They include: •A Class II bike lane on Park Boulevard and Serra Boulevard connecting California Avenue/Page Mill Road with Stanford’s campus •A Class II bike lane on California Avenue extending north from Caltrain towards Louis Road •A Class III facility along the main commercial area of California Avenue •A Class II bike lane along California Avenue south of El Camino Real 4 http://nextnetwork.vta.org/route-info 5 Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project EIR http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/FEIR/3.14+Transportation.pdf, 3.14-34 3.j Packet Pg. 156 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : T r a n s i t D e m a n d M a n a g e m e n t P l a n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 2755 El Camino Real Workforce Housing TDM Plan Windy Hill Property Ventures Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5 TDM PROGRAM A TDM program can encourage the site’s residents to use the most environmentally friendly and spatially efficient mode possible for each trip, with an emphasis on transit, bicycling, walking, and shared rides. The strategies outlined below are designed to work together to affect site users’ travel habits. Targeted programs strengthen the benefits of investments in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and the site’s proximity to major transit nodes by reinforcing awareness of these options, breaking down barriers to incorporating them in travel routines, and incentivizing habitual use. Figure 2 TDM Strategy Summary TDM Strategy Description Caltrain Go Pass provision Provide unlimited Caltrain rides for all residents. VTA EcoPass provision Provide unlimited VTA bus rides for all residents. Bike share Provide shared bicycles onsite for the use of residents. Carpool Ride- Matching Services Tenant ride-matching services allows residents to easily be paired with potential carpool partners. Information Boards/Kiosks TDM information boards, kiosk, and hotline/online access to transportation information and coordinators. Improved Bus Shelter Upgrades to on-street bus shelter to encourage transit ridership Promotional Programs Promotion and organization of events for the following programs: new tenant orientation packets on transportation alternatives; flyers, posters, brochures, and emails on commute alternatives; transportation fairs; Bike to Work Day, Spare the Air; Rideshare Week; trip planning assistance routes and maps. On-site Transportation Coordinator On-site property management staff will provide a welcome package for new tenants, distribute Go Passes and other memberships, and additional information. Monitoring program By annually monitoring the TDM and parking program, the owner/management can adjust the strategies etc. in order to meet requirements, parking ratio, mode split, etc. Unbundling parking Pricing separately for all parking makes the rent more affordable to those who do not want a car while placing a premium on those who want guaranteed parking in a dense and transit- oriented environment. Based on a monthly fee of $200. TNC Subsidy Tenants who commit to not owning a motor vehicle will receive a monthly stipend of $100 to be used towards a transportation network company (TNC) (e.g. Lyft, Uber) in order to reduce parking demand. Anticipated TDM Program Impact In order to verify the potential impact of the TDM package presented above, this memo examined two separate models – the URBEMIS model (traditionally used for vehicle trip impacts) and the GreenTRIP Connect Parking Model used by the Center for Neighborhood Technology. 3.j Packet Pg. 157 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : T r a n s i t D e m a n d M a n a g e m e n t P l a n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 2755 El Camino Real Workforce Housing TDM Plan Windy Hill Property Ventures Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6 URBEMIS The URBEMIS model is used in this analysis to estimate an appropriate potential trip percent reduction impact from the stated baseline (being generated by Hexagon Consultants). This estimate is designed to be conservative in nature given that the Hexagon analysis already includes a 9% trip reduction adjustment due to proximity to transit. Based on the TDM program above, a 35% reduction in trips (above and beyond the 9% reduction) is feasible and would help justify a proportionate reduction in the parking requirement. GreenTRIP To estimate parking demand for the project, the GreenTRIP Connect Parking Model was used. The GreenTRIP Connect Parking Model was developed by the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT), a national nonprofit organization focused on developing research and modeling tools for city planning. The model’s equations were developed and calibrated using parking demand data from 71 transit-oriented developments throughout the Bay Area.6 The model is similar to those produced by CNT for King County, Washington state (RightSizeParking.org) and Washington, D.C. (ParkRightDC.org). The model’s calculations are based on local data and include several variables such as parking supply, average rent, parking price, average bedrooms per unit, presence of transit passes or carshare memberships, availability of affordable units, and neighborhood variables (walkability, job density and frequency of transit). Due to the local variables used in it, the GreenTRIP model only applies in the San Francisco Bay Area. These variables demonstrate the critical relationship between parking and vehicle trip generation. Parking supply and parking pricing are two of the most important factors to consider when determining ultimate vehicle trip generation. They are also the primary reasons why there is such a strong nexus between reductions in parking demand and vehicle trip generation – by limiting the former, lower vehicle trip generation naturally follows (whereas having TDM programs such as transit passes with free and abundant parking oftentimes has limited success in reducing vehicle trips). For transit-oriented developments in particular, the model is more appropriate than relying on more generic parking demand data from sources such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation (4th Edition) report, which provides data gathered at isolated suburban sites around the United States with free parking and little or no transit. While data from the ITE Parking Generation report is valuable for estimating demand at conventional auto-oriented sites, it is inappropriate for transit-oriented sites such as the 2755 El Camino Real project site, unless substantial adjustments are made to account for factors such as transit service levels, neighborhood character, parking prices, and other factors that affect parking demand. When factoring in the site, context, and proposed strategies (including unbundled parking, resident transit passes, , and bike share programs), the GreenTRIP model estimates a predicted rate of 0.65 parking spaces per dwelling unit, which, is substantially less than the 6 http://www.transformca.org/GreenTRIP-Connect/Methodology. http://www.transformca.org/sites/default/files/Parking%20Model%20July%202016.pdf 3.j Packet Pg. 158 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : T r a n s i t D e m a n d M a n a g e m e n t P l a n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 2755 El Camino Real Workforce Housing TDM Plan Windy Hill Property Ventures Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 7 recommendation for a generic location in Santa Clara County on average (0.99 spaces per unit). This 0.65 rate equates to approximately 37 parking spaces7. Therefore, the proposed 68 spaces is sufficient for this site. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING PLAN The TDM program for the site as proposed will be implemented by the applicant, future property management and/or by each tenant. The TDM program as currently proposed, includes measures that maximize project trip reduction. It is anticipated that WHPV will continue to modify and refine the TDM program over time, to best achieve the required trip reduction target, address market conditions and respond to employee and tenant needs. As such, WHPV and its tenants may implement TDM measures that are not currently listed in the checklist, since potential new measures may be found to be more effective in reducing vehicle trips Data Collection Vehicle Trips The number of vehicle trips associated with the project will be tracked using a hose or electronic count managed and overseen by a designated site-wide TDM coordinator, per the standards set by the Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.52.050 (d)(3)(4), as discussed below . The purpose of the count is to determine how many vehicles are entering and exiting the site during the peak hour. The count would typically be conducted over a 3-day period; Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday during a normal business week during the Stanford University academic year. Data on vehicle entries and exits is collected at all entry and exit points to the site continuously over the 3- day period. An average of the peak hour data for the three days is taken to determine the number of peak hour vehicle trips. The counts are conducted during the same month each year and the initial count should commence within a two years of the certificate of occupancy. Parking Occupancy Parking occupancy counts will be conducted within the off-street parking garage and, if required by the Chief Transportation Official, all on-street parking stalls within 750-feet of the project. Data collection activities will be done twice during each of the morning (7:00-9:00AM), midday (12:00-2:00PM), and evening (5:00-7:00PM) peak periods and once during the overnight period (11:30PM). Graphical figures and data tables shall be submitted as part this task. Graphical figures shall indicate the parking occupancy rates and parking restrictions along each block face, and the on-site parking lot, within the study area for each of the peak periods. The parking count survey shall indicate the occupancy rate of the apartments when the surveys were conducted. 7 http://connect.greentrip.org/ 3.j Packet Pg. 159 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : T r a n s i t D e m a n d M a n a g e m e n t P l a n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 2755 El Camino Real Workforce Housing TDM Plan Windy Hill Property Ventures Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 8 Resident Surveys Surveys of the residents and their travel choices shall be a required component of the monitoring program with methods consistent with ITE’s Trip Generation Handbook, 10th Ed. or similar resource. All monitoring activities will be undertaken by a qualified third party transportation planning or engineering firm and a scope of work shall be submitted to the Chief Transportation Official for review and approval prior to conducting the necessary monitoring tasks. Program Evaluation The program would be evaluated and would include all of the TDM measures listed in this memo, to determine their effectiveness. Vehicle trip data counted would be measured against the ITE baseline as established by the Hexagon analysis. With the required evaluation, one can then easily track progress of the TDM program on site. If the TDM program is not achieving the total reduction of trips, additional and reasonable changes and new measures may be imposed. 3.j Packet Pg. 160 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : T r a n s i t D e m a n d M a n a g e m e n t P l a n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) APPENDIX A - PALO ALTO CITY CODE 18.52.050 Adjustments by the Director Automobile parking requirements prescribed by this chapter may be adjusted by the director in the following instances and in accord with the prescribed limitations in Table 4, when in his/her opinion such adjustment will be consistent with the purposes of this chapter, will not create undue impact on existing or potential uses adjoining the site or in the general vicinity, and will be commensurate with the reduced parking demand created by the development, including for visitors and accessory facilities where appropriate. No reductions may be granted that would result in provision of less than ten (10) spaces on a site. The following are adjustments that apply to developments not located within a parking assessment district. Adjustments within the parking assessment districts are contained in Section 18.52.080. The decision of the regarding parking adjustments may be appealed as set forth in Chapter 18.78 (Appeals). Table 4 Allowable Parking Adjustments Purpose of Adjustment Amount of Adjustment Maximum Reduction a On-Site Employee Amenities Square footage of commercial or industrial uses to be used for an on-site cafeteria, recreational facility, and/or day care facility, to be provided to employees or their children and not open to the general public, may be exempted from the parking requirements 100% of requirement for on-site employee amenities Joint Use (Shared) Parking Facilities For any site or sites with multiple uses where the application of this chapter requires a total of or more than ten (10) spaces, the total number of spaces otherwise required by application of Table 1 may be reduced when the joint facility will serve all existing, proposed, and potential uses as effectively and conveniently as would separate parking facilities for each use or site. In making such a determination, the director shall consider a parking analysis using criteria developed by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) or similar methodology to estimate the shared parking characteristics of the proposed land uses. The analysis shall employ the city's parking ratios as the basis for the calculation of the base parking requirement and for the determination of parking requirements for individual land uses. The director may also require submittal and approval of a TDM program 1to further assure parking reductions are achieved. 20% of total spaces required for the site 3.j Packet Pg. 161 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : T r a n s i t D e m a n d M a n a g e m e n t P l a n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) [NAME OF DOCUMENT] | VOLUME [Client Name] Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2 Housing for Seniors The total number of spaces required may be reduced for housing facilities for seniors, commensurate with the reduced parking demand created by the housing facility, including for visitors and accessory facilities, and subject to submittal and approval of a parking analysis justifying the reduction proposed. 50% of the total spaces required for the site Affordable Housing Units and Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Units The total number of spaces required may be reduced for affordable housing and single room occupancy (SRO) units, commensurate with the reduced parking demand created by the housing facility, including for visitors and accessory facilities. The reduction shall consider proximity to transit and support services and the director may require traffic demand management measures 1 in conjunction with any approval. a. 40% for Extremely Low Income and SRO Units b. 30% for Very Low Income Units c. 20% for Low Income Units Housing Near Transit Facilities The total number of spaces required may be reduced for housing located within a designated Pedestrian/Transit Oriented area or elsewhere in immediate proximity to public transportation facilities serving a significant portion of residents, employees, or customers, when such reduction will be commensurate with the reduced parking demand created by the housing facility, including for visitors and accessory facilities, and subject to submittal and approval of a TDM program.1 20% of the total spaces required for the site. Transportation and Parking Alternatives Where effective alternatives to automobile access are provided, other than those listed above, parking requirements may be reduced to an extent commensurate with the permanence, effectiveness, and the demonstrated reduction of off-street parking demand effectuated by such alternative programs. Examples of such programs may include, but are not limited to, transportation demand management (TDM) programs or innovative parking pricing or design solutions.1 (note: landscape reserve requirement is deleted). 20% of the total spaces required for the site Combined Parking Adjustments Parking reductions may be granted for any combination of the above circumstances as prescribed by this chapter, subject to limitations on the combined total reduction allowed. a. 30% reduction of the total parking demand otherwise required b. 40% reduction for 3.j Packet Pg. 162 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : T r a n s i t D e m a n d M a n a g e m e n t P l a n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) [NAME OF DOCUMENT] | VOLUME [Client Name] Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3 affordable housing projects c. 50% reduction for senior housing projects 1. See Section 18.52.050(d) below regarding requirements for TDM programs. 2. No reductions may be granted that would result in provision of less than ten (10) spaces on a site. (a) Combining Parking Adjustments Parking reductions may be granted for any combination of circumstances, prescribed by this chapter, so long as in total no more than a 30% reduction of the total parking demand otherwise required occurs, or no less than a 40% reduction for affordable housing projects (including Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units), or no less than 50% reduction for senior housing projects. (b) Deferral of Meeting Full Requirement by Landscape Reserve Where the expected need for off-street parking or bicycle facilities for a particular use is uncertain, due to unknown or unusual operating characteristics of the use and unavailability of comparable data to establish need, the director, upon recommendation of the architectural review board, may authorize that construction and provision of not more than fifty percent of the required off-street parking stalls and not more than twenty-five percent of the bicycle parking spaces be deferred. The number of bicycle parking spaces deferred shall be apportioned by construction type (long term or short term) in the same percentages as indicated in Table 1 of Section 18.52.040. The director may set such conditions as necessary to guarantee provision of such deferred spaces whenever the director determines the need to exist. Land area required for provision of deferred parking or bicycle spaces shall be maintained in reserve and shall be landscaped pursuant to a plan approved by the architectural review board demonstrating that ultimate provision of the deferred spaces will meet all requirements of this chapter. Upon use of the parking area at near build-out (at least 90% occupancy) over a period of at least ten years, the director may allow the reserve area to be used for other uses that do not generate parking demand, subject to restrictions and conditions to prevent conversion to a more intense use unless sufficient additional on-site parking is provided. (c) Off-Site Parking Except in parking assessment areas, the director may authorize all or a portion of the required parking for a use to be located on the site not more than 500 feet from the site of the use for which such parking is required, where in the director's judgment, such authorization will be in accord with the purposes of this chapter. The distance to the off-site parking shall be measured from the nearest corner of the parking facility to the nearest public entrance to the building via the shortest pedestrian route. (d) Transportation Demand Management (TDM) (1) A Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program may be proposed by an applicant, or may be required by the director for any project requesting a reduction in parking, or may be required as CEQA mitigation for identified potential significant parking impacts. 3.j Packet Pg. 163 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : T r a n s i t D e m a n d M a n a g e m e n t P l a n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) [NAME OF DOCUMENT] | VOLUME [Client Name] Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4 (2) Where a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program is proposed or required, the TDM program shall outline parking and/or traffic demand measures to be implemented to reduce parking need and trip generation. Measures may include, but are not limited to: limiting "assigned" parking to one space per residential unit, providing for transit passes, parking cash- out, enhanced shuttle service (or contributions to extend or enhance existing shuttle service or to create new shared or public shuttle service), car-sharing, traffic-reducing housing, providing priority parking spaces for carpools/vanpools or "green" vehicles (zero emission vehicles, inherently low emission vehicles, or plug-in hybrids, etc.), vehicle charging stations, additional bicycle parking facilities, or other measures to encourage transit use or to reduce parking needs. The program shall be proposed to the satisfaction of the director, shall include proposed performance targets for parking and/or trip reduction and indicate the basis for such estimates, and shall designate a single entity (property owner, homeowners association, etc.) to implement the proposed measures. (3) Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the director two years after building occupancy and again five years after building occupancy, noting the effectiveness of the proposed measures as compared to the initial performance targets, and suggestions for modifications if necessary to enhance parking and/or trip reductions. (4) Where the monitoring reports indicate that performance measures are not met, the director may require further program modifications. (Ord. 4964 § 3 (part), 2007) 3.j Packet Pg. 164 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : T r a n s i t D e m a n d M a n a g e m e n t P l a n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Attachment K Environmental Documents Hardcopies of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration are provided to Boardmembers. These documents 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 Environmental Documents online: 1. Go to: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/planningprojects 2. Go to the “Pending Projects” webpage 3. Search for “2755 El Camino Real” 4. Review the record details and click on the address for more details A direct link to the project page is also provided here: https://tinyurl.com/2755-El-Camino-Real 3.k Packet Pg. 165 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t K : E n v i r o n m e n t a l A n a l y s i s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Claire Hodgkins Associate Planner City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 February 1, 2018 RE: 2755 El Camino Real Workforce Housing Dear Ms. Hodgkins, I am writing to you in support of this project and ask that you forward this letter to both the Planning and Transportation Commission as well as the City Council, as they consider this project at future meetings. I have followed this project since it was first proposed in 2016 and I continue to support it as it has evolved and additional amenities and benefits have been included in the project. I am local and frequent the area nearby, especially Mayfield soccer fields and Stanford Research Park. This would serve as a big benefit to people like me that are looking for smaller, more affordable housing in the area. This project has the right attributes to not only to benefit the immediate project area, but more importantly, the City as a whole since it includes the following: • Work-Force Units - Smaller residential units, comprised of studios and one-bedroom units are proposed, which are more affordable by design and size to serve an unmet need in Palo Alto • Income Restricted Units - 20% of the units will be income-restricted at levels to serve the local work force (140%-150% AMI) • Palo Alto Employee Preferences - Palo Alto employees will be given a preference for a portion of the units, so that employees within the city have a greater opportunity to live, work and play within the city • Sustainable, High Quality Design - sustainable and attractive building that provides for a high- quality design at a very visible corner. • Transit Proximity-Residential units that are proximate to transit (within 1/2 mile walking distance of the California Avenue train station; direct access to multiple bus routes and shuttle service; as well as being within walking and bike riding distance to employers and retail and dining amenities. • Robust TDM Plan-A robust TDM plan that reduces vehicle trips by 35% compared to a typical residential project. TDM measures include Cal Train Go Passes and VTA Bus Passes; construction of a new Bus Shelter; a Bike Share program; and a monthly stipend to encourage the use of services like Uber and Lyft to those residents not owning a vehicle • GreenTRIP Certification – The project meets GreenTRIP standards for daily vehicle miles driven per household, a reduced parking ratio, the provision of a traffic reduction strategy and bicycle parking. The project will also participate in GreenTRIP’s Transportation and Parking Survey for annual monitoring. I encourage the PTC to support this project for our city Sincerely, Leo Vera 3.l Packet Pg. 166 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Claire  Hodgkins     Associate  Planner   City  of  Palo  Alto   Planning  &  Community  Environment   250  Hamilton  Avenue     Palo  Alto,  California  94301     January        2018     RE:  2755  El  Camino  Real  Workforce  Housing       Dear  Ms.  Hodgkins,     As  a  Paly  High  graduate  and  native  Palo  Altan  I  am  writing  to  you  in  support  of  this  project   and  ask  that  you  forward  this  letter  to  both  the  Planning  and  Transportation  Commission  as   well  as  the  City  Council,  as  they  consider  this  project  at  future  meetings.  I  have  followed  this   project  since  it  was  first  proposed  in  2016  and  I  continue  to  support  it  as  it  has  evolved  and   additional  amenities  and  benefits  have  been  included  in  the  project.         This  project  has  the  right  attributes  to  not  only  to  benefit  the  immediate  project  area,  but   more  importantly,  the  City  as  a  whole  since  it  includes  the  following:       • Work-­‐Force  Units  -­‐  Smaller  residential  units,  comprised  of  studios  and  one-­‐bedroom   units  are  proposed,  which  are  more  affordable  by  design  and  size  to  serve  an  unmet   need  in  Palo  Alto       • Income  Restricted  Units  -­‐  20%  of  the  units  will  be  income-­‐restricted  at  levels  to  serve   the  local  work  force  (140%-­‐150%  AMI)   • Palo  Alto  Employee  Preferences  -­‐  Palo  Alto  employees  will  be  given  a  preference  for  a   portion  of  the  units,  so  that  employees  within  the  city  have  a  greater  opportunity  to  live,   work  and  play  within  the  city     • Sustainable,  High  Quality  Design  -­‐  sustainable  and  attractive  building  that  provides   for  a  high-­‐quality  design  at  a  very  visible  corner.     • Transit  Proximity-­‐Residential  units  that  are  proximate  to  transit  (within  1/2  mile   walking  distance  of  the  California  Avenue  train  station;  direct  access  to  multiple  bus   routes  and  shuttle  service;  as  well  as  being  within  walking  and  bike  riding  distance  to   employers  and  retail  and  dining  amenities.   • Robust  TDM  Plan-­‐A  robust  TDM  plan  that  reduces  vehicle  trips  by  35%  compared  to  a   typical  residential  project.    TDM  measures  include  Cal  Train  Go  Passes  and  VTA  Bus   Passes;  construction  of  a  new  Bus  Shelter;  a  Bike  Share  program;  and  a  monthly  stipend   to  encourage  the  use  of  services  like  Uber  and  Lyft  to  those  residents  not  owning  a   vehicle   • GreenTRIP  Certification  –  The  project  meets  GreenTRIP  standards  for  daily  vehicle   miles  driven  per  household,  a  reduced  parking  ratio,  the  provision  of  a  traffic  reduction   strategy  and  bicycle  parking.    The  project  will  also  participate  in  GreenTRIP’s   Transportation  and  Parking  Survey  for  annual  monitoring.         I  encourage  the  PTC  to  support  this  project  for  our  city.     Sincerely,   3.l Packet Pg. 167 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) )     John  Mcgraw   John Mcgraw 3.l Packet Pg. 168 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Claire Hodgkins Associate Planner City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 January 2018 RE: 2755 El Camino Real Workforce Housing Dear Ms. Hodgkins, As a Palo Alto native, Paly graduate and former resident of 25 years with parents still living in nearby College Terrace, I am writing to you in support of this project and ask that you forward this letter to both the Planning and Transportation Commission as well as the City Council, as they consider this project at future meetings. I have followed this project since it was first proposed in 2016 and I continue to support it as it has evolved and additional amenities and benefits have been included in the project. The project will be an asset to our community in that it promotes and supports our City’s goals as they pertain to the provision of additional housing in our community to serve our local workforce and developing housing in appropriate locations near transit to reduce vehicle trips and promote healthy lifestyle choices that include walking and bicycling. This project will also replace an existing parking lot with a sustainable and attractive building that provides for a high-quality design at a very visible corner. While providing for 57 new residential units, the building is also in context with height, massing and scale of the adjacent residential uses. This project has the right attributes to not only to benefit the immediate project area, but more importantly, the City as a whole since it includes the following components:  Work-Force Units-Smaller residential units, comprised of studios and one-bedroom units are proposed, which are more affordable by design and size to serve an unmet need in Palo Alto.  Income Restricted Units-20% of the units will be income-restricted at levels to serve the local work force (140%-150% AMI).  Palo Alto Employee Preferences- Palo Alto employees will be given a preference for a portion of the units, so that employees within the city have a greater opportunity to live, work and play within the city.  Transit Proximity-Residential units that are proximate to transit (within 1/2 mile walking distance of the California Avenue train station; direct access multiple bus routes and shuttle service; as well as being within walking and bike riding distance to employers and retail and dining amenities.  Robust TDM Plan-A robust TDM plan that reduces vehicle trips by 35% compared to a typical residential project. A variety of measures TDM measures are included to maximize the use of adjacent transit amenities: including Cal Train Go Passes and VTA Bus Passes; construction of a new Bus Shelter; a Bike Share program; and a monthly stipend to encourage the use of services like Uber and Lyft to those residents not owning a vehicle.  GreenTrip Certification – The project meets GreenTRIP standards for daily vehicle miles driven per household, a reduced parking ratio, the provision of a traffic reduction strategy and bicycle parking. The project will also participate in GreenTRIP’s Transportation and Parking Survey for annual monitoring. I encourage the PTC to support this project for our city. Sincerely, 3.l Packet Pg. 169 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) From:Planning Commission To:Cervantes, Yolanda Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: 2755 El Camino Real Date:Wednesday, January 31, 2018 5:04:31 PM Forwarding from PTC mailbox BCCPTC Yolanda M. Cervantes Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto Yolanda.cervantes@cityofpaloalto.org 650.329.2404 From: D Caleb Hauser [mailto:dcalebhauser@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 4:49 PMTo: Planning CommissionSubject: 2755 El Camino Real Dear Commission - Regarding the VTA property at the corner of Page Mill and El CaminoReal. I urge you to not up-zone the property to allow multi family housing. The property should have 100% public benefit which I do not think more housing accomplishes. Please do not re-zone the property. Thank You, Caleb HauserVentura Neighborhood. 3.l Packet Pg. 170 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 3.l Packet Pg. 171 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) January 31, 2018 Dear Planning and Transportation Commissioners, The VTA lot is a sorely under-optimized site and there is certainly enthusiasm in the community to test the efficacy of a high density, small unit, car-light housing project. Nonetheless, I urge you to proceed carefully with an eye toward unintended consequences. Please remember that:  Public Facilities zoning serves important functions that cannot compete on the open market for land;  High density, car-light housing is but one piece of a complicated puzzle;  In good government, policy drives projects, not the other way around; and  Valid experiments demand careful controls. In that spirit, I share the concerns below and ask that you give them due consideration in your deliberations tonight. I know that many are anxious to move this “pilot” forward. But please take care to ensure that the solution fits the purpose, does not pre-empt other city priorities or deliberations, and moves forward in a manner that engenders public trust. I hope that you will resist premature PTC recommendations and focus your votes tonight on teeing up key considerations for refinement of the draft ordinance and project plan. Such an approach would be informative to the public and provide valuable insights to guide discussion and guidance related to Council’s draft Housing Work Plan. 1. PF zoning serves a critical public purpose, fundamental to the long term well-being of the community.  Long-term impacts: The combining district before you tonight creates a strong incentive to convert public facilities parcels to permanent housing use. As our population grows, so will the need for public facilities (schools, parks, municipal operations, etc.). If we convert PF parcels to housing, without setting aside other locations for needed facilities, we’ll be in a big bind down the road.  Schools: By conservative estimates, the Comp Plan housing targets will add up to 2,210 kids to PAUSD’s enrollment and Stanford’s expansion will add 550. Accommodating an additional 2,760 students (the total operational capacity of all our middle schools combined) will require creative solutions and use of sub- optimal sites. Reducing the availability of PF designated sites could severely limit our options in precisely the neighborhoods targeted for the most population (and therefore student) growth. 3.l Packet Pg. 172 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) )  Parks: PF parcels available for conversion under the proposed combining district include, among others, the Stanford-Mayfield playing fields, the AT&T property abutting Boulware Park (under current negotiation for purchase to expand Boulware park in the underserved Ventura neighborhood) and a pocket park adjacent to the former North Face store. None of these sites are protected as dedicated parkland; the soccer fields and AT&T site are not owned by the city. If adopted, the monetary value of PF parcels in the proposed combining district would immediately jump, creating strong profit incentives to convert them to housing use. PAUSD would face greater cost and shrinking options to locate facilities near population growth. Stanford would have a strong disincentive to renew the city’s lease on the soccer fields. Purchase of the AT&T site for park use would be dead in the water. 2. Action on the combining district and recommendation of this site and design is premature. City Council has yet to have its first discussion of an ambitious draft Housing Work Plan. While a study session on the proposed zoning text amendment is a good way to kick off community conversation and can offer valuable insights to Council as it reviews the draft Work Plan, formal action by the PTC implicating so many elements of an un-approved work plan is inappropriate at this time.  BMR inclusionary requirements: A big piece of the Work Plan includes deciding whether to impose BMR requirements on rental projects – moving on this project in advance of that decision means we lose any opportunity to get meaningful BMR units out of it.  High densities, car-light housing, and public land: Another big piece of the Work Plan is to explore these types of incentives and opportunities for increasing housing supply. However explicit Council direction called for changes that are “appropriately applied in different areas of our community with sensitivity to location and current land use patterns.” Recommending this large combining district to accommodate a specific project, without Council guidance, (or even consideration) on a range of parameters, runs counter to that direction.  Fact-based parking decisions: A third big piece of the Work Plan includes research and data collection regarding parking demand for different housing types/locations in Palo Alto. The proposed one-size fits all approach before you extends the impact of an experimental car-light pilot to 77 parcels without the benefit of that data and analysis. 3. Unproven test case should inform, but not drive wide-reaching policy.  Who’s driving? According to the staff report, the applicant has proposed the combining district ordinance. An applicant is the epitome of an interested party. 3.l Packet Pg. 173 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) While it is helpful to have the specifics of this project to inform options, trade- offs and financial feasibility, a combining district that impacts so many parcels must be evaluated on its broad merits, independent of a specific project.  Urgency/efficiency undermines responsible process: PTC action on the map amendment and site and design is premature. Until a combining district ordinance is considered and approved by Council, the project remains illegal and action to recommend it is founded on hypotheticals. By putting the cart before the horse, formal action by the PTC weakens its legitimacy and undermines the goal of a fair hearing for both the applicant and the community. 4. Controls matter.  Pilot = Experiment. By designing a city-wide combining district to accommodate a single test project, the city risks perpetuating undesirable impacts should the experiment fail. Buildings are permanent. If the ordinance is driven by interest in testing an idea, shouldn’t it include extra checks and balances and/or flexibility to respond in the event of failure? For example, failure to implement the required TDM would be a code enforcement violation, but only subject to existing administrative penalties (which are almost never imposed). The draft ordinance offers strong incentives to build needed housing (density, parking, etc); shouldn’t there be commensurately strong penalties for failure to comply with TDM commitments that lie at the core of the concept? Are there adaptive design elements that should be included in projects eligible for the combining district? Good experiments require controls and public trust requires balanced incentives. Thank you for considering my comments. I look forward to a hearty discussion this evening. Sincerely, Jennifer Chang Hetterly 3.l Packet Pg. 174 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) From:Planning Commission To:Cervantes, Yolanda Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: [PAcampaigns] PTC to vote on VTA lot project (car-light, 57 small units) Wednesday at 6pm Date:Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:10:27 PM Forwarding from PTC mailbox. Yolanda M. Cervantes Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto Yolanda.cervantes@cityofpaloalto.org 650.329.2404 From: dskeehn@pacbell.net [mailto:dskeehn@pacbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 1:54 PMTo: Planning CommissionSubject: FW: [PAcampaigns] PTC to vote on VTA lot project (car-light, 57 small units) Wednesday at6pm I totally agree with both of these opinions. We need much more community discussion before changing any zoning regulations. It is too rushed, and will affect our city negatively, congestion, enough public facilities for our community. This need to be brought to the public and offer forums for information, and effects before decisions are made. Suzanne Keehn 4876 Orme St. 94306 : My email focuses on only one issue: EP/M RPP what is the opinion of Mayfield/Evergreen Park neighborhoods regarding Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP ordinance and car light project on VTA parking lot? Just for the record, I am not categorically against the housing project proposed for the VTA lot. I cannot support any project that created any spillover parking into the current boundaries of EP/M RPP These PTC considerations are not clearly presented in manageable context to your existing RPP. None of the terms for VTA lot should be acceptable to anyone without binding covenants [or some legal, binding restriction ] to assure that tenants/owners in the VTA Parking Lot workforce housing project are ineligible in perpetuity from inclusion as residents or workers in the Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP program. This 3.l Packet Pg. 175 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) inclusion any expansion of boundaries to incorporate this housing proposal. Enforcement over time is an issue requiring city attorney and planning staff assurance. Based on city staff and council's past record of poor enforcement and poorly written restrictions, staff and Council must be held accountable for negative parking impact upon existing EP/M RPP. Extreme stewardship should be expected from staff, Planning Commission and Council. It is not evident to me. This issue should be concern of every residential neighborhood in Palo Alto...especially multi-unit neighborhoods where parking shortages are more evident. Un-managed spillover parking will even greater negative impact. Furthermore, PTC should not take any action with full discussion of the recent state legislation and pending legislation SB827 and SB 828. The general public is not aware of existing legislation nor pending legislation. Only this week has the general public become aware of position taken by the California League of Cities. See attached document and link http://blob.capitoltrack.com/17blobs/315296bd-fe4c-4e2c-b021- f163c71f5e7e Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com Here's the staff report. And here's a summary of what will be approved as well as some bullet points about issues of potential concern. It's worth noting that this project has tremendous momentum and substantial support in the community as a whole. Straight up opposition to the project will fall on deaf ears, but thoughtful attention to the issues below might create space for fuller consideration (i.e., a second hearing instead of action on all three items at one time) and incremental improvements. First, the PTC will vote on a zoning overlay (combining district) ordinance to create opportunity for high density, "workforce housing" on all PF (public facility) zoned properties within 1/2 mile of fixed rail transit (77 sites total, 43 owned by the city, 20 controlled by Caltrain). 3.l Packet Pg. 176 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 20% must be available to households between 120 and 150% of Area Median Income (AMI), excluding any required BMR units. AMI is $79,300 for single occupancy, $80,560 for double occupancy, and $113,300 for family of four. Therefore 150% of AMI = $119k/yr for single, $121k/yr for couple, $170k/yr for family. 50 foot height limit, max unit size 750 sf, 2.0 FAR Parking requirement 1 space per unit or bedroom whichever is greater Must have TDM Preference must be given for potential tenants who work in the vicinity (within one mile of site, within three miles of site, or who's work is within 1/2 mile of major fixed rail transit station, in that order) Second, it will vote on a zoning map amendment ordinance granting this specific site the overlay benefits (primarily: reduced parking, higher density, FAR). Third, it will vote to recommend the site and design of this specific project: 57 rental units (40 studios, 17 one-bedrooms). Six of those would be deed restricted at 140% of AMI and six at 150% of AMI. 60 below ground puzzle lift parking spaces (unbundled = not included in rent), plus four (4) total guest parking spaces at grade. City's 15% inclusionary (BMR) requirement doesn't apply because city has not yet acted to apply it to rentals (newly allowed under state law.) Project is outside the Evergreen Park/Mayfield RPP, so tenants will NOT have access to permits. However, there is no RPP in the residential neighborhoods on the other side of Page Mill. Issues: - PF zoning serves critical purpose, fundamental to long term well-being of the community. Long term impacts: Combining district creates strong incentive to convert public facilities parcels to permanent housing use. As we build more housing, population will grow - therefore need for public facilities will also grow. If we convert those parcels to housing, without setting aside other locations for needed facilities, we'll be in a big bind down the road. Undermines other valued uses: Significantly raises the property value for effected PF parcels, putting them at greater risk of conversion (e.g., the Stanford-Mayfield soccer fields are not dedicated parkland - will increase resistance to dedication and perhaps make Stanford less inclined to renew/extend lease for current use (it'd be FAR more profitable for them to convert it to housing when lease runs out). Disrupts current negotiations to purchase AT&T property for parkland (expand Ventura's tiny Boulware park) - FAR more profitable for owner to hold out for higher price from housing developer. Gives up limited city leverage to extract community benefits: use and development options in PF zones is limited, thus limiting the value of the parcels. A housing overlay immediately changes that, offering significant profit potential, while giving up the ability to define and serve other public needs on those sites. Is the community getting a fair exchange appropriately targeted to community needs? - Premature to rush through new ordinance (combining district) prior even to Council's first discussion of it's proposed housing work plan. BMR Inclusionary requirements: Big piece of housing work plan includes 3.l Packet Pg. 177 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) deciding whether to impose inclusionary (BMR) requirements on rental projects - moving on this project in advance of that decision means we lose opportunity to get BMR out of it. Fact based parking decisions: Big piece of housing work plan includes research and data collection regarding parking demand for different housing types/locations in Palo Alto. This one-size fits all approach extends the impact of an experimental car-light pilot to 77 parcels without the benefit of that data and analysis. Is PF the right combining district: Big piece of housing work plan includes encouraging workforce housing near transit - designing the combining district to meet the needs of this single project limits the potential scope of workforce housing benefits. (though this is tricky, cuz could get even broader overlay that loosens development requirements for many more parcels). - Test case should not drive policy: New combining district/overlay ordinance is being rushed through to accommodate this specific project. Pilot = experiment. What is the recourse if the pilot fails? If an entire combining district/overlay ordinance is driven by interest in testing an idea, shouldn't it include extra checks and balances and/or flexibiilty to address failure? For example, failure to implement the required TDM is a code enforcement violation, but only subject to existing administrative penalties (which are almost never imposed). Staff is proposing strong incentives (density, parking, etc), should there be commensurately strong penalties for failure to comply with TDM commitments? Are there adaptive design elements that should be included in projects eligible for the overlay? Who's driving? According to the staff report, the applicant has proposed the zoning overlay (combining district) ordinance. Epitome of an interested party. Policy should drive proposals, not the other way around. PTC should hold study session to evaluate ordinance independent of the specific project. Taking into account not only the city's enthusiasm for this project, but also the issues described above. Urgency/efficiency undermines responsible process: No action should be taken on the specific project until after the combining district ordinance is approved. PTC action on map amendment and site and design is premature - until there's an ordinance, the project is illegal and action to recommend it is founded on hypotheticals. Magnitude of the benefit: Because all 57 units will be small, the price differential between the market-rate units and the 12 sub-market rate units is small, on the magnitude of a $200-$400 per month for singles earning $119k/yr. - Misleading terminology: In the public mind, workforce housing has become almost a term of art synonymous with housing for teachers, firefighters and local service workers. There's lots of political support for housing those populations, but this "Workforce housing" combining district does NOT prioritize those groups. Set-asides are based only on income, not occupation, and nearby workforce attachment is a preference, not a requirement. Income targets are important and good, as is local workforce attachment, but the city should be proactively clear and specific to ensure that the public doesn't think it's getting one thing when in fact it gets another. If possible, come and voice your concerns, in person, about this project. 3.l Packet Pg. 178 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) <blocked.gif> _______________________________________________ PAcampaigns mailing list PAcampaigns@lists.sonic.net https://lists.sonic.net/mailman/listinfo/pacampaigns 3.l Packet Pg. 179 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) From:Planning Commission To:Cervantes, Yolanda Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: in favor of proposed project at 2755 El Camino Date:Wednesday, January 31, 2018 2:10:04 PM Forwarding from PTC mailbox. BCCPTC Yolanda M. Cervantes Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto Yolanda.cervantes@cityofpaloalto.org 650.329.2404 -----Original Message----- From: Frank Ingle [mailto:frankwingle@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 1:12 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: in favor of proposed project at 2755 El Camino I recommend approval of the proposed project at 2755 El Camino. “Residentialists" such as myself are most concerned about privacy, traffic congestion, and parking. This project scores well on these issues. Privacy: The residents next door will have less noise than before because of less exposure to Page Mill and El Camino traffic noise. Traffic congestion: It is time for more very small apartments next to public transit. This location is close to California Avenue and not far from downtown, by walking or bike. Also close to Caltrain for trips to San Francisco where use of a car is a liability. Parking: Limited parking in this project, but residents in this project could save money by doing without a car. Only entry level single residents are likely to want to rent such small spaces, and it will be convenient for them to walk or bike if they work in Palo Alto, or commute by rail or bus to another nearby location. Young singles would enjoy proximity to Palo Alto downtown, California Avenue, and nearby Stanford University and shopping center. I wish there were dozens more projects like this one along El Camino. Frank Ingle 814 Richardson Ct Palo Alto 3.l Packet Pg. 180 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) From:Planning Commission To:Cervantes, Yolanda Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Opposition to up-zoning of the property at 2755 ECR Date:Wednesday, January 31, 2018 9:54:43 AM Forwarding from PTC mailbox. BCCPTC Yolanda M. Cervantes Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto Yolanda.cervantes@cityofpaloalto.org 650.329.2404 From: Neva Hauser [mailto:hauser.neva@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 8:30 AMTo: Planning CommissionSubject: Opposition to up-zoning of the property at 2755 ECR Dear Commissioners: As a resident of Ventura, I oppose the current proposed up-zoning of the property at 2755 ECR. The city has the authority to make the speculators adhere to thezoning code or to extract a real public benefit from the developers in exchange for the rezoning, e.g. 100% BMR housing in perpetuity. Up-zoning a PF propertysets a bad precedent and encourages other speculators to obtain PF zoned properties and ask the city for a zoning change for private profit. In Ventura, we hope to add the AT&T lot to Boulware Park when that PF-zonedproperty is offered for sale. If 2755 ECRis up-zoned without meaningful public benefit, our hopes will be crushed when future for-profit investors in PF-zonedproperty outbid us and sue the city, citing the 2755 precedent-setting decision. Please uphold the public trust and do not let Windy Hill's wager win. It is very important to develop DIVERSITY in a community and I implore you tofight for that. Thank you. Neva HauserVentura resident 3.l Packet Pg. 181 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) From:Planning Commission To:Cervantes, Yolanda Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Fate of VTA Lot Date:Wednesday, January 31, 2018 9:55:52 AM Forwarding from PTC mailbox. BCCPTC Yolanda M. Cervantes Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto Yolanda.cervantes@cityofpaloalto.org 650.329.2404 From: Simon Hauser [mailto:simondhauser@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 9:48 AMTo: Planning CommissionSubject: Fate of VTA Lot Dear Commissioners: As a resident of Ventura, I oppose the current proposed up-zoning of the property at 2755 ECR. The city has the authority to make the speculators adhere to the zoning code or to extract a real public benefit from the developers in exchange for the rezoning, e.g. 100% BMR housing in perpetuity. Up-zoning a PF property sets a bad precedent and encourages other speculators to obtain PF zoned properties and ask the city for a zoning change for private profit. In Ventura, we hope to add the AT&T lot to Boulware Park when that PF-zoned property is offered for sale. If 2755 ECR is up-zoned without meaningful public benefit, our hopes will be crushed when future for-profit investors in PF-zoned property outbid us and sue the city, citing the 2755 precedent-setting decision. Please uphold the public trust and do not let Windy Hill's wager win. Thank you. YOUR NAME --Simon Hauser simondhauser@gmail.com 3.l Packet Pg. 182 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) From:Planning Commission To:Cervantes, Yolanda Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: 123 people in support of the project at 2755 El Camino Real Date:Wednesday, January 31, 2018 9:54:13 AM Forwarding from PTC mailbox. BCCPTC Yolanda M. Cervantes Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto Yolanda.cervantes@cityofpaloalto.org 650.329.2404 From: Eric Rosenblum [mailto:mitericr@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2018 8:21 AMTo: Planning CommissionCc: board@paloaltoforward.com; Grant Dasher; Lisa Peschcke-KoedtSubject: 123 people in support of the project at 2755 El Camino Real To the Planning and Transportation Commission-- Palo Alto Forward strongly supports the Workforce Housing project at 2755 El Camino Real, and hopes that you recommend Council approve it. This is the sort of project that Palo Alto Forward was formed around: · Smaller unit size = more affordable, adding to Palo Alto's housing diversity · Transit centric: located 0.5 miles from Caltrain with a host of TDM benefits · High affordability: 20% of units are "deed restricted", which puts restrictions on the income level for potential renters This is the sort of project that Palo Alto should be building, and the fact that the developer will be giving preference to Palo Alto employees makes it all the sweeter (also, making it more likely that car-light lifestyles can be attained). We thank you for your consideration, and hope that you will recommend this project. Sincerely, Eric Rosenblum President, Palo Alto Forward The following 123 individuals have signed on to this letter: A.C. Johnston Aasim Jukaku Adrienne Lee Akash Jain Aleksandar Totic Amber Kerr 3.l Packet Pg. 183 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) amie ashton Amy Sung Andrea Arjona Amador Andrew Brackenbury Anna Tchetchetkine Annette Isaacson Baq Haidri Barbara Hing Barbara Kingsley Barbara Turner Becky Richardson Betsy Bechtel Bryan Silverthorn Carol Lamont Charles Salmon Clayton Nall Cynthia Lee Daniel Asmat David Foster David Kleiman Dean Samos Dena Mossar Diane Meier Diane Morin Donald Anthony Donald Barr Doug Radtke Drew Maran Ed Wu Elaine Uang Elizabeth Steinberg Eric Kwan Eric Nee Eric Rosenblum Evan Goldin Fred Glick Gary Fine Geoff Ball 3.l Packet Pg. 184 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) George Chippendale Geraldine Maro Gloria Burd Heidi Emberling Heidi yenney Iqbal Serang Jacob Vincent Jan Rubens Jared Bernstein Jeffrey Salzman Jeremy Hoffman Jessica Clark John Hamilton John Kelley Joy Sleizer Joyce Beattie Julan Chu Karen Kalinsky Karen Schlesser Kevin Keene Kevin Watts Kim Engie kumiko yoshinari Kyla Farrell Lawrence Garwin Lisa Ratner Lisa Bao Lisa Pschcke-Koedt Lynnie Melena Mallary Alcheck Marc Grinberg Margaret Rosenbloom marianne mueller Mark Kennedy Marly Carlisle Mary Gallagher Matthew Lewis Mehdi Alhassani 3.l Packet Pg. 185 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Melonie Brophy Michael Cutchin Michael Kieschnick Mike Buchanan Mike Greenfield Naphtali Knox Neil Shea Nicole Lederer Olya Krasnykh Omar Diab Owen Byrd Ozzie Fallick Patricia Saffir Paul Goldstein Paul Heft Pavla Fryer Peter Rice Randy Mont-Reynaud Raul Rojas Rebecca Geraldi Roberta Ahlquist Sally Wood Sam Corbett-Davies Sandra Slater Sara Woodham Sarit Schube Snow Zhu Spencer Choi Stephanie Munoz Munoz stephen levy steve eittreim Steven Atneosen Steven Russell Stuart Bernstein Thomas Wasow Timothy Bauman Tricia Herrick Trina Lovercheck 3.l Packet Pg. 186 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Urs Hoelzle Veselin Stoyanov Victor Siu 3.l Packet Pg. 187 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) From:Gitelman, Hillary To:Hodgkins, Claire; French, Amy Subject:FW: Public Input on the Public Safety Building and Public Facilities Zoned Properties Rezoning Date:Wednesday, January 31, 2018 8:19:17 AM Comments on both of your PTC items… Hillary Gitelman | Planning Director | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2321 |E: hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org   Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you! From: Hamilton Hitchings [mailto:hitchingsh@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 7:25 PMTo: Planning CommissionCc: Hamilton Hitchings; Jeff Levinsky; Gitelman, HillarySubject: Public Input on the Public Safety Building and Public Facilities Zoned Properties Rezoning My name is Hamilton Hitchings and I am a long time Palo Alto resident. I am very involved as an Emergency Services Volunteer and served on the Citizens Advisory Committee for the Comprehensive Plan. Below are my personal comments on the Public Safety Building and proposed Public Facilities Zoned Properties Rezoning. PTC Agenda Item #3 The original justification for the new Public Safety Building was to build a seismically safe building that could withstand a major earthquake. The San Andreas fault is 5 miles away and can experience up to a 7.9 magnitude earthquake and thus the new Stanford Hospital is being built to withstand an 8.0. Please ensure the Public Safety Building is designed to withstand an earthquake in the high 7s and still be operational thereafter. Based on the last discussion I was at, at a city council meeting it did not appear that city staff was planning on designing to this high level of resilience so please ensure they do. As a Palo Alto Emergency Services volunteer, one of the most important pieces of infrastructure during an earthquake is the communications infrastructure. Thus I support the Public Safety building having a very tall communications tower. In addition, below ground parking is important to park all their vehicles without consuming public parking. They also need space to park some very large vehicles and that's supported in their plan. PTC Agenda Item 2 Public Facilities Zoned Properties enable broad based community services such as animal shelters, medical facilities, etc… Rezoning a public facilities property for housing benefits a 3.l Packet Pg. 188 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) select few and thus it is critical that if this is done, it be for moderate income who provide critical public services such as teachers, nurses, EMTs, young police officers and public safety officers as well as community service and health care workers. In addition, the owner paid for a property restricted to public facility and this upzoning results in a large financial winfall for the property owner/developer resulting in a large financial giveaway. Upzoning is the property of the city of Palo Alto and its residents. Thus while the developer deserves to make a reasonable profit for their investment and risk, the majority of the value of this upzone should be used to subsidize the housing. Unfortunately, the current proposal does not deed restrict the 40 of the 57 units, which is far too low. Keep in mind in San Antonio Shopping Center apartments that 535 to 638 square feet were renting for $3,000 to $5,500 so when the applicant says that because these are smaller apartments they will be cheaper but please keep in mind that does not mean they will be particularly affordable. No In Lieu of fees should be approved and instead the BMR should be provided via units in this project. The upzoning should not exceed the height limit for this area, which I believe is 35 feet and should not be 50 feet as currently proposed. Sufficient parking should be provided so there is not spillover parking into the local neighborhoods. The city has consistently underestimated and inadequately zoned the amount of parking needed which is why we are one of the only cities in the Bay Area that allows employees to park in residential neighborhoods. The surrounding neighborhoods are currently underparked so a parking permit program has been implemented. In addition, the staff report compares this site to 801 Alma which is 100% low and very low income which is not comparable with the current proposed renter profile, which likely will have a higher percentage car ownership. I am also opposed to ground floor retail as the need for more housing is far greater than the need for more retail. In terms of roof garden, etc… please be careful it doesn’t allow people to look down into neighbors windows from above or cause excess light at night. Thank you for your consideration. Hamilton Hitchings 3.l Packet Pg. 189 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) From:Planning Commission To:Cervantes, Yolanda Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: 2755 El Camino Real Date:Tuesday, January 30, 2018 3:22:15 PM Forwarding from PTC mailbox. BCCPTC Yolanda M. Cervantes Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto Yolanda.cervantes@cityofpaloalto.org 650.329.2404 From: David Adams [mailto:david_94306@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 3:06 PMTo: Planning CommissionSubject: 2755 El Camino Real Dear Commissioners: Having lived on Olive Avenue for over 20 years I would like to make the following points regarding this project: 1. At a rate of 1.2 parking spaces/unit, inclusive of guest parking, I feel that there will not be enough parking for residents. Even though i ride a bike to work and do many errands by bike, it still is not possible to live in this area without a car. For example, the bike shop at the end of the road was evicted, the pet food shop around the corner closed down and many of the neighborhood shops on Cali Ave have been turned into restaurants or beauty salons. To travel by public transport at the weekend is to spend the whole day getting there and back. For these reasons, I would like to see the parking increased. However, instead of taking my word for it there should have been an analysis of car ownership of local residents included in the report so that it could be guided by data rather than wishful thinking. 2. Given the shortfall of parking I am concerned that residents will park their cars in the Pepper/Olive area. This is more predictable given that Evergreen/Park Mayfield have an RPP but the Ventura area doesn't. 3. I am deeply concerned about any new developments that increase traffic on Park Blvd between Lambert and Cali Ave. This project will cause the ECR/Page Mill intersection to get even worse and hence create more cut-through traffic on Park. I feel there is no coordinated plan for all of the developments in this area, notwithstanding the recently announced NVCAP. Each development has increased traffic on Park which is now a bike boulevard in name only. How about some traffic calming on Park as a prerequisite for any new developments. 4. I do not agree that this site should be re-zoned. This would set a very bad precedent and encourage developers to buy up all PF zoned property in the city. Regards David Adams Olive Ave Palo Alto 3.l Packet Pg. 190 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) From:Planning Commission To:Cervantes, Yolanda Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: 2755 El Camino Real Project Date:Tuesday, January 30, 2018 3:20:58 PM Forwarding from PTC mailbox. BCCPTC Yolanda M. Cervantes Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto Yolanda.cervantes@cityofpaloalto.org 650.329.2404 From: Angie Evans [mailto:angiebevans@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:50 PMTo: Planning CommissionSubject: 2755 El Camino Real Project Dear Planning and Transportation Commissioners, I am writing in support of the 2755 El Camino Real project. I will be sending a similarletter to the associate planner as well. I live in Palo Alto with my husband, our daughter,and our dog. I also work for the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County andhave worked on housing related issues since moving here in 2014. When we moved heremy expertise was in organizing advocacy groups around federal budget andappropriations but my focus quickly changed. If you live in the Bay Area then you can’tescape talking about the cost of living. For longtime residents I often hear frustrationabout where their kids will live, or how their kids are still living at home, or how theywill have to leave the area when they retire because downsizing here isn’t an option. Fornewer residents like myself, the option of homeownership will never be within grasp. Wehave very few effective, local tenant protections and so the stability that most of us seekis also out of grasp. While your decision-making body cannot change the cost of housingovernight or pass a measure to stabilize rents, you can approve strong projects, like thisone, that will benefit our community. Next door in Menlo Park we just learned thatquality of life has gone down by 14% in just 2 years because of housing costs and traffic.This project would allow Palo Alto to build some of the income-restricted units that weso badly need here, near public transit, and with a preference for local workers. Istrongly encourage you to support 2755 El Camino Real moving forward. Best,Angie Evans 860 Newell Road 3.l Packet Pg. 191 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Palo Alto, California 94303 3.l Packet Pg. 192 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) From:Planning Commission To:Cervantes, Yolanda Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: 2755 ECR Date:Tuesday, January 30, 2018 3:20:32 PM Forwarding from PTC mailbox BCCPTC Yolanda M. Cervantes Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto Yolanda.cervantes@cityofpaloalto.org 650.329.2404 From: Rebecca Sanders [mailto:rebsanders@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 12:07 PMTo: Planning CommissionSubject: 2755 ECR Dear Commissioners: As moderator of the Ventura Neighborhood Association, I have spoken twice against the "free" upzoning of the VTA lot over the past few years. The city has the authority to make the speculators adhere to the zoning code or to extract a meaningful development from Windy Hill in exchange for the rezoning, e.g. 100% BMR housing in perpetuity. Up-zoning a PF property sets a bad precedent and encourages other speculators to obtain PF zoned properties and ask the city for a zoning change for private profit. In Ventura, we hope to add the AT&T lot to Boulware Park when that PF-zoned property is offered for sale. If 2755 ECR is up-zoned without meaningful public benefit, our hopes will be crushed when future for-profit investors in PF-zoned property outbid us and sue the city, citing the 2755 precedent-setting decision. Please uphold the public trust and do not let Windy Hill's wager win. Thank you. Becky Sanders Moderator of the Ventura Neighborhood Association 3.l Packet Pg. 193 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) From:Planning Commission To:Cervantes, Yolanda Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: 2755 El Camino - VTA Site (Micro Housing) Date:Tuesday, January 30, 2018 3:20:09 PM Forwarding from PTC mailbox. BCCPTC Yolanda M. Cervantes Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto Yolanda.cervantes@cityofpaloalto.org 650.329.2404 -----Original Message----- From: Loren Brown [mailto:loren.brown@vancebrown.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2018 12:02 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: 2755 El Camino - VTA Site (Micro Housing) 1-30-2018 Dear Planning Commission Members, We note that the proposed zoning amendments that will allow Work Force Housing at 2755 El Camino Real will also apply to parcels with underlying PF (Public Facility) zoning within 0.5 miles of fixed rail transit. Seemingly this has been done so the City is not just spot zoning one specific site in the City. The staff report notes that there are 77 such parcels that currently zoned PF located within 0.5 miles of a major fixed rail transit station (43 parcels owned by the City of Palo Alto and 20 parcels that are Caltrain right-ow-way or Caltrain station parcels). A list of these parcels is included in the staff report. Question: If housing in Palo Alto is in such short supply can you please consider and/or discuss conceptually whether this zoning amendment should be expanded beyond PF-zoned parcels? The reality is that the likelihood of additional Work Force housing being built on any of the PF zoned parcels is extremely small (because these PF- zoned parcels are already serving public functions that can’t/won't be changed/removed without significant negative impact). One could make a good argument that this zoning change is so restrictive, it is essentially spot zoning for the single parcel located at 2755 El Camino Real. If the Work Force Housing is such a good idea, why limit it to parcels that their existing use can’t/won’t ever be changed? Can you consider asking Planning Staff to consider allowing the Work Force Housing to be placed in other zoning designations? Doing so may have a greater future impact on addressing the housing shortage than only allowing the Work Force Housing on PF-zoned parcels. For example, we have a 0.50 acre acre (same size as 2755 El Camino) located on Park Blvd that is located within 0.5 miles of the Cal Train Station. The underlying zoning of our property is GM - which doesn’t allow housing uses. The GM zoning is antiquated and should be updated. Harold Hobach’s Park Plaza Apartments (2865 Park Blvd.) have an underlying GM zoning - which shows that the GM zone is not sacred for non-housing uses. Consistent with the evolution of the Park Blvd. corridor and Fry’s site future conversion to residential use, our site would actually be a great location for apartments or Work Force Housing and we would be willing to consider such an option, but only if we see some indication from the City that they are open to the concept. Thank you for your consideration. 3241 Park Blvd., LLC 3.l Packet Pg. 194 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) From:Angie Evans To:Hodgkins, Claire Subject:2755 El Camino Real Project Date:Tuesday, January 30, 2018 1:53:23 PMDear Ms Hodgkins, I am writing in support of the 2755 El Camino Real project. I will be sending a similarletter to the planning commission as well. I live in Palo Alto with my husband, ourdaughter, and our dog. I also work for the Housing Leadership Council of San MateoCounty and have worked on housing related issues since moving here in 2014. When wemoved here my expertise was in organizing advocacy groups around federal budget andappropriations but my focus quickly changed. If you live in the Bay Area then you can’tescape talking about the cost of living. For longtime residents I often hear frustrationabout where their kids will live, or how their kids are still living at home, or how theywill have to leave the area when they retire because downsizing here isn’t an option. Fornewer residents like myself, the option of homeownership will never be within grasp. Wehave very few effective, local tenant protections and so the stability that most of us seekis also out of grasp. While your decision-making body cannot change the cost of housingovernight or pass a measure to stabilize rents, you can approve strong projects, like thisone, that will benefit our community. Next door in Menlo Park we just learned thatquality of life has gone down by 14% in just 2 years because of housing costs and traffic.This project would allow Palo Alto to build some of the income-restricted units that weso badly need here, near public transit, and with a preference for local workers. Istrongly encourage you to support 2755 El Camino Real moving forward. Best,Angie Evans 860 Newell RoadPalo Alto, California 94303 3.l Packet Pg. 195 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) From:John Clayton Kunz To:Hodgkins, Claire Subject:2755 El Camino Real Workforce Housing Date:Monday, January 29, 2018 4:27:59 PM  Claire Hodgkins Associate Planner City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 RE: 2755 El Camino Real Workforce Housing   Dear Ms. Hodgkins,   I am writing to you in support of this project and ask that you forward this letter to both the Planning and Transportation Commission as well as the City Council, as they consider this project at future meetings.  The project enables 57 people to walk or bicycle to work in the nearby Industrial Park, especially if the project includes formal incentives to rent to local workers.  It is close to bus and train transit.  It is consistent with the architectural character of the city.    I encourage the PTC to support this project for our city.   Sincerely, john kunz 913 el Cajon Way Palo Alto   3.l Packet Pg. 196 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) From:Planning Commission To:Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: 2755 El Camino housing project Date:Monday, January 29, 2018 3:00:46 PM Forwarding from PTC mailbox. Yolanda M. Cervantes Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto Yolanda.cervantes@cityofpaloalto.org 650.329.2404 From: slevy@ccsce.com [mailto:slevy@ccsce.com] Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2018 11:56 AMTo: Planning CommissionSubject: 2755 El Camino housing project I write in support of the project and the development of workforce housing combining district. This project and the workforce district address several important policy areas. The project meets three important policy objectives of the Comp Plan and the adopted Housing Element: --providing housing near services, shopping, jobs and transit --increasing housing options by providing smaller units --including a below market rate component in a market rate project And the project is a model for something that we do not have now and is a serious housing challenge in our city and region, that is Units that are affordable to middle income residents--not poor enough to qualify for traditional subsidized housing but not affluent enough to pay current full market rate rents. The focus on households earning between 120% and 150% of the area median income brings a sorely needed new tool to our housing affordability tool kit. I was on a panel on Wednesday for the teacher housing event at Gunn. Teachers are one example of a large number of middle income residents unable to quality for low-income housing and struggling with the region's high rents. Just as Supervisor Simiitian's proposal can be a model for one way of addressing this widespread challenge, this project and the proposed workforce housing district can be another model to address the "missing middle" housing challenge. Thanks to staff for bringing this forward and to the commission for, I hope, moving forward with the staff recommendation. I will bring this idea for workforce housing to the attention of the members of the Committee to House the Bay Area (CASA) as they are struggling with the same issue. Stephen Levy 3.l Packet Pg. 197 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 365 Forest Avenue 3.l Packet Pg. 198 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) September 12 Agenda Item 2 Concerns Regarding the 2755 El Camino Real Proposal September 8, 2016 Dear City Councilmembers, City Manager Keene, and Director of Planning and Community Environment Gitelman: We are concerned by many issues surrounding the proposed project at 2755 El Camino Real and hope you’ll discuss these at your study session on Monday. Specifically: Zoning Issues  The project calls for “Another Zoning District” because Palo Alto has no zoning designation that allows such density. Putting 60 housing units on the 19,563 square foot site works out to approximately 134 units per acre. Given that 40 units per acre is our maximum in general, this would more than triple that and thus create an extraordinary change in Palo Alto zoning practice.  Because this proposal requires upzoning and spot zoning, it is basically PC zoning under a different plan. At least with PC zoning, you know precisely what you are getting. With this invent- a-zone approach, you don't.  RM-40 has a maximum FAR (Floor Area Ratio) of 1.0. This project is proposing double that.  RM-40 projects require 50 square feet of private open space per unit. Yet the plans do not show such space for all units.  Will the owners be able to apply for the state density bonuses as well, creating an even denser, under-parked configuration?  What will rents be for these units? The premise is that micro-units will create lower-cost housing, but what guarantee does the city have once it approves a zone change? No pro-forma financial information accompanies the proposal. Parking/Traffic Issues  The building is massively under-parked. Assuming the higher cited requirement of 102 parking spaces, the proposal would likely put 57 (102 minus 45) cars into an already crowded neighborhood. That is unacceptable.  The staff report mentions parking reductions might be possible via a TDM, but does not explain how that makes sense. Consider that: o No independent study has ever shown a TDM in Palo Alto works. o Palo Alto has no enforcement of TDMs. o A study of residents of Palo Alto Central, which is even nearer to the train, shows that 85% still commute by car. o TDMs offer shuttles, GoPasses, bikes, and such to encourage people not to commute by car but do not try to reduce car ownership. Given that the proposed building is massively underparked, a successful TDM for its residents would mean that more of their cars would not be used to commute but instead remain in neighborhood parking spaces during workdays. Why should that merit a parking requirement reduction? It instead would be a parking disaster. 3.l Packet Pg. 199 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) )  Director of Planning and Community Environment Gitelman has acknowledged that increasing housing creates more traffic. Why put more traffic at such a busy intersection? Public Trust  This kind of up/spot zoning means neighbors can no longer know what will be next to them. That’s unfair and not good planning.  Spot zoning harms the city as a whole. When a developer and a bare majority of councilmembers can rezone a property to be worth millions of dollars more, confidence in our city government erodes.  Many are skeptical of the practice of rezoning for one use and then substituting another, such as the Ming's Restaurant site that was rezoned for a hotel but was then changed to a Mercedes dealership. This project is NOT really about micro-units. They’re already allowed in RM-40 zoning and mixed-use projects, as well as ADUs. Ultimately, it's about under-parked residences and allowing residential buildings to exceed 1.0 FAR. We urge you to ask the owners to consider alternatives that retain the current zoning, which provides them a number of ways to create investment value. Thank you. Signed, PAN (Palo Alto Neighborhoods) Steering Committee PAN Housing Committee PAN Zoning Committee whose members include: Sheri Furman, PAN Co-Chair Rebecca Sanders, PAN Co-Chair Norman Beamer Annette Glanckopf Jeff Levinsky Roger Petersen Doria Summa 3.l Packet Pg. 200 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: 2755 Page Mill Project - Right Direction - Not There Yet   From: Hamilton Hitchings [mailto:hitchingsh@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:26 AM To: Council, City Cc: Lydia Kou; Keller, Arthur; Gitelman, Hillary; Costello, Elaine; Lee, Elena; Daniel Garber Subject: 2755 Page Mill Project - Right Direction - Not There Yet Dear City Council, You will be giving feedback on 2755 Page Mill Project Monday night. In the Citizen Advisory Committee for the Comp Plan and on the Land Use Subcommittee on which I also serve, we have talked about this type of project extensively, however, my comments below are my own and are not on behalf of nor represent either committee. This project is site appropriate and within walking distance of Stanford Research Park and Cal Ave. It is adjacent to other apartment buildings. Thus I support the design direction the project is taking and recommend modifications to the project. Specifically, the developer will get a large financial windfall by having the site upzoned thus it is incumbent upon the council to make sure it contributes sufficiently to the community. My recommendations are basically reduce the number of units and increase the parking. Note, these units will be expensive since, for example at Carmel The Village in San Antonio Shopping Center studio and one bedroom apartments that are 674+ square feet are renting for between $3000 and $6000 https://mycarmelthevillagecalifornia.prospectportal.com/Apartments/module/property_info/ Note, the Page Mill / El Camino intersection is already at Level of Service D and parking around Cal Ave is seriously under parked. My specific recommendations are: * Require 25% below market housing. Since the demand far outstrips the price of building, there is still a healthy profit to be made. * Consider requiring some of the units to be for developmentally disabled (this will help an underserved population while reducing parking demand) * Do not require ground floor retail. El Camino already has plenty. * Limit the height to 40 feet (it's currently 50 feet). This will help reduce the parking shortfall and traffic pressure. * Make the units slightly bigger 600 - 700 square feet. This will also reduce the parking shortfall and traffic pressure, while not cutting into developer margins. * Add to the deed that apartments occupants cannot have more cars registered than spots (but be realistic that this will not be enforced by the owner) * Require significant extra guest parking as part of the exchange for upzoning and monitor whether those spots are used at night, which will indicate whether parking "light" really works * Ensure no delivery temporary parking occurs on either Page Mill or El Camino 3.l Packet Pg. 201 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 2 * Have the developer contribute to the TDM under the existing program to help reduce spots * Don't allow an entrance from Page Mill to the garage as that intersection is already a LOS D * Ensure bike lockers and bike parking (not currently in the plan) 3.l Packet Pg. 202 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com> Sent:Thursday, September 15, 2016 7:49 PM To:Council, City Cc:letters@paweekly.com; tod@windyhillpv.com City Council members: Public Facility. The most important aspect of the former VTA property is its designation as "public facility." I think that calls for more than the usual public benefit which is understood to be only a fringe benefit, with the main purpose of development to 1)turn a good profit for the developer and 2) raise the value of Palo Alto property. I would suggest that the applicant is thinking in the right direction, but there needs, in this case, to be more benefit. I would suggest the entire first floor be dedicated to such community uses as child care, senior day care, senior nutrition program (a federally subsidized lunch for seniors costing, nominally, two or three dollars a meal but available at no charge to those who cannot pay. Locally, it's at Avenidas, Stevenson House, MV Senior Center), the Betty Wright therapeutic swim center---Senior directed programs might be particularly suitable because the location is ideal for senior micro housing, since it is on the 22/522 bus line, the longest and most frequent line in the VTA system, and seniors constitute the largest segment of non- drivers, and it seems a pity to waste the site on people who need or prefer to drive cars anyway. There need not be a preference for low income seniors, because they are already at the head of the line for low-income housing. Sherwood apartments opened its waiting list for the first time in years and people were waiting in line days ahead of the opening, but there might be others who are willing to forego automobile transportation, which is a considerable sacrifice, especially in the rain, and they need not be excluded. IS propose that unlimited storage space occupy the basement, and that the luxury of storing many possessions rent for twice as much per square foot as the rental for lodging persons. Note that it is the widowed , divorced ore single retirees who are the low low income; while the couples automatically have twice as much income. The better off could, therefore, rent two 200 square foot apartments instead of one, if they wished, or not. It's essential that everybody recognize that a 200 square foot "apartment" will be overwhelmingly tenanted by one person only and not contribute to the ill effects of density, whereas a six to eight hundred square foot apartment, two bedrooms, bathroom, full kitchen and living room, will house a whole family--three or four people. Although each dwelling would have its own refrigerator,microwave and sink, a communal kitchen would serve the needs for the residents' larger festive or family dinners. \ Balconies To preserve the FAR which is the foundation of Palo Alto's reputation of a beautiful, not too crowded city, every single unit should be an outside unit, with an entire room as an open, gardened balcony. There would be a garden maintenance person to see that the gardens were kept up. The model for this is the 50 year old building at 101 Alma, in which both the side facing the Bay and the side facing Stanford have eight foot wide balconies along their entire length., which works out to 80 square feet, an entire outdoor room. Rent Control 3.l Packet Pg. 203 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 2 It is time to extend the protection of Prop 13 to renters, and this land, zoned "public facility" is a perfect place to begin. The City Council has it within its power to raise the height limit so that a larger number of low income units would still turn a respectable profit. I propose that someone like Councilman Schmidt cost out the number of units at, say, $00. a month, would produce a return on investment of one percent over current treasury bonds,, and that the rent be increased by one percent a year. Stephanie Munoz 3.l Packet Pg. 204 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Patama Gur <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:34 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: patamaroj@gmail.com <Patama Gur> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Patama Gur 3.l Packet Pg. 205 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Robert Taylor <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:32 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: rob.k.taylor@gmail.com <Robert Taylor> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Robert Taylor 3.l Packet Pg. 206 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Frank Dellaert <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:31 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: dellaert@gmail.com <Frank Dellaert> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Frank Dellaert 3.l Packet Pg. 207 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Sarit Schube <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:10 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: saritschube@gmail.com <Sarit Schube> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Sarit Schube 3.l Packet Pg. 208 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Scott Feeney <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:00 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: scott@oceanbase.org <Scott Feeney> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Scott Feeney 3.l Packet Pg. 209 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Justine Burt <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: justineburt@alumni.tufts.edu <Justine Burt> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Justine Burt 3.l Packet Pg. 210 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Michael Cutchin <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:29 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: mcutchin@gmail.com <Michael Cutchin> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Michael Cutchin 3.l Packet Pg. 211 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jen Pleasants <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jen@showthelove.com <Jen Pleasants> Message: thank you for considering helping make our community a healthier and happier place Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jen Pleasants 3.l Packet Pg. 212 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Karen Schlesser <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: k_schlesser@yahoo.com <Karen Schlesser> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Karen Schlesser 3.l Packet Pg. 213 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Mike Greenfield <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 10:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: mike@mikegreenfield.com <Mike Greenfield> Message: After 50+ years with virtually no new housing, we need this and lots more like it -- please! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Mike Greenfield 3.l Packet Pg. 214 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Tim Nguyen <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: timmynguyen1@gmail.com <Tim Nguyen> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Tim Nguyen 3.l Packet Pg. 215 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Tricia Herrick <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: tbtextra@gmail.com <Tricia Herrick> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Tricia Herrick 3.l Packet Pg. 216 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Anna Tchetchetkine <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: anya.tche@gmail.com <Anna Tchetchetkine> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Anna Tchetchetkine 3.l Packet Pg. 217 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jeff Rensch <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jrensch@gmail.com <Jeff Rensch> Message: With only 45 parking spaces, it will also be important to provide strong incentives not to own a car. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jeff Rensch 3.l Packet Pg. 218 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Huey Kwik <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:33 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: huey.kwik@gmail.com <Huey Kwik> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Huey Kwik 3.l Packet Pg. 219 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Sam Corbett Davies <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:32 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: samcorbettdavies@gmail.com <Sam Corbett Davies> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Sam Corbett Davies 3.l Packet Pg. 220 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Mila Zelkha <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: mila.zelkha@gmail.com <Mila Zelkha> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Mila Zelkha 3.l Packet Pg. 221 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Elizabeth Lasky <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: laskyea@gmail.com <Elizabeth Lasky> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Elizabeth Lasky 3.l Packet Pg. 222 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Maelig Morvan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: melig@chez.com <Maelig Morvan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Maelig Morvan 3.l Packet Pg. 223 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto   From: Diego Aguilar Canabal [mailto:advocacy@ujoin.co] Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 9:07 PM To: Council, City Subject: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: d.aguilarcanabal@gmail.com <Diego Aguilar Canabal> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Diego Aguilar Canabal 3.l Packet Pg. 224 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Developing the VTA site: No more underparked developments   ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Cheryl Lilienstein [mailto:clilienstein@me.com]   Sent: Friday, September 09, 2016 8:01 AM  To: Council, City  Subject: Developing the VTA site: No more underparked developments        Dear Councilmembers,      Possibly this information will be useful to you in responding to the proposal regarding the VTA lot.    Recently my nephew disclosed he had looked at micro units in SF, and I asked him to describe his experience. Here is  what he reported. The unit he was offered cost $2600/month and had 250 square feet, and shared a kitchen with 6  other inhabitants. It was in SOMA, within two or three blocks of bus lines, CalTrain, Bart, Trader Joe and Whole Foods.  The building provided no parking. Renters with cars were told they could rent a spot in an uncovered lot several blocks  away for $620/month. The agent told my nephew that most people lived there less than one year, and the vacancy rate  was 10%.  So: $2600 + $620 = $3220 for a 250 square foot apartment in SF.     And: how is something like this going to do anything to make housing affordable? Some of you still insist “the market”  will correct itself if you provide more housing, but where is the evidence to support this? Does paying $2600 plus $620  (for 250 square feet of shared space plus remote uncovered parking) match your idea of affordable?       The proposal before you is for 60 units, with 45 parking spaces.   Unlike transit‐rich San Francisco we have no other “lots” to offer parking except neighborhood streets… You already  know that people have cars, use them, and park them in neighborhoods when no other parking is available, and that  those neighborhoods impacted no longer feel like neighborhoods. Please don’t allow this!     What is likely is that since housing is so expensive people will simply pack in together, and the people in 60 units will  have MANY more cars than anticipated.  Allowing under‐parking in a community that has inadequate transit is a gift to  the developers and adversely affects the entire community, ESPECIALLY in that intersection.    A better use might be an extension of Sunrise or another assisted living facility, in which the inhabitants don’t need  transit, the bustle in and out is minimal, and (I assume) employees have adequate parking. There’s no question that  there is a need for senior facilities in our area. Conversely, it would have a negative impact on every commuter and all  residents in our community if this developer is allowed to underpark a high density development RIGHT ON an already  terrible intersection. This is the wrong location to test that particular (and in my view wrong headed) experiment.    One more thing to consider: Whatever happened to that toxic plume beneath the lot? And who would be liable if the  city allowed the developer to unearth it and the adjacent inhabitants were affected?     Thank you for your service,  3.l Packet Pg. 225 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 2 Cheryl Lilienstein                  3.l Packet Pg. 226 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto   From: Marcello Golfieri [mailto:advocacy@ujoin.co] Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 8:07 AM To: Council, City Subject: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: golfieri@gmail.com <Marcello Golfieri> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Marcello Golfieri 3.l Packet Pg. 227 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Patricia Saffir <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:05 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: opsaffir@mymailstation.com <Patricia Saffir> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Patricia Saffir 3.l Packet Pg. 228 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:John Clark <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:03 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jclark4@gmail.com <John Clark> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. John Clark 3.l Packet Pg. 229 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Anne Lumerman <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 8:45 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: anne.lumerman@gamil.com <Anne Lumerman > Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Anne Lumerman 3.l Packet Pg. 230 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Stephen Reller <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:54 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: sreller@randmproperties.com <Stephen Reller> Message: The only thing wrong with this project is the height - it should be 100' tall and 120 units. Do the right thing and approve this (and do not let the very vocal few misrepresent the majority of PA citizens.) Thank you Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Stephen Reller 3.l Packet Pg. 231 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Debin Ji <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:50 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: debinji1983@gmail.com <Debin Ji> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Debin Ji 3.l Packet Pg. 232 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Tom Arnold <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:50 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: tomarnold@gmail.com <Tom Arnold> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Tom Arnold 3.l Packet Pg. 233 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Christopher Colohan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:45 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: paloaltoforward@colohan.com <Christopher Colohan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Christopher Colohan 3.l Packet Pg. 234 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Kevin Watts <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:44 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: kevinwwatts@gmail.com <Kevin Watts> Message: As a Palo Alto resident, these homes would help reduce traffic by creating housing near existing jobs. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Kevin Watts 3.l Packet Pg. 235 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Dave Ashton <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:41 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: aashton@gmail.com <Dave Ashton> Message: We need housing near employment centers!!!!! And this is so close to the California Ave Caltain Station, a resident could walk. What a great project! More housing near transit and employment PLEASE. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Dave Ashton 3.l Packet Pg. 236 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Charles Salmon <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:37 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: cssalmon@gmail.com <Charles Salmon> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Charles Salmon 3.l Packet Pg. 237 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Isaac Rosenberg <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:36 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: irosenb7@gmail.com <Isaac Rosenberg> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Isaac Rosenberg 3.l Packet Pg. 238 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Amy Sung <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:34 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: amyconnect@gmail.com <Amy Sung> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Amy Sung 3.l Packet Pg. 239 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Steve Pierce <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:34 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: pierce@zanemac.com <Steve Pierce> Message: We are in a housing hole and need to work our way out at every opportunity. Diversity of housing types is a must. Reduced parking is appropriate for the Uber generation, particularly when proximate to Caltrain and VTA. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Steve Pierce 3.l Packet Pg. 240 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jan Skotheim <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:27 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: skotheim@stanford.edu <Jan Skotheim> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jan Skotheim 3.l Packet Pg. 241 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Evan Goldin <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:26 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: evan.goldin@gmail.com <Evan Goldin> Message: As a Palo Alto native, I'm a strong believer that we need more housing to make Palo Alto affordable again to my friends, coworkers and neighbors. Please support this development. Even though it's too late to save the Zebra Copy across the street, it's not too late to make that parking lot into homes for future residents! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Evan Goldin 3.l Packet Pg. 242 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Heidi Stein <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:26 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: heidih.stein@gmail.com <Heidi Stein> Message: I will need to hear more about this specific project, but in general this is the kind of housing project I support. More density, more affordable - the opposite of what happened on Maybell! Heidi Stein Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Heidi Stein 3.l Packet Pg. 243 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Rebecca Geraldi <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:24 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: winterskeeper@yahoo.com <Rebecca Geraldi> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Rebecca Geraldi 3.l Packet Pg. 244 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Francis Viggiano <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:18 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: fpviggiano@gmail.com <Francis Viggiano> Message: Please help assure our children and grandchildren will have reasonable housing options in this area by approving this project. We are on the cusp of a transition to shared, self-driving cars, so there will be decreased need for parking in the near future. Let's lead the way into the future. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Francis Viggiano 3.l Packet Pg. 245 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Ed Wu <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:07 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: yiranwu@gmail.com <Ed Wu> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Ed Wu 3.l Packet Pg. 246 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Shelley Ratay <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 11:48 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: shelleyratay@gmail.com <Shelley Ratay> Message: Thank you for considering this important project in our community! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Shelley Ratay 3.l Packet Pg. 247 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Lisa Forssell <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 11:45 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: lisa.forssell@gmail.com <Lisa Forssell> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Lisa Forssell 3.l Packet Pg. 248 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Owen Byrd <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 11:40 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: owenbyrd@gmail.com <Owen Byrd> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Owen Byrd 3.l Packet Pg. 249 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Nicole Lederer <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 11:26 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: nicole@nicolelederer.com <Nicole Lederer> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Nicole Lederer 3.l Packet Pg. 250 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jan Rubens <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 11:22 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: rubens.jan@gmail.com <Jan Rubens> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jan Rubens 3.l Packet Pg. 251 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Ellen Cassidy <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 11:25 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: ellenwcassidy@gmail.com <Ellen Cassidy> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Ellen Cassidy 3.l Packet Pg. 252 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Sara Woodham <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:58 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: sawoodham@gmail.com <Sara Woodham> Message: Are you up we need more affordable housing in Palo Alto. In fact we just need more housing in general. Please approve increasing our inventory. This is close to public transportation which makes it ideal for individuals working in Palo Alto Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Sara Woodham 3.l Packet Pg. 253 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Marc Grinberg <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:54 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: marcgrinberg@gmail.com <Marc Grinberg> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Marc Grinberg 3.l Packet Pg. 254 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Paul Feng <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:50 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: paulfeng@gmail.com <Paul Feng> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Paul Feng 3.l Packet Pg. 255 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Margaret Rushing <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:25 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: margaret.rushing@gmail.com <Margaret Rushing> Message: I'm in favor of starting with 60 new affordable housing units and hoping that more will be added. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Margaret Rushing 3.l Packet Pg. 256 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Bryan Culbertson <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:22 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: bryan.culbertson@gmail.com <Bryan Culbertson> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Bryan Culbertson 3.l Packet Pg. 257 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Steve Levy <slevy@ccsce.com> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:17 AM To:Council, City Subject:Windy Hill Proposal I am pleased to see that Windy Hill has responded to the council's desire for housing on the Page Mill/ECR site.    I am sure both tonight and going forward there will be lots of details to discuss.    I am encouraged that the proposal meets many of the Housing Element goals especially those in favor of adding smaller  units like the studios and one‐bedroom apartments proposed.    The site also is close to everyday services and shopping and will support these activities in the California Avenue area,  which I know is a council and resident priority.    The project will be a test of the market for smaller well‐located housing in Palo Alto. The rents will be above what low‐ income families as all non subsidized housing on the peninsula is but the rents will welcome many individuals who can in  now way afford median home prices here. So the project will expand supply and expand opportunities.    I support the kind of housing being proposed and I hope the council and Windy Hill can develop a final proposal that  does not raise costs and rents.    Stephen Levy  365 Forest Avenue   Palo Alto, CA 94301    3.l Packet Pg. 258 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Hannah Illathu <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:12 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: illathu.hannah@gmail.com <Hannah Illathu> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Hannah Illathu 3.l Packet Pg. 259 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jeralyn Moran <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:11 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jeralyn.moran@gmail.com <Jeralyn Moran> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jeralyn Moran 3.l Packet Pg. 260 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:John Sack <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:02 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: sack@stanford.edu <John Sack> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. John Sack 3.l Packet Pg. 261 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Manu Sridharan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:00 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: msridhar@gmail.com <Manu Sridharan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Manu Sridharan 3.l Packet Pg. 262 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Ilana Cohen <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:59 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: ieydus@gmail.com <Ilana Cohen> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Ilana Cohen 3.l Packet Pg. 263 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Patricia Mc Brayer <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 2:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: patricia@pmarchitect.net <Patricia Mc Brayer> Message: We must address the housing crisis in Palo Alto and the Peninsula at large immediately if we are to remain sustainable as a community for the long term. The proposed project provides a much needed diversity of housing type on a transit and work friendly site. Please move forward with the approvals process, allowing a zoning change and micro-housing overlay. As part of the approvals process, I urge you to require the developer to address affordability in a meaningful way by limiting rental rates and/or purchase price on a specified number of units to 50% of market rate, with priority given to people with residency in the Bay Area of 3 years or more making 50% or less than median income. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Patricia Mc Brayer 3.l Packet Pg. 264 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Elaine Uang <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 2:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: elaine.uang@gmail.com <Elaine Uang> Message: 60 homes alone can't solve the regional housing crisis, but this is a good start to think about new ways to provide housing in the right places. While I hope some preference is given to city employees, teachers, nurses, or local workers, even market rate studios and 1-bdrms fill a need in our community and help relieve (somewhat) the competition for smaller affordable units. I hope you can work together with the applicant, community and staff to rezone this parcel and implement the right regulatory frameworks that will encourage more smaller unit projects like this proposal in service and transit rich areas such as Cal Ave and Downtown. Thank you for your attention to this project. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Elaine Uang 3.l Packet Pg. 265 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Elliot Margolies <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 2:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: elliotspark@yahoo.com <Elliot Margolies> Message: We have so much work to do to catch up with 3 decades of a lopsided jobs-housing ratio and the resulting unaffordability of our community. I appreciate your leadership in this arena. Elliot Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Elliot Margolies 3.l Packet Pg. 266 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Snow Zhu <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 1:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: snowxzhu@berkeley.edu <Snow Zhu> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Snow Zhu 3.l Packet Pg. 267 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Molly W <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 1:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: meleleshopping@gmail.com <Molly W> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Molly W 3.l Packet Pg. 268 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Daniel Walker <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 1:37 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: dan.walker1@gmail.com <Daniel Walker> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Daniel Walker 3.l Packet Pg. 269 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Randy Popp <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 1:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: randy@rp-arch.com <Randy Popp> Message: This is the right time to consider changing the status quo for housing and parking requirements. Please approve this project without delay. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Randy Popp 3.l Packet Pg. 270 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Liat Zavodivker <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: lzavod@gmail.com <Liat Zavodivker> Message: Build housing for the improvement of the environment! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Liat Zavodivker 3.l Packet Pg. 271 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Naphtali Knox <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: knoxnaph@gmail.com <Naphtali Knox> Message: If not here, where? If not now, when? Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Naphtali Knox 3.l Packet Pg. 272 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jeremy Hoffman <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: hoffmanj@gmail.com <Jeremy Hoffman> Message: I used to live in the apartment complex that overlooked that empty parking lot. It'll be lovely to replace that lot with a useful building. And it's a great location for housing, being walking distance to the Cal Ave downtown and farmers market, the Caltrain stop, and being right next to the bus stop. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jeremy Hoffman 3.l Packet Pg. 273 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Sarah Bell <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: bell.sarah@gmail.com <Sarah Bell> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Sarah Bell 3.l Packet Pg. 274 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jessica Youseffi <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 12:03 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jyouseffi@gmail.com <Jessica Youseffi> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jessica Youseffi 3.l Packet Pg. 275 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Barb Swenson <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: swenson.barb@gmail.com <Barb Swenson> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Barb Swenson 3.l Packet Pg. 276 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Kyle Barrett <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: kylembarrett@gmail.com <Kyle Barrett> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Kyle Barrett 3.l Packet Pg. 277 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Nancy Olson <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: nso2431@icloud.com <Nancy Olson> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Nancy Olson 3.l Packet Pg. 278 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jessica Clark <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 4:34 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jermsica@comcast.net <Jessica Clark > Message: I support this but would also like to see some BMR's worked into this project. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jessica Clark 3.l Packet Pg. 279 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Andrew Boone <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 4:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: nauboone@gmail.com <Andrew Boone> Message: Dear Palo Alto City Council, More affordable housing near high-quality transit is key to creating a sustainable and equitable community. That's why I support the 60-unit Windy Hill apartments at 2755 El Camino Real. Higher-density housing and fewer car parking spaces are a common sense solution to providing more residents access to transit and good bicycling and walking opportunities. Vote YES for more homes for people! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Andrew Boone 3.l Packet Pg. 280 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Fred Glick <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 4:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: fred@fredglick.com <Fred Glick> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Fred Glick 3.l Packet Pg. 281 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Ellen Uhrbrock <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 4:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: ellen.uhrbrock@gmail.com <Ellen Uhrbrock> Message: Instead of stopping them at the drawing board - encourage competition with a significant prize awarded the architect including a green light to build immediately, subject only to Council's and neighborhood's approval. Do not give city employees, or teachers priority - Give financial priority only to car less renters and owners. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Ellen Uhrbrock 3.l Packet Pg. 282 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jerry Schwarz <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 4:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jerry@acm.org <Jerry Schwarz> Message: There may be objection to the height of the building My own feeling about height is well known. Tall buildings can be attractive. And I like them. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jerry Schwarz 3.l Packet Pg. 283 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Gary Fine <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: gary@finepoquet.com <Gary Fine> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Gary Fine 3.l Packet Pg. 284 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Melody Baumgartner <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: melodybaumgartner@gmail.com <Melody Baumgartner> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Melody Baumgartner 3.l Packet Pg. 285 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Neil Shea <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:41 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: neilshea@yahoo.com <Neil Shea> Message: Need to maximize centralized locations like this -- and make a dent in our housing/cost crisis Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Neil Shea 3.l Packet Pg. 286 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jane Uyvova <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 3:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jane.uyvova@gmail.com <Jane Uyvova> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jane Uyvova 3.l Packet Pg. 287 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Omar Diab <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2016 4:41 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: me@omardiab.com <Omar Diab> Message: The entire Sam Francisco Bay Area needs more housing and Palo Alto is ground zero of this crisis. This project must be built! It is in a prime transit corridor and just makes so much sense. Please construct it! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Omar Diab 3.l Packet Pg. 288 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Amy Kiefer <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 10:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: amy.kiefer@gmail.com <Amy Kiefer> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Amy Kiefer 3.l Packet Pg. 289 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Ozzie Fallick <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: ozzie.fallick@gmail.com <Ozzie Fallick> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Ozzie Fallick 3.l Packet Pg. 290 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Aleks Totic <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: a@totic.org <Aleks Totic> Message: Studios and one bedrooms would be a nice addition to PA. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Aleks Totic 3.l Packet Pg. 291 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Erhyu Yuan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: erhyoohoo@yahoo.com <Erhyu Yuan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Erhyu Yuan 3.l Packet Pg. 292 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Lauren Winslow <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: lauren.winslow@gmail.com <Lauren Winslow> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Lauren Winslow 3.l Packet Pg. 293 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Maristela Cardoso <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: marismach@yahoo.com <Maristela Cardoso> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Maristela Cardoso 3.l Packet Pg. 294 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Keva Dine <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 9:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: kmdine@gmail.com <Keva Dine> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Keva Dine 3.l Packet Pg. 295 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Adriana Eberle <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 8:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: liederseberle@gmail.com <Adriana Eberle> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Adriana Eberle 3.l Packet Pg. 296 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Edward Hillard <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 8:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: edhillard@gmail.com <Edward Hillard> Message: It is still painful to me that some sixty units of affordable housing for seniors were eliminated due to the political pressure of the Baron Park community. I believe we should be building multi-unit housing wherever possible in Palo Alto. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Edward Hillard 3.l Packet Pg. 297 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Adriana Eberle <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 8:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: liederseberle@gmail.com <Adriana Eberle> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Adriana Eberle 3.l Packet Pg. 298 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Steve Eittreim <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 8:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: eitteeimcs@gmail.com <Steve Eittreim> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Steve Eittreim 3.l Packet Pg. 299 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Mike Buchanan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 8:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: mike.r.buchanan@gmail.com <Mike Buchanan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Mike Buchanan 3.l Packet Pg. 300 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Matt Austern <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: austern@gmail.com <Matt Austern> Message: We need more housing construction in Palo Alto to address the housing affordability crisis. There's no better place to build housing in the city than right next to a public transportation hub. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Matt Austern 3.l Packet Pg. 301 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Rohun Jauhar <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jauharro@gmail.com <Rohun Jauhar> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Rohun Jauhar 3.l Packet Pg. 302 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Gail Price <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: gail.price3@gmail.com <Gail Price > Message: We should take every opportunity possible to expand housing options throughout our community. Close to transit and the California corridor enhances the location ! More complexes like this are needed to make support our S-CAP plan. Frankly, one of the problems is simple: supply of housing vs. demand for housing. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Gail Price 3.l Packet Pg. 303 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Ciera Jaspan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 7:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: ciera.christopher@gmail.com <Ciera Jaspan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Ciera Jaspan 3.l Packet Pg. 304 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Laura Fingal Surma <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 5:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: laura.surma@gmail.com <Laura Fingal Surma> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Laura Fingal Surma 3.l Packet Pg. 305 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jane Huang <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 5:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jane.x.huang@gmail.com <Jane Huang> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jane Huang 3.l Packet Pg. 306 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Becky Richardson <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 5:23 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: becky.richardson@gmail.com <Becky Richardson> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Becky Richardson 3.l Packet Pg. 307 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jared Bernstein <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Monday, September 12, 2016 4:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jared@erosenfeld.com <Jared Bernstein> Message: I would have written something a bit shorter. But the message is: I support dense housing at PageMill & El Camino. /Jared Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jared Bernstein 3.l Packet Pg. 308 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Kim Butts Pauly Ph.D. <kbpauly@stanford.edu> Sent:Wednesday, September 14, 2016 6:56 AM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page I read with great interest the story about the small housing units for El Camino and Page Mill. I wanted to bring to your attention that there is another group of people for whom small apartments and only bike parking would be perfect - the hundreds of postdoctoral fellows working at Stanford. As it is, they contribute to the hundreds of commute trips through Palo Alto to housing around the peninsula. These are people with advanced degrees, but little pay. This type of housing would fill a huge need and reduce commute trips. Thank you, -Kim ********************************** Kim Butts Pauly, Ph.D. Professor of Radiology 3.l Packet Pg. 309 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Susie Hwang <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Wednesday, September 14, 2016 6:18 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: shwang@me.com <Susie Hwang > Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Susie Hwang 3.l Packet Pg. 310 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto   From: Anita Lusebrink [mailto:advocacy@ujoin.co] Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2016 2:50 PM To: Council, City Subject: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: anita@satakenursery.com <Anita Lusebrink> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Anita Lusebrink 3.l Packet Pg. 311 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Erika Conley <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2016 9:54 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: erikaconley@gmail.com <Erika Conley> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Erika Conley 3.l Packet Pg. 312 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Bette Kiernan <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2016 9:40 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: betteuk@aol.com <Bette Kiernan> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Bette Kiernan 3.l Packet Pg. 313 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Judy Adams <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Tuesday, September 13, 2016 9:16 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: judyblueeyes1@gmail.com <Judy Adams> Message: In addition to including "affordable units" (below market rate), the project needs low-income units, probably the studio size. The use of the term affordable is not really accessible to low-income residents and there needs to be an element of truly low-income in ALL Palo Alto and all peninsula housing elements to serve community needs. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Judy Adams 3.l Packet Pg. 314 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Karen Penstock <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Thursday, September 15, 2016 4:57 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: karenpenstock@yahoo.com <Karen Penstock> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Karen Penstock 3.l Packet Pg. 315 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Mark Kennedy <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Wednesday, September 14, 2016 4:10 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: mdavkennedy@gmail.com <Mark Kennedy> Message: You need to do this. If you do not, then you are the problem. MDK Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Mark Kennedy 3.l Packet Pg. 316 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire From:Jeffrey Salzman <advocacy@ujoin.co> Sent:Thursday, September 15, 2016 6:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: jsalzman3@gmail.com <Jeffrey Salzman> Message: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Jeffrey Salzman 3.l Packet Pg. 317 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 1 Hodgkins, Claire Subject:FW: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto   From: Darryl Fenwick [mailto:advocacy@ujoin.co] Sent: Saturday, September 17, 2016 9:08 AM To: Council, City Subject: Support 60 New Homes in Palo Alto From: fenwickdh@yahoo.com <Darryl Fenwick> Message: In a time when everyone is complaining about lack of affordable housing, it would be a poor decision to not back this project! Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, I write to you today to support the 60 unit housing project proposed by Windy Hill Property Ventures at 2755 El Camino Real. In the midst of a severe housing shortage and crisis, these 30 studios and 30 one-bedrooms will provide much needed housing in our community. Smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms, fulfill a need in our community for housing for small households. The location is perfect for housing, offering easy access to shops, banks, cafes, restaurants and other services near the California Avenue corridor. The project is adjacent to a number of jobs, which can reduce inbound commuting - which makes up ⅔ of our city’s existing GHG emissions, and will help our city achieve our Sustainability/Climate Action Plan goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. This location has easy access to a range of transportation options, including VTA 22/522, the Cal Ave CalTrain station, and Bike Share stations. In an era of car sharing (ZipCar) ride sharing (Lyft/Uber), fewer people own cars and require parking spaces, and with greater bicycle infrastructure (secure storage and repair stations) and a strong, enforceable TDM package, the 45 proposed parking spaces (0.75 parking spaces/unit) should be able to meet the parking needs of all future occupants. The affordability component could be strengthened - by allowing, for example, city employees and teachers first preference. This could help those who are already working in Palo Alto to live here and be a stronger part of our community (and reduce long commute trips!) We need to prioritize housing projects like this and find ways to make them work, not stop them at the drawing board. Please move forward with a zoning change for the site, and a micro-housing overlay to increase the allowable density limit on commercial sites to allow these homes to be constructed in our community. Darryl Fenwick 3.l Packet Pg. 318 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P u b l i c C o m m e n t s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) 2755 El Camino Real Project Description The project proposes to develop a new multi-family residential building, 50 feet in height and totaling 41,304 square feet at 2755 El Camino Real. The project site is a vacant parking lot formerly used as a Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Park and Ride facility. The development proposal includes the following requests: 1. Zoning Code Text Amendment to create a new combining district that would allow housing on the subject property and that could be applied to other sites in the PF zone within 0.5 mile of fixed rail transit in the future, through a legislative process within Council and the PTC’s purview; 2. Zoning Map Amendment to apply the new combining district to the subject site. 3. Site and Design review to allow for construction of a proposed four-story multi-family residential building with 60 dwelling units and one level of partially below-grade parking. The project would also require an amendment to the Land Use Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan to allow for multi- family housing projects within the Major Institution Special Facilities land use designation. 3.m Packet Pg. 319 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t M : P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Attachment N Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Boardmembers. These plans are available to the public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln 2. On the left hand side click “Development Proposals” 3. In the drop down window click “Pending Projects” 4. Scroll to find “2755 El Camino” and click the address link 5. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://tinyurl.com/2755-El-Camino-Real 3.n Packet Pg. 320 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t N : P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 8 9 1 0 : 2 7 5 5 E l C a m i n o R e a l : S i t e a n d D e s i g n ( 2 n d F o r m a l ) ) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8875) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/15/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3223 Hanover Street: New Office/R&D Building (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3223 Hanover Street [17PLN-00225]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Construction of a new two-Story 67,200 Square Foot Office / R&D Building. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study is Being Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: RP (Research Park) and RP(L) (Research Park with Landscape Combining District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend continuance of the Architectural Review application to a date uncertain and provide recommendations to the applicant for how to better meet the findings for approval. Report Summary The application is a request for major architectural review of a new 67,202 square foot (sf), two-story office/R&D building and associated site improvements. The Board previously reviewed a project on March 2, 2017 for a new 115,500 sf two story office/R&D building on the site, which is currently going through the Building permitting process. The subject proposal is considered a second phase to the previously approved project, and would add to, rather than replace, the previous proposal. The site is located on Hanover Street in the Stanford Research Park and shares a rear lot line with several single family residences along Matadero Avenue. The site has a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Research / Office Park, and is zoned Research Park (RP) with a 50 foot Landscape Combining District (L) along the rear lot line. 4 Packet Pg. 321 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Staff recommends the project be continued to allow for refinements to the site plan that allow for enhanced pedestrian connectivity and refinements to the proposed surface parking lot. Background Project Information Owner: Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Architect: Bob Giannini, Form4 Architecture Representative: Allison Koo, Sand Hill Property Company Legal Counsel: N/A Property Information Address: 3223 Hanover Street Neighborhood: Stanford Research Park Lot Dimensions & Area: 10.17 acres (781 feet in width along Hanover Street, 570 feet in depth) Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes Historic Resource(s): No Existing Improvement(s): None, previous buildings demolished in 2017 Existing Land Use(s): Vacant, 115,500 sf office/R&D building including 5,500 sf of amenity space. Currently entitled and in Building permitting process. Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Research Park (Office / R&D Buildings) West: Research Park (Office / R&D Buildings) East: Residential Estate (Single Family Residences) South: Research Park (Office / R&D Buildings) and Residential Estate (Single Family Residences) Aerial View of Property: 4 Packet Pg. 322 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Research Park (RP) with Landscape Combining District (L) along the rear Comp. Plan Designation: Research / Office Park 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, single family residences are adjacent to the site Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not applicable Prior City Reviews & Action Note: Buildings now demolished. 4 Packet Pg. 323 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: March 2, 2017: ARB reviewed and recommended approval of a 115,500 sf office/R&D building on the site (Project #16PLN-00190). A link to the staff report is included here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56127. A copy of the staff report without attachments is included in Attachment F, and meeting minutes from the March 2, 2017 hearing are included in Attachment G. Project Description The site is located on the eastern edge of the Stanford Research Park, across Hanover Street from the HP Campus and adjacent along the rear property line are four single family homes on Matadero Avenue. Until May 2016, the site constituted the northeastern portion of a larger 25 acre lease area occupied by Lockheed Martin offices and R&D facilities. Hanover Street slopes uphill towards the southwest in the vicinity of the site, and the 25 acre lease area was terraced into three levels containing two groupings of buildings. The lease lines were reconfigured in May 20161, and the 10.17 acre subject site constitutes two of these terraces: an upper terrace containing the existing buildings that were demolished in 2017, and a lower terrace with a surface parking lot and vehicular access to the site. Previously Approved Project (16PLN-00190): On March 2, 2017, the Architectural Review Board recommended to the Planning Director approval of a project (Application #16PLN-00190) proposing to demolish the buildings on the site and construct a two-story, 110,000 sf office/R&D building with an additional 5,500 sf of traffic-mitigating amenity space. The Planning Director approved this project on March 22, 2017 following the ARB hearing and the conclusion of the circulation period for the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. In addition to the 115,500 sf building, the project included the construction of a new two-level underground parking garage to be built beneath the higher terrace on the site, which would be covered at grade with a plaza containing landscaping, tables, and walkways. The proposal also included the removal of the existing surface parking lot that occupies the majority of the lower terrace in favor of a wildflower meadow for this area. A bicycle and pedestrian pathway was proposed with the application that connected the site to the adjacent Bol Park Bicycle Path to the north of the site. The site plan for this previous project is included for reference on Sheet MP 1.4 in the plan set for the current project (17PLN-00255). Current Proposal (17PLN-00255): The current application was filed on July 18, 2017, and includes a new 67,202 sf office/R&D building with 3,783 sf of traffic mitigating amenity space oriented parallel to the previously approved building. The new building utilizes the same 1 In conformance with the Subdivision Map Act, commercial lease parcels are not subject to City review. As agreed by Stanford and the City, these lease parcel changes will be tracked through the Mayfield Development Agreement annual reporting process. 4 Packet Pg. 324 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 architectural forms, materials, and colors as the previous project, which includes the use of inverted gable “butterfly” roof forms, metal canopy overhangs, glass curtain walls, blue-colored cornices, and wood soffits. The building is situated at the center of the site and on the upper terrace, and occupies an area above the underground parking garage previously proposed for a large patio. The building placement reduces the size and encloses the patio area, which is now framed on several sides by the two buildings. The wildflower meadow previously proposed for the lower terrace is now proposed to remain a surface parking lot, which is the existing condition. The existing trees in the parking lot would be removed and replaced in new island planters. As with the previous proposal, vehicles access the site from Hanover Street using the existing driveway entrance. As a component of the project, the applicant is proposing to enhance the Bol Park Bicycle Path along the site perimeter with new asphalt surfacing, perennial plantings, and seating walls. The application also retains a bicycle and pedestrian path linking the site to the Bol Park Bicycle Path that was proposed with the previous application. 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 Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment C. Analysis2 Neighborhood Setting and Character The site is located on the eastern edge of the Stanford Research Park, and is surrounded on three sides by two-story office / R&D buildings of various sizes and ages. The site also backs up to single family residences to the east, which are separated from the site by an existing forested landscape edge. The previously approved project included several design elements intended to buffer the use from these residences, including enhanced screening landscaping and earthen berms, a gradual change in grade to prevent noise associated with vehicles downshifting while ascending from the lower to the upper platform, and automatically timed window shades to prevent nighttime glare. These features/conditions would carry-over to the current proposal. 2 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. 4 Packet Pg. 325 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 The placement of the new structure would reflect the previous pattern of development on the site, with two buildings situated on the upper terrace and a surface parking lot located on the lower terrace. The scale of the building as viewed from the public street would be in keeping with the previously-approved building, and is similar in architecture in most respects. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Research / Office Park Office, which allows for research and manufacturing uses. The project is consistent with this designation. The project appears generally consistent with applicable comprehensive plan policies, but additional review is required, in part based on the concerns expressed later in this report. Zoning Compliance4 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment D. The proposed project complies with the basic development standards for the RP zone, however, the existing parking lot is nonconforming with respect to the City’s 50% tree shading requirement (PAMC 18.54.040) and other design deficiencies detailed below. Through the architectural review findings, staff believes these issues should be remedied. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The site is located adjacent to two VTA bus stops on either side of Hanover Street. As a condition of approval for the previous project, these bus stops will be relocated to areas along the site frontage that provide for safer lines of site near the site drive aisle. From the Hanover Street right-of-way, one main point of access is provided for pedestrians at each terrace level. While these walkways provide sufficient access to each level, staff is concerned that the plan does not provide sufficient access between each terrace level, especially near the site frontage, which could otherwise be the highest pedestrian traffic area. The existing site, for example, provides a staircase between the terraces near the site entrance, which is a positive amenity, and could be replaced with the current application. Additionally, staff is concerned that the number of drive aisles in the parking lot presents an unnecessary number of conflict points and interruptions to the pedestrian and bicyclist paths along the northern side of the main drive aisle. Staff encourages the Board to study the pedestrian and bicycle movements from the surface parking lot to the proposed building to ensure safe, clearly delineated pathways. 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 4 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 4 Packet Pg. 326 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 The applicant is seeking to retain the 1950s era surface parking lot to support roughly 67,000 square feet of net new building area. Phase I, previously approved, incorporated a below grade parking structure with a thoughtful design supporting appropriate bike, car and pedestrian movement. The existing surface parking lot provides 46 parking spaces beyond the code requirement, inadequate canopy shading and fails to provide safe and convenient access for motorists exiting their cars and entering the proposed development. While staff recognizes the incremental environmental benefits of reusing the surface lot, to support the proposed development, staff recommends at a minimum that the surface lot be reconstructed to meet current parking lot design standards and transportation objectives, which will also serve to enhance environmental protections through improved storm water management, reduce the heat island effect and create more green space. Consistency with Application Findings The findings required for approval of an architectural review application are provided in Attachment C. At this time, staff is unable to support the project as it fails to meet 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.)”. Moreover, staff has some concern that Phase I was intended to include a meadow at the location of the subject surface parking lot. This was a point of discussion at the prior Board hearings and applicant noted its intent and interest in providing the meadow as an environmentally sensitive amenity. While it was understood that this was a temporary installation and that a future redevelopment of the site was contemplated, it was not foreseen that the meadow would never be planted. The applicant is proposing improvements to the Bol Park bike path perhaps to address the loss of the meadow. Staff encourages the Board to consider its comments regarding the meadow (see excerpted transcripts from prior meeting regarding meadow discussion in Attachment G), which was referenced in the findings of the previous approval to consider whether the proposed enhancements on and near the bike path are sufficient. Staff finds the improvements on the applicant’s property to be heading in the right direction, but would like to see attention paid to the adjoining property. The applicant has indicated they have had some initial conversations with the property owner regarding installation of some plantings along the existing wall near this location. Staff would like to see a formal agreement between the two property owners and plan for these improvements, which would include consideration of planting, irrigation, lighting, amenities and maintenance, when the project returns to the Board. 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. An initial study is being prepared. 4 Packet Pg. 327 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 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 March 2, 2018, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on March 2, 2018, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 2. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB5 Liaison & Contact Information Graham Owen, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2552 (650) 329-2575 graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)  Attachment C: ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOC)  Attachment E: Performance Criteria (DOCX)  Attachment F: March 2, 2017 Staff Report for 16PLN-00190 w/o Attachments (PDF)  Attachment G: March 2, 2017 ARB Meeting Minutes for 16PLN-00190 (DOCX)  Attachment H: Project Plans (DOCX) 5 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Packet Pg. 328 17 321.7' 186.3' 268.5' 91.7' 498.5' 340.8' 47.9' 145.0' 53.0' 69.7' 44.0' 167.2' 335.6' 321.2' 165.0' 194.6' 208.7' 120.0' 85.0' 120.0' 64.0' 41.9' 69.4' 141.6' 101.5' 494.7' 459.7' 91.9' 209.0' .3' 183.7' 17.8' 50.8' 17.8' 493.8' 120.0' 107.4' 94.0' 51.1' 39.0' 90.0' 85.0' 120.0' 85.0' 120.0' 94.0' 28.0' 45.4' 63.7' 31.4' 49.2' 106.3' 51.1' 106.3' 29.3' 13 90.0' 43.4' 52.3' 31.4' 85.9' 55.8' 113.0'55.0' 113.3' 391.8' 309.7' 55.0' 570.1' 221.4' 147.8' 30.1' 30.1' 30.2' 30.2' 30.3' 30.3' 30.4' 224.7' 408.8' 106.2 408.8' 106.2 155.4 119.8' 119.8' 136.5' 235.0' 35.8' 144.5' 185.3' 35.8' 185.3' 215.0' 14.3' 283.5' 129.9' 139.3' 35.8' 192.7' 286.3' 17.8' 25.4' 91.3' 90.0' 14.3' 220.2' 129.9' 207.4' 85.3' 29.9' 29.9' 29.8' 29.8' 29.7' 14.7' 14.9' 29.6' 1080.3' 101.5' 147.8' 30.1' 15.2' 15.0' 30.3' 30.3' 30.4' 29.6' 29.7' 29.7' 29.8' 29.8' 29.9' 29.9' 85.3' 308.1' 44.0' 69.7' 53.0' 145.0' 47.9' 269.7' 87.4' 357.0' 398.5' 357.0' 399.1' 590.3' 274.6' 628.9' 383.3' 329.5' 109.8' 273.6' 149.3' 138.4' 109.4'63.6' 217.8' 96.1' 308.1' 304.4' 590.3' 1804.8' 570.1' 1660.0' 200.0' 188.7' 200.0' 188.7' 300.6' 208.6' 160.0' 85.3' 61.4' 183.1' 172.1' 194.5' 231.2' 18.0' 403.2' 212.5' 231.2' 194.5' 231.2' 194.5' 165.0' 207.7' 164.9' 207.4' 25.4'17.8' 183.7' 210.7' 165.0' 320.3' 20.0' 200.0' 188.7' 208.6' 208.7' 408.7' 170.6' 246.2' 88.6' 91.3' 280.0' 164.9' 33.0' 150.0' 100.0' 180.4' 229.2' 165.0'96.8' 150.3'100.0' 150.0'100.0'409.2' 106.3 409.2' 106.3 160.0' 273.0' 160.0' 85.3' 61.4' 20.0' 61.4' 88.6' 246.2' 1479.9' 1194.4' 844.9' 396.6' 1479.9' 203.1' 30.0' 203.2' 30.0' 391.8' 80.0' 113.0' 112 .0' 55.0'55.0' 55.0' 113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0' 110.0' 110.0' 54.4'108.0' 38.6' 38.6' 60.7' 80.3'80.3' 53.2' 53.2' 118.6' 75.4' 80.0'80.0' 125.0' 93.2' 93.2' 101.4' 155.5' 55.0' 113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0'113.0' 113.0'113.0' 55.0' 56.0' 74.4' 74.4' 50.0' 50.0' 104.0' 104.0' 50.0' 50.0'55.0' 55.0'55.0' 55.0' 84.4' 113.0'113.0' 56.0'117.0'117.0'45.4' 22.7' 22.2' 51.4' 113.5'113.5' 55.3' 88.6' 109.6'109.6' 109.7'109.7' 109.8'109.8' 60.0' 60.0' 60.0' 60.0' 60.0' 60.0'109.6'109.6' 109.6'109.6' 60.0' 60.0' 118.8' 32.7' 139.7' 125.0' 187.6' 230.8' 96.1'167.2' 198.1' 212.6' 195.5' 226.8' 51.8'51.8' 51.8 330.8'277.4' 180.7'218.5' 185.0' 218.5' 217.8'155.0' 172.8' 172.8' 171.0' 208.4' 208.4' 200.0' 200.0' 175.0' 100.0' 188.1' 188.1' 218.5' 218.5' 403.2' 255.4' 3 3251 3200 31903180 3000 914 875 35203510 7 764 770 800820 830 840 850 846 827 835 85 855 856 861 862 871878 860 876 890 8 8 0 8 8 2 8 8 4 8 8 6 9 1 0 906 9 0 4 979 995 3 5 0 7 3 5 0 5 3 5 0 3 954 975 973 912 918 922 935 945 969 959 970 980 999 960 950 940 957 951 928 930 940 955 953 941 852 3201 3251 3305 3175 3509 9 5 1 937 926 831 HANOVER STREET HANOVER STREET HILLVIEW AVENUE HANOVER STREET CHIMALUS DRIVE MATAD MATADERO AVENUE LA MATA W MATADERO AVENUE L A GU N A AVEN UE MAT ADER O CT COURT ROBL E RI DG E This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS Legend abc Easement 3223 Hanover (Project Site - 10.17 ac) 0'300' 3223 Hanover Street Project Site Area Map CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2017 City of Palo Alto 4.a Packet Pg. 329 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : L o c a t i o n M a p ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 3 2 2 3 H a n v o v e r P h a s e 2, P a l o A l t o Project Narrative - Formal ARB Review 2 June 14, 2017 To: City of Palo Alto Planning Division Architectural Review Board Members From: From4 Architecture - Applicant Robert Giannini, Architect Subject: 3223 Hanover, Palo Alto Formal Architectural Review Board Review This application is for the 2nd Phase of a project where the1st Phase was approved on March 2, 2017 (16PLN-00190). The approved existing project (now called Phase 1) includes Building 1, the below-grade garage, and stair & elevator pavilion in the courtyard, trash enclosure and the garage portals. Phase 2 includes Building 2, a second trash enclosure, and surface parking on the east lower tier of the property. Design Considerations for Phase 2: Phase 1 of the project was limited to replacement square footage. At 110,000 sf it was well below the 40% FAR allowed for this site in the Research Park. Proposed Phase 2 increases the FAR to the allowed 40%. The application provides the studies necessary to show there are no significant impacts when FAR is increased to what zoning allows. As was touched on during our Phase 1 hearings, the original project was designed to provide options for Phase 2. We learned that the ARB committee’s desire would be to avoid more surface parking in the upper tier. This proposed application follows that direction and locates the Phase 2 building on the upper tier above the existing underground parking garage, and locates the balance of parking needed on the lower level of the site. There are several advantages to this approach: a)Siting the building in this location creates an appropriate presence as you enter the site. Form4 Architecture, Inc. 126 Post Street, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94108 415 775-8748 fax 415 775-8752 4.b Packet Pg. 330 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t ' s P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 3 2 5 1 H a n v o v e r P h a s e 2 - Project Narrative - Formal ARB 2 Palo Alto, California June 14, 2017 b)The upper courtyard maintains it’s design concept, and is now contained by the structures. It continues to provide habitat, and the centerpiece remains the existing Phase 1 stair & elevator pavilion from the garage below. Both building lobbies are directly adjacent to that pavilion. c)The lower pad of the site had historically been a surface parking lot, however it was in bad repair, poorly laid out and was called out to be demolished in Phase 1. With Phase 2, additional parking was needed to meet City requirements, and the new parking field shown provides the proper geometry and shading required by current Palo Alto standards. A collector sidewalk parallels the entry drive and leads you to the grand stair that takes you to the courtyard above. Please see axon image next page for a 3D view. d)This organization of buildings and parking allow us to create a pedestrian environment between the buildings. By locating the cars below grade and on the lower tier, the upper courtyard becomes free of cars except for drop off and emergency access. The sequence of getting to this space is interesting; either from the sidewalk, through the large light well in the garage, or up the grand stair where one emerges into the .85 acre central pedestrian courtyard between buildings. Form4 Architecture, Inc. 126 Post Street, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94108 415 775-8748 fax 415 775-8752 4.b Packet Pg. 331 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t ' s P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 3 2 5 1 H a n v o v e r P h a s e 2 - Project Narrative - Formal ARB 3 Palo Alto, California June 14, 2017 e)The axonometric diagram below demonstrates the zones created on the site. The lower area becomes the main arrival point with an easy decision between entering the garage, or parking in the surface lot. Special paving and sidewalks guide you to a grand stair leading up the 20’ embankment to the upper level where the buildings are located. You leave the world of cars behind and enter a well landscaped pedestrian courtyard. Bike racks are located adjacent to the building lobbies. Fire trucks must be allowed adjacent to the buildings so fire fighters can easily access the roofs, and the small surface lot on the upper tier provides the proper configuration. Neighbor Concerns: Phase 1 of the project addressed an effective buffer between the project and our Barron Park neighbors to the southeast. You may recall that there is a recorded 50’ landscape setback on that property line. We not only honored that, but moved the Phase 1 building back an additional 40’ for 90’ total buffer. The Phase 2 building goes much further by pushing the building back 228’ from that property line. As with Phase 1, the project will provide automatic blinds on that short end of Building 2 facing the residential district. Cars using the entry driveway were also considered in Phase 1. Through the use of landscape walls, hedges, and new infill landscape material we demonstrated that car headlights will be blocked and sound minimized. That buffer of landscape elements was already extended in Phase 1 across the entire southeast end of the new lower parking lot as can be seen in the above diagram. Please also see the photometric study included in the package as sheet ED 1.2. It shows that not only is the project’s foot candle level Zero at the property line, along the rear of the property adjacent to residential we are a Zero all the way back to the 50’ building setback line. Taking the extra steps of distance and active buffer installed in Phase 1 so it can grow help achieve our goal of being a good, near invisible, neighbor. Form4 Architecture, Inc. 126 Post Street, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94108 415 775-8748 fax 415 775-8752 4.b Packet Pg. 332 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t ' s P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 3 2 5 1 H a n v o v e r P h a s e 2 - Project Narrative - Formal ARB 4 Palo Alto, California June 14, 2017 Architecture: The Phase 2 building design vocabulary matches existing Building 1. All Materials match Building 1, and a materials page is included in our planning set. The design is meant to minimize aluminum, with wood and clear glass being the predominant skin materials. The topmost point of the “butterfly roofs” is at the code allowed height of 35’. Building sections are included in the planning set. DATA - Looking at both phases together: Changes Required in Phase 1 to Accommodate Phase 2: This application addresses changes to approved Phase 1 needed as Phase 2 was developed as follows: 1)Phase 1 Trash enclosure was relocated: Phase 2 required its own trash enclosure that was located in the new lower parking lot. To improve the entry drive experience, the Phase 1 trash enclosure is proposed to be moved adjacent to it, and out of the line of sight as one enters the property. 2)Surface “drop off” parking at upper level: The geometry has been adjusted to allow for Fire Department truck access for the Phase 2 building. 3)Stair connecting lower parking lot and upper courtyard: The geometry of the stair is proposed to be enhanced to support the new importance of this stair. Form4 Architecture, Inc. 126 Post Street, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94108 415 775-8748 fax 415 775-8752 4.b Packet Pg. 333 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t ' s P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 3 2 5 1 H a n v o v e r P h a s e 2 - Project Narrative - Formal ARB 5 Palo Alto, California June 14, 2017 Combined Floor Area Ratio & Coverage: 1)The FAR of both Phase 1 & 2 together is 40% as allowed in the RP zoning. Please see sheet A 2.2 for a diagram of the elements included in the FAR calculation. Besides the gross area of the buildings themselves, it includes the stair and elevator in the Courtyard Pavilion, and the trash enclosures. 2)Coverage is at +/- 20%, well below the 30% allowed, achieved in part due to the use of underground parking. Combined Parking: 1)Minimum Car parking (based on 1/300 sf of FAR) is 591 spaces. This application proposes a combined car parking count in excess of that by +/- 48 spaces. 2)Minimum Bicycle parking at (based on 1/3000 sf of FAR) is 59 spaces. This application proposes a combined bicycle count that matches that requirement allocated between short term at 20% or 12 spaces, and long term at 80% or 47 spaces. Thanks very much for your attention and review of the various design aspects of this project! Form4 Architecture Robert Giannini Architect, President Form4 Architecture, Inc. 126 Post Street, 3rd floor, San Francisco, CA 94108 415 775-8748 fax 415 775-8752 4.b Packet Pg. 334 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : A p p l i c a n t ' s P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) ATTACHMENT C ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 3223 Hanover Street 17PLN-00225 In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. 4.c Packet Pg. 335 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A R B F i n d i n g s ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLES 3223 Hanover Street 17PLN-00255 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.20 (RP DISTRICT) Regulation Previously Approved (16PLN-00190) Current Proposal (17PLN-00255) Combined Development Standard Minimum Site Area, Width, and Depth 10.170 acres, 781 feet width, and 570 feet depth No change No change 1 acre, 100 feet width, and 150 feet depth Minimum Front Yard 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet special setback along Hanover Street Minimum Rear Yard 90 feet 228 feet 90 feet (minimum) 20 feet (50 foot Landscape Combining District along the rear establishes de-facto setback on the site) Interior Side Yard 447 feet to northeast; 73 feet to southwest 285 feet to northeast; 350 feet to southwest 285 feet to northeast; 73 feet to southwest 20 feet Street Side Yard N/A N/A N/A 20 feet Max. Site Coverage 12% (55,000 sf) 7% (32,555 sf) 20% (87,555 sf) 30% (132,901 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 0.25:1 (110,000 sf + 5,500 sf amenity space) 0.15:1 (67,202 sf +3,783 sf amenity space) 0.4:1 (177,202 sf + 9,283 sf amenity space 0.4:1 (177,202 sf) Max. Building Height 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet 35 feet (with additional 15 feet for mechanical and screen) Daylight Plane N/A N/A N/A N/A Employee Showers 8 showers 8 showers 16 showers R&D: 50,000 sf and up requires 4 showers 4.d Packet Pg. 336 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : Z o n i n g C o m p a r i s o n T a b l e ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Table 1: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Administrative Office and Research & Development uses* Type Previously Approved (16PLN- 00290) Current Proposal (17PLN-00255) Combined Required Vehicle Parking 381 spaces 227 spaces (new surface lot) 608 spaces 1 per 300 sf of gross floor area (591 spaces) Bicycle Parking 37 bike spaces (30 long term and 7 short term) 22 bike spaces (17 long term and 5 short term) 59 bike spaces (47 long term and 12 short term) 1 per 3,000 sf (80% long term, 20% short term = 59 spaces (47 long term, 12 short term) Loading Space 1 space 1 space 2 spaces 2 loading spaces for 100,000-199,999 sf * On-site employee amenity space is exempted from the parking requirements 4.d Packet Pg. 337 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : Z o n i n g C o m p a r i s o n T a b l e ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Attachment E Performance Criteria 18.23 3223 Hanover Street 17PLN-00225 Performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the downtown, multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. Consistency will be finalized prior to recommendation on this formal application. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting (either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage pick up. Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. 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 4.e Packet Pg. 338 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : P e r f o r m a n c e C r i t e r i a ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) 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 visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project site. The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. 18.23.060 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 4.e Packet Pg. 339 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : P e r f o r m a n c e C r i t e r i a ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 7678) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/2/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3223-3251 Hanover Street: 2nd Formal Hearing Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3223 Hanover Street [16PLN-00190]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of two Existing Office / R&D Buildings and the Construction of a new two-story 110,000 Square Foot Office / R&D Building. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated for Public Comment From February, 22, 2017 to March 13, 2017. Zoning District: RP; RP(L). For More Information, Please Contact Graham Owen at graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org. 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 Director of Planning and Community Environment 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 of applicable city codes and policies. That report is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/55511. A copy of the report without prior attachments is available in Attachment G. 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 4.f Packet Pg. 340 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : M a r c h 2 , 2 0 1 7 S t a f f R e p o r t f o r 1 6 P L N - 0 0 1 9 0 w / o A t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 On January 19, 2017 the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q66pWDs8rz8. The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response The requested Design Enhancement Exception to allow elevator and stair enclosures to exceed the height limit is not consistent with the applicable findings The Design Enhancement Exception request and associated proposed structures have been removed from the application. Consider ways to enhance the vehicular circulation and approach to the building and present a more identifiable and functional public entrance The entrance to the lower level parking lot has been shifted sixty feet to the rear and uses wayfinding signage, landscaping, and alternative paving to signal that the lower level is the main entrance to the site. The lower level garage layout has been reconfigured to provide a direct vehicle and bike/pedestrian path of travel to a new drop-off area, which would be daylighted with a new lightwell. Re-route the Bol Park bicycle path connection to provide direct access to the building frontage The bicycle path connection has been shifted to provide a continuous path of travel to the courtyard area along the left of the drive aisle. Enhance the landscaping in the meadow in order to provide suitable habitat The landscape plan now includes additional shrubs and groundcovers in the meadow, including manzanita, coffeeberry, and Evergreen Mountain Lilac. Six new 24” box trees (3 California Black Oak and 3 Arbutus) are also proposed to be planted in this area. Provide additional details on the shading profile and better explain the building’s sustainable design features The applicant’s response to the ARB’s comments includes a preliminary analysis of the project’s Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) building energy performance. Formal Title 24 sheets for the project would be supplied at the building permit phase of the project. Analysis1 Changes since January 19, 2017 Formal Hearing 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. 4.f Packet Pg. 341 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : M a r c h 2 , 2 0 1 7 S t a f f R e p o r t f o r 1 6 P L N - 0 0 1 9 0 w / o A t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 In addition to the ARB direction on the project, staff had requested site design changes to enhance bicycle and pedestrian access from the courtyard area to the Hanover Street sidewalk. The revised plans now show a new sidewalk leading to the lower level parking garage entrance, as well as cross walks within the parking garage, which provide a direct path of travel for cyclists and pedestrians. These improvements, along with the reconfigured connection to the Bol Park bicycle path, enhance the multimodal circulation on the site. Zoning Compliance A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment B. The proposed project complies with all applicable 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. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 The Comprehensive Plan contains policies, goals, and programs that applicable for office / R&D development in the Research Park. In particular, the following policies are applicable to the project:  Policy L-44: Develop the Stanford Research Park as a compact employment center served by a variety of transportation modes. As mentioned in the prior staff report, the site is well served by public bus transportation on Hanover Street. The two nearest bus stops in the project vicinity would be relocated with this project to provide better transit access. Bicyclists and pedestrians would be able to access the site via a connection to the Bol Park bicycle path, as well as walkways connecting the site to the Hanover Street sidewalk. Refinements to the site plan since the January 19, 2017 hearing include a reconfigured bicycle path, which now connects directly to the building entrance, and a new sidewalk along the front driveway, which provide bicycle/pedestrian access to the lower level parking garage from Hanover Street. Within the parking garage, this bicycle/pedestrian connection continues as a series of crosswalks, which link directly to the stair/elevator pavilion.  Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. As stated in the prior report, the building’s architectural design is well composed and creative, and the site planning limits the scale of the building by proposing a perpendicular orientation to the street. The site planning also provides connection to the Bol Park bicycle path, and would be compatible with surrounding development in the Research Park. An earthen berm is proposed along portions of the southeast boundary of the site, which abuts several residences. This berm, in addition to hedges of English Laurels, would screen the site from many of the residences. Provided these design mitigations, staff believes that the site is appropriately screened from the abutting residences, and will be a compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhood. 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 4.f Packet Pg. 342 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : M a r c h 2 , 2 0 1 7 S t a f f R e p o r t f o r 1 6 P L N - 0 0 1 9 0 w / o A t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4  Policy L-48: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use. The project has been designed to provide direct access to the adjacent Bol Park bicycle path, as well as multiple bicycle/pedestrian connections to the Hanover Street sidewalk. The two nearest bus stops in the vicinity would be relocated along the site frontage with this application to further promote transit access.  Goal B-1: A thriving business environment that is compatible with Palo Alto’s residential character and natural environment. As stated in the prior report, the project proposes to redevelop an existing office / R&D site with a new building, and would be compatible with Palo Alto’s residential character and natural environment. Proper mitigations have been included with the project to ensure that the use is screened from the adjacent residences, which are situated on large lots and contain dense existing landscaping and forest cover. The project has been designed to provide a large open meadow, which would contain groundcovers and trees and would enhance the appearance of the lower terrace portion of the site. Staff finds that the proposed project has adequately responded to the ARB and staff comments provided at the January 19, 2017 hearing, and believes that the findings for approval can be made. A staff analysis of the project in the context of the findings for approval is included in Attachment C. 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 and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment H) have been prepared pursuant to CEQA and is being circulated for comments from February 22, 2017 to March 13, 2017. Mitigation measures have been included in the Draft Conditions of Approval for the Project. 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 February 17, 2017 which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on February 17, 2017 which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments Prior to the previous hearing, staff received an email from a neighbor who lives on Matadero Drive, which is to the rear of the subject site. As the building contains glass curtain walls on all elevations, the email expressed concerns regarding the potential for light from the interior of the building to produce nuisances for the homes adjacent to the site. 4.f Packet Pg. 343 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : M a r c h 2 , 2 0 1 7 S t a f f R e p o r t f o r 1 6 P L N - 0 0 1 9 0 w / o A t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 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 ARB3 Liaison & Contact Information Graham Owen, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2552 (650) 329-2575 graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment C: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment D: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX)  Attachment E: Public Correspondence (PDF)  Attachment F: Applicant Response (PDF)  Attachment G: January 19, 2017 ARB Staff Report (PDF)  Attachment H: Project Plans and Initial Study (DOCX) 3 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 4.f Packet Pg. 344 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : M a r c h 2 , 2 0 1 7 S t a f f R e p o r t f o r 1 6 P L N - 0 0 1 9 0 w / o A t t a c h m e n t s ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Alexander Lew, Vice Chair Kyu Kim, Board Members Peter Baltay, Wynne Furth, Gooyer Absent: 4. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3223 Hanover Street [16PLN-00190]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of two Existing Office / R&D Buildings and the Construction of a new two-story 110,000 Square Foot Office / R&D Building. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated for Public Comment From February, 22, 2017 to March 13, 2017. Zoning District: RP; RP(L). For More Information, Please Contact Graham Owen at graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Lew: We’ll move onto the next item. Ok, I think we’re ready. Are we ready? Item #4 is a public hearing/ quasi-judicial matter 3223 Hanover Street. Recommendation on applicant's request for approval of a major architectural review to allow the demolition of two existing office / R&D buildings and the construction of a new two-story 110,000 square foot office / R&D building. Environmental assessment is a mitigated negative declaration was circulated for public comment on February 22, 2017, to March 13, 2017, and the zone district is Research Park. Mr. Owen, welcome. Mr. Graham Owen: Thank you to the Board. My name is Graham Owen. I’m a Staff planner with the City of Palo Alto. I’ve been working with the applicant on this application. This is the second formal hearing and – on this application and we are recommending approval at this time based on findings and conditions. I am happy to provide a brief overview of the changes that have occurred since the previous hearing and I know that the applicant has a presentation as well. Just as a quick summary, this is a major architectural review application for a new two-story office/R&D building in the Research Park. It’s located on Hanover Street and it’s adjacent to other R&D office buildings as well as some single-family residences along the rear of the property. The building would be 109,696 square feet, which does not include 5,500 of – 5,000 square feet of exempted amenity space. Previously, the application included a request for design and enhancement exception to allow for an elevator and stair enclosures to exceed the maximum height limit in the Research Park zoning district. That request is no longer being perused at this time. Also, we have done an initial study for the project in a mitigated negative declaration that has been prepared. Here’s an aerial photograph of the site showing the site context with Hanover Street as – serving as the site frontage. Office/R&D buildings on either side of the building, as well as single family residents along the rear. A couple of plan changes that have occurred since the previous hearing. Both Staff and the Board had a number of recommendations for changes to the plans that were previously presented and so those have been summarized by the applicant into a number of (inaudible). The DEE is no longer being requested as I already said. One of the bigger items was that there was an (inaudible) need for enhanced – an enhanced public entrance to the building and a drop off area. That’s been included in the lower level parking deck and it’s daylighted now by a light well, which I know the applicant can provide additional information on. Multi-middle connectivity was also a concern at the ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXCERPT DRAFT MINUTES: March 2, 2017 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM 4.g Packet Pg. 345 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : M a r c h 2 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M e e t i n g M i n u t e s f o r 1 6 P L N - 0 0 1 9 0 ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t City of Palo Alto Page 2 previous hearing so there’s been a number of enhancements to the site plan, which I can show you. One of them is the side that’s adjacent to the Bol Park bicycle path and there had been a path that had been connected to the drive aisle but terminated at the drive aisle previously. Now the path connects along the side of the drive aisle up to the building entrance and courtyard area. Additionally, the entrance to the lower level parking deck has been shifted down about 60-feet, which provides additional cueing area and also a new entrance to the lower level deck. There are additional sidewalks that are proposed from the garage to Hanover street and those provide additional connectivity for both bicyclist and pedestrians. Interior to the garage plan and I don’t have a – the image of it here but I believe the applicant does. There’s a walkway that is going to be used for bicyclists and pedestrians that connect directly to a stairwell which leads to the courtyard area. Additionally, there was a request for additional screening – excuse me, for additional trees and shrubs in the meadow area and so there’s been additional plantings that are proposed. I believe 6 new trees will be planted as well as some shrubs to provide additional landscaping in that meadow area. At this time, I’m happy to take any questions you have but I know the applicant has a presentation as well. Chair Lew: Let’s do the applicant presentation. Mr. Giannini, you have 10 minutes. Mr. Bob Giannini: 10-minutes, ok. I need my equipment. Thank you. Good morning members of the Board, Chairmen Lew, Staff. My name is Bob Giannini from Form4 Architecture and I’m very happy to be back to present this project. I think the comments that were made last time were actually great and both the owner and I are very excited to present the changes we’ve made. Quickly, to go through, there were four items -- I really want to address the four items that were the topics last time which was our – eliminating our request for a DEE, the garage approach. There was also an issue of sustainability and really some further study was needed to make sure that the building would be able to pass the standard building requirements and a little bit more discussion about the lower meadow and some enhancements there. We don’t talk about the DEE much, we’ve removed all reference from the drawing. One correction on the Staff’s comments is the FAR for the – the area where we were requesting for the building was 110,000 square feet plus the amenity space. When we eliminated the elevator and the stairs that go to the roof, there were a couple of square feet there so that would bring the square footage back to the 110 plus 550 and that’s what the plans actually indicate. Getting into the bigger topic of the improving site circulation. Let me quickly describe all the things we did and it all kind of relates to each other. One of the things we did was, we really need to improve the access through the garage. We had a garage that was sort of densely packed with cars, that got you to the elevator and the stair that brought you up to the courtyard. We wanted to move the entrance of the lower garage up so that it aligned on axis with that stair and elevator. Also, there was an issue of hierarchy and I thought the best comment from the last meeting was where does the Uber driver pick up? That actually was the image that let me think about all this and of course, we’re also talking bikes and pedestrians. What we wanted to do was make it clear that when you come off the driveway, you go in this entrance and not this entrance. This is the one that gets you to the lower lobby. We made this entrance larger and again, put in on axis and we have another image of that coming up. We also created this new ADA path that brings you right from the existing bus stop, along with its own sideway for bicycles and pedestrians, that bring you into the garage. Then that path continues as a dedicated path to the lower lobby. Let me jump – this is a little bit of a blow up of that. This is the revised new main entry to the garage. This is the first entry you come upon. We made it larger, we made it a little taller so that you can orient yourself – you can immediately see how the site orientation works. There’s the parking and then you see the light beyond into the new large light well that was created at the lower lobby. Also, we made side walls and it doesn’t quite show up in the slide here for some reason but there’s an opportunity for signage right at this point which would be a major wayfinding sign that would let people know that when you enter the site, this is the first entrance you come to. This is where you go to go to the building. This is the diagram of how that works. Again, we raised – well, we raised the driveway up so that we’re on axis now to the new lower level lobby and you can see the sidewalk that runs along for bicycles. It goes right to the long-term bicycle parking area. There’s a drop-off and we started to think of this more as a drop off at a hotel sort of arrangement where people would actually find it exciting to come to this driveway. Then following additional suggestions that were made last time, we created this open-air light well that goes right up right at the spot, to the courtyard. We kept it open so that there was a strong visual connection to the courtyard above. There 4.g Packet Pg. 346 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : M a r c h 2 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M e e t i n g M i n u t e s f o r 1 6 P L N - 0 0 1 9 0 ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t City of Palo Alto Page 3 would be Bamboo that would make the two levels up to the top. From this point, it’s a very gracious way to drop off. Your right at the vertical circulation and then you would arrive at this pavilion. There’s the top of the light well and go right into the lobby of the building which is right to the side. I’m happy to talk more about that but that’s the major pieces of how we’ve addressed the site circulation. You still always have the grade level site circulation at the top tier, right off of Hanover but this allows an option for people who don’t want to make that last little bit of climb up to the top. On sustainability, we talked last time about how the building basic strategy for sustainability was to shade itself. Since last time, what we’ve done is done the energy analysis on the building just as it is. It passes Palo Alto standard at 12.7% above Title 24. We do have our energy modeler here, Steven, who would be happy to go into detail about how that analysis was done. Steven is from Interface and I think the important thing here is that this is right out of the box. There’s a lot of things we can do to make a building more sustainable as it goes through the design process but just taking right what’s in the drawings right now, the glass, the shading, with no extra insulation. We were already exceeding Title 24 and we can talk more about that. On the lower meadow, this was the slide we showed earlier and we wanted to – what we’ve done is we’ve enhanced the lower meadow with additional planting. There were issues about what does it look like in the summer when it’s brown and the winter when it’s not. These are some president images of the way we see the lower meadow working. We would just some of the spoils from the site to create a little bit of topography down there and again, we have our landscape architect, Rich Sharp, who could talk more about that. Thank you very much. Chair Lew: Thank you. I will open up the hearing to public comments. I don’t have any speaker cards but I know some of the neighbors are here. You have 5-minutes. Great. Mr. Mike Palmer: Hi. I’m Mike Palmer. I live in – on Matadero Ave., adjacent to the site and we have a couple other neighbors here. Two main things that I wanted to say is that I wanted to revisit some of the discussion we had at the last ARB hearing. Probably Board Member Baltay remembers, he called me back up to the podium to ask a question. He didn’t feel the site would – the building would be visible to the neighbors and so I want to clarify. I think there might be a misunderstanding how the berming works. So, he called me back up and asked if he – if I thought we would be able to see the building from our home. You got – you all know that it’s a two-story site. The berming is only at the lower part of the site. There’s no berming on the upper area. It’s just foliage between the building and the neighbors. Our home – the second floor of our home is level with the building at the upper area so I answered yes, definitely we would be able to see the building because we will be looking through foliage only, no berms at the upper level, at this two-story, all-glass office building. I said yes, definitely. I just wanted to clarify so Board Member Baltay didn’t think I was being unreasonable about that. Board Member Gooyer asked for a better design to visually announce the driveway entrances so—and it was nice to see that when the ARB asked Bob to do so, he could apply his creativity to find an innovated good solution to the problems he was asked to solve so that was good to see. Board Member Lew had mentioned that he was sympathetic to our concerns about the all glass building and he noted that this corner of Barron Park is one of the most rural corners of Palo Alto. He mentioned – I think you had visited Barron Park and was – said he was actually jealous of the amount of plantings there so it’s quite different from – it’s probably the most rural corner of Palo Alto and the all-glass office building is a pretty jarring transition. Board Member Lew had noted that the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan provides that it is part of the ARB’s purview to provide a harmonious transition in scale, mass, and character to adjacent uses and land use designation. I would say that the most rural corner – one of the most rural corners of Palo Alto, very dark at night, it’s a jarring transition to have this all-glass office building that will be used for tech. workers who will work at night. I would say that the current building is not a harmonies transition. The other thing that I wanted to say was to talk about wildlife impact because I’ve realized that it is within your purview to think about the impacts on wildlife. We’ve lived at our house for 10-years now and for a long time, the [Lokey] building has been this sleepy, not heavily used office building with a low percentage of glass on the façade and it was used in the day time only. That’s how their research area worked with a low number of workers. We all have to admit that this is quite a big change from that current use. There will be this all-glass office building, 110,000 square feet. Modern tech. companies operate kind of at all hours. More people are during the day but a significant number of people are there at night so the lights will be on at night. That would be appropriate on Page Mill Road for example but it’s different to put it 4.g Packet Pg. 347 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : M a r c h 2 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M e e t i n g M i n u t e s f o r 1 6 P L N - 0 0 1 9 0 ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t City of Palo Alto Page 4 next to this rural corner of Palo Alto and it will be a drastic change for the people in the neighborhood and for the wildlife in the neighborhood. Most years in the spring, in our – at our – in our backyard, we have deer appear. We were astonished to see deer actually show up in our back yard when we first arrived there. They live in the tall grass and enjoy our fruit trees. Some years, not every year but some years we have a mother deer and a fawn and they’ll actually live and sleep there in the grass, right adjacent to this building site. We also see foxes, coyotes, hawks commonly. They sit in the tall redwood tree that we have in the yard. They fly over Bol Park, which is 800-feet from the site and hunt nearby and you hear owls at night. This is pretty different from the majority of Palo Alto. The light and the traffic density is much less and this building will have a big impact. It’s ironic that the project is described as having a butterfly theme. It sounds like it’s welcoming butterflies and wildlife to the area but it’s not real butterflies. These are large, illuminated building elements and those things chase away wildlife. It’s actually the opposite of what’s being suggested. I would just ask the ARB to consider two things, provide a harmonious transition to the scale, mass, and character to adjacent uses and land use designation. Also, the impact on nearby wildlife of the light pollution in this corner of Palo Alto. Thank you. Chair Lew: If you could fill out the speaker card. Great and are there any other speakers? Great, welcome, please come up and you have 5-minutes. [Ms. Ann Marie Macray:] Hi. I’m Ann Marie Macray. I live at 910 Matadero. One of my properties is adjacent to Mike Palmer’s and other neighbors I know are concerned. To some extent, I’m speaking for others as well but I agree with what Mike has said and I have also have met with the architects. I have two things that I just wanted to say. One is really a question for just clarification about the change to the parking. Have you – the garage, has that moved back toward Hanover? You said you put in place some new cueing system –line up system and so things don’t back up as much. Is the main garage now further away from the residences or nearly the residences? That’s what I wasn’t clear about. That was one question. Mr. Lait: So, Chair – I’m sorry before we get to the question and answer. Since it’s the public – the speakers turn. It’s probably best to let her time run through and then we can answer that question. [Ms. Macray:] Ok, so that was one point that I would like just clarified, please. The other point definitely screening, I agree with what Mike’s said that light is an issue and at night, at the moment, we see its dark but I can tell you that if there is one car in that car park, we see the headlights through the foliage. I think anything that can be done to dim the lights situation and screen more and specifically on that, I think the architects and the landscapers were quite willing to try and work with us. I would ask that they perhaps revisit and come to the properties adjacent to it to actually where the light comes through and how it could be screened better because if I can see – I see one car come in, I see the headlights. It’s hard to imagine the difference it’s going to make when you see lights from a whole building operating at night. It’s going to be a big difference to the families living around there. Many of whom have got kids and increasing its demographics, it's changing over and its families. People are trying to get to sleep so the light is the issue. Those are two points. I agree with what Mike has said and all the work that has been done and I appreciate the work that has been done to change things like the height and the height exception and so on. From my point of view and I think our immediate neighbors, if we could get clarification on trying to keep the cars – as many cars as possible away from the residents, as far back as possible. Secondly, if we could get some revisiting of what we see from our properties. So, where there are gaps and the light would come through, we can just look at how that can be screened. Thank you. Chair Lew: Thank you very much and if there are no other speakers, I think we can – you can have rebuttal period. Mr. Giannini: Thank you. Maybe responding to those questions and yes, we have met with the neighbors and I think it’s been a fun process. The first questions are the garage further back, closer to the residences. Yes, but it’s underground. In order to split the garage to create the drive that takes you to the lower lobby and not loose cars from City minimum, we had to make the garage bigger and it did extend bigger back toward the residence because that’s the only place it could extend. However, it’s all 4.g Packet Pg. 348 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : M a r c h 2 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M e e t i n g M i n u t e s f o r 1 6 P L N - 0 0 1 9 0 ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t City of Palo Alto Page 5 underground so it’s really nothing anyone would ever see. Then the other question and actually, I have the slides from the old – from the earlier presentation. Very good question about car headlights coming through the existing foliage. It’s true and that’s why we went with this kind of – oops. Let’s see, there we go, sorry. Why went with a more bullet proof suggestion which were the hedges? Then we have the site sections up above which really study the car headlights and the way they would work on the site. Then blocking any car headlights through the use of low walls, berming and most importantly, these hedges because any kind of tree or shrub planting we put in there, at some point there might be a little vacant spot in the leaves or whatever and you might see through. This was the way to make sure that it would happen, kind of a belt and suspenders approach. In the – one last comment. In the sections, we also consider the views from the second floor and it is true that the berms and hedges don’t go up two stories but the trees do. We’re augmenting the trees that are already there so again, every effort that we could possibly make to make sure that we were controlling both sound and light – light spilled and vision. Thank you. Chair Lew: Thank you, Bob. Are there any Board Member questions? Peter? Board Member Baltay: Yeah, I’m sorry guys – I’m sorry Board Members. I have a question for the energy modeling expert. This is technical but it will come to light later. I am astounded that you can get this building to comply with a 12.7% margin and I want to know if you using your computer program to model all the shades and fins and the roof over hands and things like that as well. [Mr. Steven ??:] Yeah, we are. If I could switch back maybe to the slide. Another way? Let’s see – In some ways the glass helps us and some ways we take a penalty with the amount of glass on this building but we incorporate all the shading, all the overhangs and the geometry of the fins. If you could – it’s sort of hard to see but if you look at the results that are on the screen there. It gives you a breakdown by end use, so we have heating and cooling and fans are all broken out. You can see that in the cooling category we have a small penalty against the code baseline with all the glass but in the winter time, the heating – the passive heat that’s collected through the glass actually, we have a huge saving – a 40% saving against the baseline. The shading is designed in a way to reject as much of that summer time sun as it can and then in the winter time when the sun is lower in the sky, you’re able to collect that passive solar gain. It’s a holistic strategy with the glass and the shading devices and it results in a building that performs in a … Board Member Baltay: Really quickly, if you could just answer yes or no. In your opinion, if you didn’t have the shading, if you didn’t model that, would the building still comply? [Mr. Steven ??:] I couldn’t give a definitive opinion. I would have to rerun the analysis. I think it would still exceed the code but it may not make it all the way to 10% so I think it’s probably pushing us over the 10% mark. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. Vice Chair Kim: A quick question while you’re still up here. In your energy modeling for the winter sun, is it taking into account the site trees? [Mr. Steven ??:] It does not. Vice Chair Kim: Ok. Chair Lew: Any other questions? [Mr. Steve ??:] To that point, though, it doesn’t factor it into the cooling either so you might –there’d be a little bit of a tradeoff there. Chair Lew: Thank you. Robert, why don’t you start us off? 4.g Packet Pg. 349 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : M a r c h 2 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M e e t i n g M i n u t e s f o r 1 6 P L N - 0 0 1 9 0 ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t City of Palo Alto Page 6 Board Member Gooyer: Thank you. I do want to say one thing. Bob, you really have to modernize your bidding system. This is – every project we get from you has these three things in it. They’re really a pain in the neck. Having said that, I like the project. I think you’ve really increased it or done the various things we’ve asked. I was still a little – I don’t want to say concerned but I was curious why you still have the – there’s an open gap between the – you might say the vertical circulation out of the garage and then there’s a gap before you get to the lobby or the building itself. I guess you’ve done enough of these things so you know what a client will accept as far as a distance that they are willing to travel when it’s raining or something like that. I know that rain has been a vague thing over the last 5-years but obviously, this year has been a very good example as to – that’s why I thought, would it be worthwhile possibly pushing that lower area a little bit closer to the actual lobby itself but again, that’s – I’m guessing you’re basically taking the footprint of the parking area you already have at this point – you’re not excavating further into the area? Yeah, yeah, go ahead. Mr. Giannini: Quickly, right, we don’t want to push the garage further to the west because there’s a large oak tree there and we’re just right on the edge of that. We don’t want to get any closer. We’re ok where it is now. Board Member Gooyer: I was thinking just the actual area, even if it’s a walkway or some sort of a pedestrian passage that pushed you back a little closer to the lobby but it – again, that’s more or less a… Mr. Giannini: If you think of our other campuses up in the park like -- any of them, VMware or Machines Zone’s or any of those, you always park in a garage. It’s kind of like a college campus. These people all come from college campuses… Board Member Gooyer: They are use to scurrying out of the garage. Mr. Giannini: … they are use too – if you look at VMware, you park in the central garage and you might walk the better part … (crosstalk) Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, that’s true. Alright, like I said…(crosstalk) Mr. Giannini: Actually, the walk is part of the experience. The tradeoff option would be put – like a typical building, where the elevator comes up right in the building but then you have this hydraulic elevator sitting in the middle of the garage… (crosstalk) Board Member Gooyer: No, you’re right. Mr. Giannini: …(Inaudible) drops you in the middle of the bowels of the building. This is kind of a cool experience where you come up, you’d walk through this kind of – it’s almost like San Francisco zoo kind of landscape there and then you walk the couple of feet to get to the lobby. Board Member Gooyer: Thank you. Basically, I can support the project the way it is now. I think it’s fulfilled the various requirements I had except for the binding. Chair Lew: Kyu. Vice Chair Kim: Thank you for coming back to the Board. I’m also finding that the changes that you’ve made are very much in line with the project. I like the light well that you’ve proposed and the revised parking scheme. I had a question that I think was answered but overall, I think it’s great. You’ve gotten rid of the DEE and I think this would be a great addition to this area. I understand and appreciate the neighbors coming and speaking because it’s actually kind of rare that we get neighbors consistently like this so I understand the concerns that you have. I think the architect has actually taken measures above and beyond to address the concerns. I think that the landscaping in conjunction with the berms and the way that the drive is working so that most people will park underground. I think these measures will take 4.g Packet Pg. 350 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : M a r c h 2 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M e e t i n g M i n u t e s f o r 1 6 P L N - 0 0 1 9 0 ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t City of Palo Alto Page 7 care of the concerns. If anything, maybe there’s a condition of approval that we can have for some kind of shading inside the building – interior shading at the windows so that at those night time hours when perhaps there are people working, that the building does not glow quite as much. I would also like to make a comment that I think the current concerns with lighting really have to do from headlights from cars and I don’t think you’re going to have that problem, especially at night when people are parking underground. Then the building itself is not really a focused beam of light, it’s more of a soft glow rather than again, a beam of light. Perhaps the shading at the windows can help with that but otherwise, I’m very much in favor of the building and can recommend it for approval. Thank you. Chair Lew: Wynne. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Does Staff share the opinion that the berms and hedges will be adequate to keep people from having they're live disrupted by headlight beams, including modern, like halogen, high-intensity beam or high beams? Mr. Owen: Yes, we do. Between -- it’s all selective so you have berms in some locations and then you have a retaining wall, it's specifically right at the perpendicular with the drive aisle and then there’s also the selective use of shrubs in certain locations so we do share that sentiment. Board Member Furth: My other questions were a little bit different which was that this is not a build out of the permitted RAF on the site\, is that right? Mr. Owen: That’s correct, yes. Board Member Furth: I’m thinking about when the other shoe drops, what happens? I mean how much of it would we lose with this landscaping in front of the building. I mean, is the remnant big enough to park itself? Mr. Owen: I’d say it’s difficult to speculate without a site plan in front of us that describes… Board Member Furth: But you know what the RAF is and you know what the square footage is. Mr. Owen: Of course. Board Member Furth: So, you know what the parking requirement is? Mr. Owen: Without knowing the design, we do know the potential RAF that would be – that could potentially be added. Board Member Furth: How many parking spaces it would require? I realize there’s extra unpacked space but I’m just asking if we did the minimum. Mr. Owen: It would be 224 spaces. You have 386 spaces that are currently proposed and then 224 that would be added with the full development of the site if that were to happen. Board Member Furth: I think we have to assume that it’s likely to happen and it's not project splitting because if they presently have no plans to do it and the City no information about it, that’s not what we handle from environmental purposes. What’s concerning me is we’re looking at this integrated plan with a lot of surface landscaping in front of the existing building and I’m worried that we should be thinking about this as temporary landscaping in front of the existing building. Chair Lew: Peter. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. I’m finding myself very much on the fence with this one but maybe I can pick up where Wynne was just speaking and if possible Alex, can I ask the applicant to come up. I’m also concerned and this only occurred to me and this is the third time I’ve looked at this project now. 4.g Packet Pg. 351 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : M a r c h 2 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M e e t i n g M i n u t e s f o r 1 6 P L N - 0 0 1 9 0 ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t City of Palo Alto Page 8 There’s this large landscaped area on top of the garage, which would make the perfect parking area for a new building in the meadow, which we all agree is going to happen. Can you tell us if there are any plans to do that? Are you aware of any future plans to develop that – to modify that parking area above the garage? Mr. Giannini: Right. There are no future plans to develop – there are no plans. We don’t have a tenant at this point that is asking us to provide the additional RAF so, at this point, the application is just for replacement square footage. However, we’ve thought about how it’s going to work obviously because we do want to make sure it works. We’ve seriously have thought about it so for example, in the upper tier, the garage is being designed so that it can handle the weight of another building and this is a possible option. If you were going to do it, you could have a small campus where you have two buildings with a courtyard in the center. The court – some of the landscaping on the top could conceivably go away however, there would be a lot of landscaping left as you would see that in a new application, which you could deny. I think the challenge for us would be to show you that when we do increase the RAF from 25% to 40%, that the project doesn’t suffer in any way but yes, it would be – yes, we can’t create space out of nothing. The building would either – the building could go on the lower meadow or it could go on the upper terrace. We honestly don’t know that yet. We don’t know if things will change before that happens. Maybe cars aren’t as important anymore and some – a lot of the landscaping can stay. If there was a scenario where the building went on top of the garage, which would make a lot of sense, we would park the lower meadow but it would need to be parked in a way that was a very attractive parking lot that was very well landscaped. Again, I think we’ve said this all along that we are designing the site to work well in the future. The site does have a FAR of 40% allowed. I think the challenge we would have would be to show you how we could do that on the site and not destroy the concept that we’ve already come up with. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. I think my opinion of your project would change dramatically if the area on top of the garage where more parking. The building is designed, it seems to me, to be seen from a foliated area. Mr. Giannini: If I could indulge one more time. I think it’s fairly certain that we would not put more parking on top of the -- I mean, I can’t show you that till we actually make an application but there’s no glimmer of thought that we put more parking up on top of the podium. Board Member Baltay: I see. There is no – you don’t think there’s a plan to put parking on top of the current… Mr. Giannini: It would – the way this is conceived is that the most logical way to expand the site would be to put another building – the other building would be considerably smaller than this building so it would stay up at Hanover at the 50-foot setback on Hanover and it would probably go – and it would go back on the site but it wouldn’t go back anywhere near as far as the existing building because the existing building is 110,000-feet and the new building is only 60 something feet – 60,000-feet. If car where still in the cards when this expands, the car would go down on the meadow most likely. We would most likely try and see if the building could go up on the top with a large courtyard in the middle which would still have habitat. We would have to convince you of that and that’s most likely how the sight would proceed but there is no tenant pushing the extra building right at this moment. Board Member Baltay: Alright thank you and I do acknowledge that that’s not part of your application and it’s extra to be talking about it but it is something that concerned me. I have three things I’m thinking through on the project. The most important to me is still just your overall site access and I know we pushed you to get a better access to the garage and it’s ingenious what you guy have come up with. I’m not entire convinced that it’s really going to work but maybe, I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. You’ve done a building like this but then I – on a small level, you have a bike path coming in from Bol Park and that seems to take you nowhere near where you need to be to park your bicycle. It’s sort of retroactively seems to be getting – to get there, you’d want that bike path to get you to that main entrance as well as everything else. I’m just throwing that out as a comment. That doesn’t overall effect 4.g Packet Pg. 352 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : M a r c h 2 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M e e t i n g M i n u t e s f o r 1 6 P L N - 0 0 1 9 0 ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t City of Palo Alto Page 9 things for me. I’m concerned that the building just seems to me, to be energy sufficient, looking at it. You guys are the experts. You’ve run a bunch of computer models and I’ll grant you that but I guess I’d like Staff to be aware that if the building ends up needing to be modified on the exterior like different shading or roof overhangs, that effects, at least for me, my opinion of the aesthetics of the building. I don’t think it’s acceptable for them to just say, we need to make some changes to meet Title 24. You know how tough the code is. We’ve been asking them now about it being tough and I’d like to say this is the building we’re approving. Then lastly, I do remain concerned about the neighbors’ concerns of seeing this brightly lit building from their property and from what I can tell from the application, the landscaping will be adequate to prevent headlights from coming through and hopefully some sort of shading conditions or enough landscaping to prevent the building from really being seen from Mr. Palmer’s house and things like that. I don’t – I think it’s ok given the plans I have here but we’ve seen so many projects where it turns out not to be and I guess I wonder if my fellow Board Members have any idea of how we can condition something so that that doesn’t happen. It could be incredibly annoying to have a headlight flashing into your living room every so often. I think if we can resolve the neighbors’ concerns and then be focused on the shading, I can support the project. Chair Lew: Thank you, Peter. I brought – just to continue the thoughts of – on the light impacts. I brought two photos and I think – yeah, great. If you could open the – yes, I think open files, my Lexar documents, -- middle, right. Then it is – which one is it? I think it’s ARB. Great. Yeah and those two photos. Great and go to the other one first, that would be great. Great, thank you. This is the Blooming Dales – our new Blooming Dales at Stanford shopping center and I photographed it last night. We’re about 200-feet away from the building on the El Camino sidewalk. There’s a low hedge, maybe like 4-feet and that’s actually – I’m looking through –you’re actually looking through 4 rows of trees, right? They are parking lot trees but it’s winter time and so they are deciduous. Right next to the hedge, in the foreground, there’s a -- or under the canopy of an oak tree and there are also London plane trees which are the street trees. I think what the neighbors are afraid of is this. This is like a 50-story – 50-foot high building, right? The proposed building is a lot – is shorter than that. I think the proposed plantings and the existing trees are mostly coast live oaks, it seems like? I don’t have an exact planting plan. I think we just have a conceptual planting plan. In theory, conceptually, I think that there would be more screening than this, what I’m showing – that what’s showing in this – in the photo but I think there could still be an issue with the amount of glass and lighting. There could a glow from the building onto the neighbors. It’s a concern that I have and then we go to the next project. This is the new Visa building near the California Avenue – street. It’s actually on Ash and Sherman and I took this again, last night. There’s a park in the foreground. This is the back of the building. There are four units on the left-hand side that don’t appear to be occupied at the moment and the light that you see are the back of the office building. I think – I don’t – my camera is reading the light that’s there. It’s reading brighter than it actually was in real life but I share this particular picture because the – it has – the condition of approval was for all automatic nightshades and so the shades are down at a certain period of time in the day time and that – it was meant to provide more privacy to the adjacent condominium complex, which you can’t see because all the lights are off on the right-hand side of the screen. That’s one option that we’ve done before on previous projects. I think -- I’ve talked to the neighbors after one of the hearings and I think that they wanted more architectural – more of an architectural solution than interior window treatment solution. I think also on this particular project, the Board had requested less glass so here, it’s just punched openings, it’s not a window wall system. Again, this particular project is 3-stories and not like the proposed project, which is two-stories. The – also, on this particular project at Visa is the – I think all the existing trees had to come out and had to be replaced because there’s a big parking garage underground. I guess, in my mind, those are a couple of options. One is to reduce the amount of glass and I think you didn’t – Bob, you have it in the plans that you’ve reduced the amount of glass below the desk height? You didn’t mention that in your description but it’s on one of your sheets here and I didn’t see it carried through into all of the drawings. One is – the other options is we – the Board could look at a final landscaping plan because we only have a conceptual now that doesn’t really show all the plants. We don’t have the hedge species outlined in the – itemized in the drawing or I don’t – it’s not at that level of detail yet. Then the other option is for a requirement for automatic night shades on the building, as I see it. I think all the other improvements that you’ve made are good, Bob. I think the only other comment I have is that the – I’m not seeing the landscape – I think you had mentioned the Bamboo in 4.g Packet Pg. 353 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : M a r c h 2 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M e e t i n g M i n u t e s f o r 1 6 P L N - 0 0 1 9 0 ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t City of Palo Alto Page 10 the light well and I’m not seeing that in the landscape plans yet. That’s a fairly minor item. I will return to the Board for comments. I think that Wynne, you were concerned about the head lights and the building. Board Member Furth: Yeah, I am. Chair Lew: I am too. Board Member Furth: First of all, it was very helpful to have the response on the thought that’s gone into the build out. I find that reassuring that it’s going to be possible to do something that will be attractive and it will retain features of the site development that I like. I’m very interested in the possibility of nightshades. I think there are two issues that most – it seems to me, the most serious one and the one that we ought to be able to address 100% essentially is the head lights issue. Whether it involves closing off the upper driveway at night or whatever. It sorts of like a performance standard – a continuing performance standard which says they will not be visible from the adjacent properties or any of the properties over there. I’m also interested in reducing the night time glow. They do have a relatively dark sky out there which is a rare amenity. I know it’s not completely dark but we require – I mean, we have very strict standards on parking lot lighting and external lighting and trying to reduce night time glow and glare. It would be good when we’re having a glass-walled building like this or even any building with large expanses of glass, that is that people keep pointing out, are occupied late into the night. Office buildings some time ago cease to be daytime uses. They're not anymore and so I would be very interested in having automatic motorized shades. I don’t know what the downside would be. Cost? Chair Lew: The downside is that you’ve got a – over time you’ve got different tenants coming in and they may change things. Also, it’s sometimes can be difficult to synchronize all of the shades all at once. Sometimes it doesn’t always work. Then it’s kind of left – if something happens, it’s left to the neighbors to contact code enforcement and that doesn’t always happen. Board Member Furth: But here the landlord is Stanford, in its industrial park, which I believe has the capability to police and manage this kind of thing. Board Member Baltay: If I could chime in, I’m a bit concerned about the interior shades just because of the geometry of the building and the fact that it’s almost all glass on the facades. It’s going to be really tough to get automatic shades coming down of a sloped ceiling. I could see it being really difficult to do. Secondly, in the building like this, your kind of want to be looking out at these trees. That’s sort of the design of it so that the occupants may well be quite inspired to lift these back up again. I’m just not sure – it’s not a series of punched openings where you can really have window shades that will be used. That may not a be a viable long term solution. Chair Lew: Could we maybe ask the landscape architect to review the – to show us exactly which plants are there at that corner of the building, facing the neighbors? I think – I was looking at it yesterday and it seemed like you had olive trees and there are oak trees and it seems like you might have four layers of landscaping at that – yeah, please come up. Great. Mr. Rich Sharp: Good morning. Rich Sharp, Studio 5 Landscape Architects. Yeah, I’ve been sort of chomping at the bit to address this here because I do think this whole edge is heavily landscaped. Not only the existing landscape but what we’re adding to that edge. As Bob mentioned, on the west edge of the property, it’s fully hedged where we can. It comes down to the closest point of the building. There are – most of the trees there are existing coast live oak so all evergreen, predominantly. The infill between those trees and the building that you’re seeing – do you want me to – I guess we lost the keyboard here. The infill layers of trees – I can point to them here. Let me get to the landscape plan. The opposite way or this way? I’m trying to find the (inaudible) one, it will be easier. Save the best for last, right? Ok, let me see if – I don’t know if the cursor is working here. Is that working or not? Well, you can see in the lower left-hand corner of the screen there, the lowest canopy that’s running along the property line – the dark green is the hedge and we have it as English Laurel. We have it as – I can check the plan but either 15 (inaudible) or 24-inch box with the intent that it would go in at a minimum 8-foot tall. 4.g Packet Pg. 354 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : M a r c h 2 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M e e t i n g M i n u t e s f o r 1 6 P L N - 0 0 1 9 0 ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t City of Palo Alto Page 11 We’ve put in 24-inche box hedges, 12-foot tall on day one. We do a lot of high-end residential and I’m familiar with all the sizes. Easy fix to get that in at 12-feet and that sitting under existing canopy and that’s why we chose the limits of it to work with the drip lines of the trees there and not be digging into heritage oak root structure. When you get east of that hedgerow, we still have the existing canopy and that – the canopy isn’t as deep heading towards the building so that’s where you see the introduction of a lot of new oaks. Just to clarify the point on the mounding, at this point where the building gets close to the property line, which is still about 90-feet away. Up at the building pad, we do have a 5 1/2 -foot to – we have a 4 to 1 slope, we can go up to 6 ½-7-foot of mounting there that those new trees will sit on. That mounting is viewed from a lower perspective of a resident. We’ll cover the first floor with the shrubs on top of it for sure. The tree, with the evergreen canopy, will cover the upper floors of that building. We’ve strategically marched along this edge and looked at the opportunities. When you move further east to where the drive aisle comes in, that’s where we’ve introduced the retaining wall that’s high enough to block the head lights and then the mound climbing up behind that. There’s a positive grade above that wall so we don’t have to do a really tall wall because that’s unattractive. We want the wall for sound and headlights. The mount climbs from there and we show that in the sections and then it drops back down quickly so we don’t interrupt the existing tree roots again, in that area. Then as you climb up that driveway, the wall holds that edge all the way up that driveway to small podium parking lot. Again, there’s screening all the way. Then as you come down to the meadow, that’s where we have pretty much the deepest section of the existing canopy and then you’ll see in the meadow, based on comments, we’ve used sight spoils to some contouring so it’s not just a big flat meadow but it has a contour. We’ve added some additional strawberry (inaudible) – Arbutus Trees that are the first trees into that meadow, which are an evergreen. What we call an understory canopy so a lower canopy for that bike path access coming in. That plus the mounding will shut down – would really shut down the full view of the meadow from the residents but if there is a future parking lot, it would also shut down that future parking lot, so we’re trying to take that into account as part of this initial build out. Chair Lew: I think you’re showing two existing oak trees to be transplanted up on the upper level. Mr. Sharp: Correct. Chair Lew: What size are those? Mr. Sharp: Those are – I don’t have the specs. They are at least an 18-inch caliper tree, which puts them at about a 30-foot canopy size in day one. That tree that’s sitting by itself at the end of the building there, closest to the residents. That is that transplant tree so we’re putting a giant canopy on that short façade of the building and then that cluster of four trees in that – what we’re calling the art court there, those would be evergreen trees as well. We’re trying to just – that’s the end of the building that’s closest to the residences, it’s a short façade and we’re trying to fill it with canopy as much as possible. Chair Lew: OK, thank you very much. Mr. Sharp: You’re welcome. Chair Lew: I’ll bring it back to the Board for a motion. Don’t jump all at once. Board Member Baltay: I’m still concerned that the landscaping may or may not be adequate. I’m struggling with what I’m seeing him – hearing him say is that there’s a row of hedge underneath those oak trees. I’ve been out to the site a couple of times and you go around to that beat-up parking lot at the back and you can trod through the leaves under those trees and look over the fence. What I’m seeing is that’s where they are going to put a 12-foot hedge and I’m having a hard time believing that can happen. Those trees are pretty mature and I think that’s not – I’m not a landscape architect but I don’t know if you can put a 12-foot hedge underneath a grove of mature oak trees like that. I do think that there’s a tremendous amount of space from the property line to the new building and it ought to be possible to get landscaping in there that really does provide genuine screening. I’m not sure that I’m buying this landscape plan, I guess that’s what I’m saying. 4.g Packet Pg. 355 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : M a r c h 2 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M e e t i n g M i n u t e s f o r 1 6 P L N - 0 0 1 9 0 ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t City of Palo Alto Page 12 Chair Lew: Let’s see, Wynne? Board Member Furth: Lighting is still my concern and when I’m looking at A-4.2 and I heard that the ground floor would be quite thoroughly screened. I didn’t know if the statement was also the second- floor windows would be fully screened or obscured or hidden? I was trying to follow the presentation but I didn’t hear that. Would the southeast second-floor windows also be screened from the residents – adjacent resident – from the residential area over on the side? Chair Lew: Please. Mr. Giannini: I’d like to say a couple things about the lighting. One, on night lighting, this building should do better than most buildings because of the big overhanging roofs. Just like the way you have low cut off parking lot lightings and we’re well aware of the night – no night lighting ordinances. The buildings are following that same pattern so night lighting shouldn’t be an issue. Again, just to run through how the – definitely the berms, the hedges, the shrubs, the low walls screen the ground floor but they can’t screen the upper floor. That’s where we have all the existing trees and the augmented trees. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Mr. Giannini: That’s how that would work. Board Member Furth: One more question while you are here if I could? When I look at those elevations, it doesn’t look to me at those you have a lot of complicated roof lines. When I look at the shade catalogs, they all tell me they can deal with these things but aren’t these horizontal? Mr. Giannini: Actually, it’s easier than that because actually where the windows are, it’s straight across. Board Member Furth: That’s what I thought. Mr. Giannini: The notion of putting in automatic shades – we were just chatting, is a fine one. I think we would be willing to do that and also, we were just chatting because how do you make sure that it stays in perpetuity, it can be in the lease … Board Member Furth: You put it in the lease. Mr. Giannini: It’s in the lease and then there are lots of things in the lease. For example, all the green stuff is in the lease. There are certain things the tenant has to do so that could just be another one of them. The notion of doing that on that side of the building – where ever appropriate, is ok and very doable. Board Member Furth: It would make – I would feel better about it because I’m concerned not – I appreciate that the overhangs are going to help with the upward glow but I also think just looking at me in my office working late is not a treat if you live nearby. Mr. Giannini: I’m certainly sure that you won’t be able to see it because right now, you go well, you went out there but there are a lot of existing trees. However, this would again be a belt and suspenders approach that we would be… Board Member Furth: I would appreciate that. Mr. Giannini: … would be very appropriate. Thanks. MOTION 4.g Packet Pg. 356 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : M a r c h 2 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M e e t i n g M i n u t e s f o r 1 6 P L N - 0 0 1 9 0 ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t City of Palo Alto Page 13 Board Member Gooyer: I’ll make a motion that we recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on the findings subject to conditions of approval and possible add the or I should say – and add the requirement for auto-shading for the building, mainly on the second floor or I guess we could do it everywhere but the second floor… (crosstalk) (inaudible) Board Member Furth: (Inaudible) floor on those, on the frontage. I mean, I don’t really care what it does shooting down towards the Research Park. It’s the frontage towards the residents – frontages. Board Member Gooyer: If we want, we could have the landscape plan once it’s been fully developed, come back to the subcommittee for final approval. Board Member Baltay: I can second that motion. Board Member Furth: Could we add a finding and Staff could tell us where that headlights will be fully – one of the reasons we can approve this is because the headlights will be fully screened – I don’t know how you say this. There will be no – headlights will not be visible from the adjacent residential areas. Board Member Gooyer: I have one thing about headlights. I live on a normal residential street and I get – when somebody makes the turn – I happen to live on a corner. I get headlights that go into my house. I mean, it’s like I’m sorry but that just the reality of life. Board Member Furth: I don’t think it’s necessary. I agree (inaudible) Board Member Gooyer: The other way to look at it is and I hate to be the ogre here but this is not like a development where they tore down 200 residential units in the back of these properties and all of sudden put a high-tech building in here. The high-tech building was there probably before most of the neighbors moved in. They understand that there may be something in the future. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t do the most we can but the reality of life is that they knew there was something back there on a commercial level. There has to be a certain amount – I think if we take a lot of effort – I don’t think we ought to be able to say well, from now on, you can only build a one-story concrete bunker there and that sort of thing and the lights have to be turned off before you go into the parking lot. I think that’s overkill so I think the reality of it is, with the proper screening which we can really do a great deal of enhancing with the subcommittee, I think the lighting is just a reality of life or I should say the headlights. Board Member Baltay: I can second the motion. Chair Lew: All in favor? Mr. Owen: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Chair Lew: Oh… Mr. Owen: Sorry, I just wanted to ask for a little clarification on where exactly on the building you would like to see the shades and also, whether or not it would be on just the second story or also on the first story? Chair Lew: As I took the notes, the motion was to have it only on the second floor and that was the maker of the motion. Then there was a comment of having it residential facing, right, but that was Wynne. That wasn’t the maker of the motion. Board Member Gooyer: I agree. I don’t think it’s necessary around the whole building but I don’t know. What would you say, maybe from the apex towards the residential? Something like that or even just – ok, I can agree with Peter that it’s just on the – what would that be? Just the west or I should say the east elevation and the little bit of the south elevation that faces the – basically here and there. Ok, I think we’re all in agreement that in those… 4.g Packet Pg. 357 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : M a r c h 2 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M e e t i n g M i n u t e s f o r 1 6 P L N - 0 0 1 9 0 ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t City of Palo Alto Page 14 Mr. Lait: Ok, that’s great that you guys are but you’re looking at a diagram, we’re not. Board Member Gooyer: Ok, well look right there. (Crosstalk) It would be the east elevation and the direct south elevation, right? There you go, right there, that and that. (Crosstalk) That’s a very long-winded way of doing it but I think everybody understands. Ms. Gerhardt: Board Members, if I may, is this also something that maybe could come back to the subcommittee with the details for the shading? Chair Lew: Sure. Board Member Gooyer: Sure. I agree. Those have become fairly common now a day but it probably wouldn’t hurt if we’re going to bring it back for the landscaping anyway. Board Member Furth: Alex? Chair Lew: What? Board Member Furth: Did you have a – you mentioned something about reduced glass at the – below knee height – below desk height, on some elevation and not others? Chair Lew: Well, no. That appears on sheet – where is it? Early in the set of drawings. Sheet A-1.2, there’s a note that says windows on the short end of the building will have spandrel glass in the lower 30-inches to avoid floor to ceiling glass. Board Member Gooyer: You ok with that? Mr. Giannini: If I could just clarify that. I think what the -- I think it’s – at least what our intention is that actually, the lower 30-inches of glass all the way around the building will be fritted glass so you can see through it but it will be a polka dot frit, that’s to control clutter more than anything else. After we had done everything else on the building on the residential side, we thought we – doing anything more on the lower 30-inches probably wouldn’t be necessary so it’s a semantic issue probably. We’re calling the fritted glass spandrel glass but more appropriately, it should be called fritted glass and it would be around the whole building on both floors. Chair Lew: Ok, thank you for that clarification. Mr. Lait: Then Chair, just as you’re concluding your deliberation, I just want to pass along that there’s interest among the adjacent residents to offer a comment. I think it has to do with the level of the auto control curtains being at both levels instead of just the second level but it’s up to you to consider whether you want to allow for that input. Chair Lew: Why don’t we – since – I think the motion is for the this – the automatic shades to come back to subcommittee. Why don’t we – if this is ok with the motion – the maker of the motion, why don’t we just say open it for the first and second floors and then we’ll see what they bring back to the subcommittee. Does that make sense? (Inaudible) Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible) (Crosstalk) I don’t think it’s necessary for the first floor, I just don’t. It – based on all the cross section we see, I don’t see that being an issue. It’s the -- especially with all the landscaping that they are looking at. The second floor is the concern. Chair Lew: Ok. I think that’s… Board Member Furth: (Inaudible) a question. 4.g Packet Pg. 358 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : M a r c h 2 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M e e t i n g M i n u t e s f o r 1 6 P L N - 0 0 1 9 0 ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t City of Palo Alto Page 15 Chair Lew: Ok, we’ll do the procedural question (crosstalk) and then we can (inaudible). Board Member Furth: If it’s true, for example, that an element of the landscape plan that we’re relying on in our approval, turns out not to be possible. If it’s correct that unfortunately, you can’t get a dense hedge under oak – near that close to oak trees, what happens? Chair Lew: I think there’s a fence there in that location. There’s a solid fence in that particular – not on the whole property line but on that particular corner, I saw a tall fence there so there’s that. That may be only 7 or 8-feet high. It’s not as tall as an actual – the 12-hedge. Board Member Baltay: The landscaping plan can include things like fences if that’s necessary. Board Member Furth: I was just asking procedurally essentially if it’s impossible then does it come back to us, does it – is it an amendment to the approval? What is it? Chair Lew: (Inaudible) (Crosstalk) Ms. Gerhardt: If I may, you’re already bringing back the landscaping and the shades to the subcommittee so if there where changes like that, the subcommittee could address those. Chair Lew: I think the motion as it stands is for second flood shades on to – on portions of the east and that south end and for the final landscape plan to come back to the subcommittee. Then -- (crosstalk) I’m just saying – I think there have been a lot of comments but the actual motion was just those two items and not the (inaudible)…(crosstalk) Board Member Gooyer: Yes, that’s the actual motion at this point. Chair Lew: Headlights are not included at the moment but you could propose an amendment or not. Board Member Furth: I was just going to suggest in that this is going to base on the plans submitted, today right? Then on sheet A-1.2, where is says windows on the short end of the building will have spandrel glass on the lower 30-inches, it would instead be revised to say windows will have fretted glass on the lower 30-inches to avoid whatever. Mr. Lait: Chair, if there is an opportunity I’d like to have (inaudible) for a comment? Chair Lew: Yes, please. Mr. Lait: Thank you. One of the – I had an opportunity to speak with the applicant and I’ll just note that they find that this design scheme with the auto shades on the first and second floor are acceptable to them as a condition. I would note that our subcommittee reviews are usually for these fine tuning of details and we’ve heard through the dialog here today and the testimony that this is obviously, a very significant concern for the area residents and I think closer on this issue at this meeting would helpful because they don’t get the same notice for the project as they do for the subcommittee. If they are interested in that dialog, I’m concerned that the might miss that opportunity. If the Board were willing, I would encourage a recommendation for the condition to include that there be shades on the first and second floor and not to come back for the subcommittee on that issue. MOTION AMENDED Board Member Gooyer: Fine, if the applicant is willing to do the first and second floor, I’ll modify my amendment or my motion for that. Board Member Baltay: Ok, I’ll second it, sure. 4.g Packet Pg. 359 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : M a r c h 2 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M e e t i n g M i n u t e s f o r 1 6 P L N - 0 0 1 9 0 ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t City of Palo Alto Page 16 Chair Lew: Ok, lets a vote on the motion. All in favor? Chair Lew, Vice Chair Kim, Board Member Furth, Board Member Gooyer, Board Member Baltay: Aye. Chair Lew: Opposed? No. That passes 5-0. Thank you, Bob. MOTION PASSED 5-0 4.g Packet Pg. 360 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : M a r c h 2 , 2 0 1 7 A R B M e e t i n g M i n u t e s f o r 1 6 P L N - 0 0 1 9 0 ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t Attachment H Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln 2. On the left hand side click “Development Proposals” 3. In the drop down window click “Pending Projects” 4. Scroll to find “3223 Hanover” and click the address link 5. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4198 4.h Packet Pg. 361 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 8 8 7 5 : 3 2 2 3 H a n o v e r S t r e e t : N e w O f f i c e / R & D B u i l d i n g ( 1 s t F o r m a l ) ) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8898) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/15/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 356 Hawthorne Avenue: Three Residential Units (1st formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 356 Hawthorne Avenue [17PLN-00367]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing Four-Unit, 4,032 Square Foot Multi- Family Residential Development and Construction of a new 4,561 Square Foot, Multi-Family Development Comprised of Three Detached Residential Units Each With an Attached Single Car Garage. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: RM-15 (Low Density Multiple- Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Phillip Brennan at phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed new three unit, multi-family residential project to the Director of Planning and Community Development based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The application is a request for major architectural review of a new multi-family development comprised of three condominium units, each with an attached single car garage in the Low Density Multi-family Residence District (RM-15). The proposed project would replace the existing four-unit, 4,032 square foot (sf) multi-family residential development currently on the 9,506 sf lot. The existing building was originally constructed in 1922, though is not considered a historic resource. 5 Packet Pg. 362 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Pursuant to PAMC Section 18.76.020(b)(2)(B) of the Zoning Code, architectural review is required for any multi-family residential project that contains three or more units. Draft findings and conditions are included with this report as attachments (Attachments B and C). Background Project Information Owner: SGLG Investments, LLC Architect: Michael Chacon Representative: Michael Chacon Legal Counsel: Not applicable Property Information Address: 356 Hawthorne Avenue Neighborhood: Downtown North Lot Dimensions & Area: 190’ x 50’; 9,506 sf Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes, two (2) protected street tree locations; one (1) red maple and one (1) vacant street tree planter area Historic Resource(s): The site was reviewed by the City’s Historic Planner and no resources were found Existing Improvement(s): 4,032 sf in total; one- and two-story residences; 1922 Existing Land Use(s): Multi-family Residential Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: RM-15, PF (Johnson Park) West: RM-15 (low-density multi-family residential) East: RM-30 (Everett Manor, Everett Apartments, multi-family residential apartments) South: RM-30, PC-4339 and RMD(NP) Aerial View of Property: 5 Packet Pg. 363 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Low Density Multi-Family Residence District (RM-15) Comp. Plan Designation: Multi-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'): Yes, within RM-15 zoning district an adjacent to RM-30 and PC-4339 (within 150’ of subject site) Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: Preliminary ARB review on July 20, 2017; see 5 Packet Pg. 364 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61787 for staff report Project Description The proposed project seeks to replace an existing four-unit multi-family development originally built circa 1922 (non-historic) and construct a three-unit condominium project comprised of a 1,803 sf, two-story residence (Unit 1) located along Hawthorne Avenue, a 1,791 sf, two-story residence (Unit 2) in the middle of the lot and a 974 sf, single-story residence (Unit 3) along the alleyway known as Bryant Court. Each unit is proposed with a covered one-car garage of which a maximum of 230 sf is excluded from each unit’s FAR total as provided by Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.13.040, Table 2, Note 4. The two-story units are proposed at maximum heights of 23 feet and 23 feet 5 inches for Units 1 and 2 respectively, with Unit 3, a single-story home, proposed at a maximum height of 16 feet 8 inches. The floor area total (4,561 sf) of the proposed condominiums is under the allowed 0.5:1 FAR (4,753 sf) for the 9,506 sf lot. The three proposed residential units are the maximum density for this sized lot as prescribed for the RM- 15 zoning district. All three of the proposed residences share a similar modern farmhouse architectural design featuring vertical boards without battens mixed with sections of horizontal lapped siding. The units share a primary exterior color scheme of white and gray contrasted with dark (black) wood clad aluminum window and doors. The chosen roof material for all three units is asphalt composite shingle in silver birch. Unit 1’s proposed maximum height is compatible with both of the adjacent 24 foot tall roof profiles of the two-story homes (204 Waverley Street and 350 Hamilton Avenue) on each side of it along Hawthorne Avenue. Unit 3 is proposed as a small one-story residence which is consistent with the lower profiles of the neighboring properties to the rear (228 Waverley Street and 351 Bryant Court) and appropriate for the close proximity and residential scale along Bryant Court. The shared driveway serving Unit 1 and 2 is located on the left side of the lot in order to protect the large coast live oak that exists on the neighboring lot (350 Hawthorne Avenue) near the shared side yard lot line. Please see the applicant’s project description letter in Attachment H for further detail. A previous iteration of the proposed project was review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on July 20, 2017 during a preliminary review hearing. During this meeting, the ARB provided the applicant constructive non-binding feedback to which the applicant has responded in the formal application. A summary of those comments and the applicant’s responses is provided in the following table: ARB Preliminary Feedback Applicant Response Exterior Material Choices. The proposed use of T1-11 siding and stone veneer skirting are not appropriate building material. The proposed primary exterior materials will be a higher grade siding. The stone veneer building skirt has been removed 5 Packet Pg. 365 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 from the design entirely. Building Mass & Proportion. Proposed two- story residences are too aligned and lack modulation to help break up building form. Both two-story units have been redesigned to better articulate the second-story massing and proportionality. Additionally, the main entries have been relocated to face toward the street. Location of Unit 3’s Driveway. ARB shared in the commenting neighbor’s opinion that Unit 3’s driveway should be flipped. Driveway location of Unit 3 has been relocated to the opposite side (i.e. closer to 351 Bryant Court). Landscape Detail. Landscaping would help soften the streetscape view especially along Bryant Court. Extensive landscape has been proposed for the project site to help integrate and reduce the visual impact of the new development (see L-4.0 of the plan set). Egress for Unit 2. Unit 2’s residents may have issues backing out the ~100 foot driveway onto Hawthorne Avenue. Transportation Division staff reviewed the project plans and circulation and have no concerns with vehicle egress onto Hawthorne Avenue. The development application was submitted in conjunction with a separate Preliminary Parcel Map application (17PLN-00381) requesting to subdivide the 9,506 sf lot into three separate air parcels for condominium purposes. Approval of the subdivision application prior to issuance of the building permit will be included as part of this development application’s conditions of approval should the ARB move to recommend approval. 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 Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. Analysis1 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. 5 Packet Pg. 366 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Neighborhood Setting and Character The subject lot is located in Palo Alto’s Downtown North neighborhood in an RM-15 zoning district block, surrounded by a mix of single-family and low-density multi-family residential developments along Hawthorne Avenue, and in close proximity to Johnson Park. The lot abuts Bryant Court, a narrow one-way alley to its east and shares the length of its north side yard lot- line with the rear yards of four lots along Waverly Street, while the south side yard lot-line is shared with two abutting lots located at 350 Hamilton Avenue and 351 and 357 Bryant Court. The immediate surrounding neighborhood is comprised of an eclectic mix of one- and two-story residences of various architectural styles including modern, Spanish revival, bungalow vernacular, and modest Craftsman. The project proposes a modernized traditional farmhouse design that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, utilizing shallow-pitched roof lines and simple rectangular profiles which subdue massing and volume from street view. The streetscape along Bryant Court is highly varied composed of a mixture of one- and two-story homes, carports, and higher density multi-family apartments, and presents a more intimate surrounding environment due to the shortened setbacks and width of the one-way alley. Zoning Compliance2 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with RM-15 zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment F. The proposed project complies with all applicable 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. In addition to the necessary compliance with the aforementioned zoning district development standards, the project is also subject to the Context-Based Design Criteria and Performance Criteria specified in PAMC Chapters 18.13 and 18.23, respectively. Summary tables outlining the proposed project’s consistency with these performance and context-based design criteria are provided in Attachments D and E. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Low Density Multi-Family Residence District (RM-15), which prescribes a density range of eight to 15 dwelling units per 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 5 Packet Pg. 367 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 acre. The project has a maximum density of 3.27 dwelling units per acre (or 15 units per acre), which complies with the intended low-density multi-family residential density. There are two housing policies that are relevant to the proposed project: Comprehensive Plan policy H1.2 seeks to “Support efforts to preserve multifamily housing units in existing neighborhoods” and policy L-2.7 seeks to “Support efforts to retain housing that is more affordable in existing neighborhoods, including a range of smaller housing types.” The proposed project seeks to demolish the four existing rental units on-site to construct three new condominium units, which would result in the net loss of one rental unit. However, the existing development on the lot is considered legal non-conforming as the four dwelling units exceed the maximum density permitted in the RM-15 zoning district. The proposed three-unit condominium development would bring the lot into conformance with the aforementioned RM-15 development standards. As part of the comprehensive plan’s implementation, staff will examine ways to discourage the net loss of housing units, however, at this time, no regulation currently exists. On balance, the project is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan as well. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment B. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project site is not located on a Safe Routes to School (SRTS) path, however, both Hawthorne Avenue and Bryant Court feed directly into Bryant Street, which is a designated SRTS route serving Addison Elementary, Jordan Middle School, and Palo Alto High School. Units 1 and 2 are proposed to share a common driveway accessed from Hawthorne Avenue with Unit 3’s access to be taken from Bryant Court. Each lot is designed to accommodate an uncovered parking space in addition to the required covered parking stall; Units 1 and 2 feature tandem parking orientations as permitted in this zoning district. Additionally, the project proposes a long-term bicycle storage locker to be located on each condominium parcel. Consistency with Application Findings Overall, the design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the required Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Draft findings substantiating how the project satisfied each required finding is provided in Attachment B. 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 exempt from the provisions of the CEQA in accordance with Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). 5 Packet Pg. 368 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 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 February 28, 2018, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on February 28, 2018, which is 14 in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, one public comment was submitted directly to the project planner via email correspondence dated February 2, 2018, sent from the neighbor living at 351 Byrant Court, adjacent to the project site. The inquiry was regarding the City’s requirement for containment of potentially hazardous materials and pollutants during demolition. The project planner provided a subsequent email response and had a follow-up phone conversation with the neighbor. The email correspondence can be found under Attachment I included with this report. A second attachment is provided documenting correspondence between the same neighbor and applicant regarding the location of Unit 3’s trash receptacles, the shared fence between the two properties, and drip lines of new trees associated with the project. The applicant copied the project planner on the email correspondence on December 5, 2017. This correspondence can also be found under Attachment I. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Phillip Brennan, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2493 (650) 329-2575 phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (JPG)  Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Conditions of Approval (DOCX)  Attachment D: Context-Based Design Criteria Compliance (DOCX)  Attachment E: Performance Criteria (DOCX)  Attachment F: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 5 Packet Pg. 369 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9  Attachment G: Project Description Letter (PDF)  Attachment H: Public Comment (PDF)  Attachment I: Project Plans (DOCX) 5 Packet Pg. 370 5.a Packet Pg. 371 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t A : L o c a t i o n M a p ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 356 Hawthorne Avenue 17PLN-00367 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: In conformance with the following Comp Plan Goals and Policies, the project will include high quality design compatible with surrounding development. 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 Multiple Family Residential. The project continues the Multiple Family Residential land use. Land Use and Community Design Element Goal L-1: A compact and resilient city providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping districts, public facilities and open spaces. The three unit condominium development is appropriately scaled and architecturally compatible within the surrounding neighborhood context. The proposed project’s use of high grade materials and finishes enhance the overall design, and serve to provide the immediate area and city overall with a quality residential development. Policy L-1.11: Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. Goal L-2: An enhanced sense of “community” with development designed to foster public, meet citywide needs and embrace the principles of sustainability. While the proposed development will demolish four existing units it will enhance the neighborhood with three new housing units. Further, the proposed three-unit development would bring the lot back into Zoning compliance for maximum housing density. Policy L-2.7: Support efforts to retain housing that is more affordable in existing neighborhood, including smaller housing types. 5.b Packet Pg. 372 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B F i n d i n g s ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) 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. The proposed three unit condominium project maintains the Downtown North’s neighborhood character, providing another high-quality multi- family development. The through-lot features two street-facing units at opposite ends, each with articulated facades and clear front entries that engage the streets and help improve the existing streetscape. The development is in short walking distance to Johnson Park and the Downtown University corridor. Policy L-3.4: Ensure that new multi-family buildings, entries and outdoor spaces are designed and arranged so that each development has a clear relationship to a public street. Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create coherent development patterns and enhance city streets and public spaces. The proposed project is consistent with the surrounding residential neighborhood pattern of low-density multi-family developments on long narrow lots. The project conforms to all the applicable zoning requirements, design review processes, and performance and design-based criterion to ensure high quality architectural design that will provide additional curbside appeal along Hawthorne Avenue and Bryant Court. Policy L-6.1: Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Policy L-6.2: Use the Zoning Ordinance, design review process, design guidelines and Coordinated Area Plans to ensure high quality residential and commercial design and architectural compatibility. Transportation Element Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling. As required per municipal code the project provides three long-term bicycle lockers (one per unit). The provision of these facilities implicitly promotes active modes of transportation for residents that may utilize bicycles to travel to nearby shopping, commute to work or school. Policy T-1.16: Promote personal transportation vehicles an alternative to cars (e.g. bicycles, skateboards, roller blades) to get to work, school, shopping, recreational facilities and transit stops. Policy T-1.19: Provide facilities that encourage and support bicycling and walking. Natural Environment Element Goal N-2: A thriving urban forest that provides public health, ecological, economic, and aesthetic benefits for Palo Alto. The project takes active measures to protect the two regulated trees (silver linden street tree and coast live oak) on or adjacent to the subject lot. These 5.b Packet Pg. 373 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B F i n d i n g s ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) Policy N-2.10: Preserve and protect Regulated Trees, such as native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property, including landscape trees approved as part of a development review process and consider strategies for expanding tree protection in Palo Alto. mitigation strategies include Type I & II tree protection, site planning to reduce impacts on the root network, and root cutting monitoring and documentation. Nine (9) new landscape trees are included in the project scope which will serve to increase canopy coverage on the lot. 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 finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project proposes one- and two-story interpretations of modern farmhouse design that fits appropriately within the established streetscapes along Hawthorne Avenue and Byrant Court, and provide harmonious transitions with the adjacent residences. The site planning of the three condominiums was purposefully designed to preserve natural features including the prominent coast live oak on the adjacent lot that provides canopy coverage and shade to multiple residences and part of the neighborhood’s existing character. The project is compliant with the Multiple Family Context-Based Design Criteria and Multiple Family Performance Criteria specified in PAMC Chapters 18.13 and 18.23; see Attachments D and E. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project utilizes high quality materials and finishes that are associated with the modern farmhouse architectural motif, including wide groove vertical boards (without battens) contrasted with horizontally oriented nickel gap exterior lap siding that distinguishes volumes. The proposed two-story units utilize simple gables at the first floor to create visual interest and separate the lower and upper floor profiles. The homes share the same elegant but simplified palette of white and gray exterior colors accented with black trim (e.g. window frames) and finishes. Each of these design elements help to create a pleasing overall visual aesthetic. 5.b Packet Pg. 374 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B F i n d i n g s ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) 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 finding can be made in the affirmative in that project’s site planning provides ease and safety for pedestrians and practical accessibility for the residents of the development. Units 1 and 2 share a common driveway that provides ingress and egress off of Hawthorne Avenue while Unit 3 possesses its own driveway off of Bryant Court. All three units provide two off-street parking spaces as required; one covered (garage) and one uncovered in a tandem orientation. The narrow lot width (50 feet) and necessary protection of the large neighboring oak tree makes the provision of a functional turnaround area for Unit 2 problematic. As such, residents of Unit 2 will likely need to back out of the long driveway onto Hawthorne Avenue. While this mode of egress is not ideal, it is also not an uncommon in the city as many detached garages are located on the rear half of deep lots. The Transportation Division has reviewed the project plans and has recommended approval with no conditions. 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 finding can be made in the affirmative in that project includes a landscape plan that provides each proposed unit with an appropriate combination of softscape and hardscape. The hardscape includes individual patio and porch areas, interior fencing to define spaces, and permeable pavers along the driveways that will reduce storm water runoff. The project’s softscape includes drought tolerant species and a variety of evergreen tree species, shrubs and perennials suitable to the site with the plantings focused on the most visible locations along Hawthorne Avenue and Byrant Court. Additionally, the landscape plan calls for irrigation systems for each unit, conforming to the City of Palo Alto’s Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance. 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 summary of the project’s compliance is on sheet GB-1 of the plans. The project includes a number of measures including storm water drainage, topsoil protection, electric vehicle charging outlets, laundry to landscape diversion, other water efficiency and conservation measures. 5.b Packet Pg. 375 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t B : D r a f t A R B F i n d i n g s ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 356 Hawthorne Avenue 17PLN-00367 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "3-Unit Condo Development_356 Hawthorne Avenue,” stamped as received by the City on December 20, 2017, 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. RELOCATION OF REFUSE ENCLOSURES. As required by the Multi-Family Performance Criteria outlined in PAMC Section 18.23.020(A), and upon review and approval by the Planning Department, the applicant shall relocate the trash and recycling enclosures of Units 2 and 3 off the side yard lot lines shared with the abutting lots to a location as far from the neighboring residences as reasonably possible. 5. 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. 6. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the ARB approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. 7. CONSTRUCTION ACCESS: As noted in the approved Construction Logistics Plan for 1451-1601 California Avenue, this property shall remain open for construction truck traffic through September 30, 2015. 8. OBSCURE GLAZING: All obscure glazing, as shown on the plan set, shall be permanent in nature and shall remain for the life of the structure. Obscure glazing is either decorative glazing that does not Formatted: Not Highlight 5.c Packet Pg. 376 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) allow views through placed into the window frame or acid etched or similar permanent alteration of the glass. Films or like additions to clear glass are not permitted where obscure glazing is shown. Obscure glazing shall not be altered in the future and shall be replaced with like materials if damaged. If operable, these windows shall open towards the public right-of-way. 9. 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. 10. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Development Impact Fees, currently estimated in the amount of $199,180.00 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 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, Phillip Brennan at phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF EXCAVATION AND GRADING PERMIT: 5.c Packet Pg. 377 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) The following comments are provided as a courtesy and shall be addressed prior to any other permit application submittal. This includes Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit and Encroachment Permit but after the Planning entitlement approval. 13. SUBDIVISION. Map types and review procedures vary depending on the number of units proposed. Depending on the number of units proposed, the applicant shall submit a minor or major subdivision application to the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Show all existing and proposed dedications and easements on the map submitted as part of the application. Please be advised that the Parcel or Tentative map shall be recorded with the Santa Clara County Clerk Recorder prior to Building or Grading and Excavation Permit issuance. A digital copy of the Parcel Map, in AutoCAD format, shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering and shall conform to North American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NGVD88 for vertical survey controls. Tentative/Final maps are submitted under a Major Subdivision application to the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Public Works will review and provide comments on the documents provided as part of the submittal. Please be advised that under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, off-site improvement plans are processed as an extension of the subdivision application process and the applicant may be required to enter into a subdivision improvement agreement and provide security for work shown in the plans. 14. 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”. 15. GRADING PERMIT. Separate Excavation and Grading Permit will be required for grading activities on private property that fill, excavate, store or dispose of 100 cubic yards or more based on PAMC Section 16.28.060. Applicant shall prepare and submit an excavation and grading permit to Public Works separately from the building permit set. The permit application and instructions are available at the Development Center and on our website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 16. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN. The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations, earthwork volumes, finished floor elevations, area drain and bubbler locations, drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of 2% or 5% for 10-feet per 2013 CBC section 1804.3. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales, area drains, bubblers, etc. Grading that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from neighboring properties, will not be allowed. 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 5.c Packet Pg. 378 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) Plan Guidelines for New Single Family Residences on the City’s website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 17. UTILITIES. Note that all above ground utilities, such as transformer, backflow preventer, gas meters, etc., shall be located within project site but accessible from the street. Any new or relocated utilities will correspond with approved locations from City Utilities Department. 18. 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. 19. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and adjacent to the work within the Public road right- of-way. “Any construction within the city’s public road right-of-way shall have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.” 20. 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. 21. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER. As part of this project, the applicant shall 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. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so that the inspector can discuss the extent of replacement work along the public road. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work. 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. 22. Any existing driveway to be abandoned shall be replaced with standard curb & gutter. This work must be included within a Permit for Construction in the Public Street from the Public Works Department. A note of this requirement shall be placed on the plans adjacent to the area on the Site Plan. 23. 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 5.c Packet Pg. 379 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 24. 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. Copies are available from Public Works on our website http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 25. This project triggers the California Regional Water Quality Control Board’s revised provision C.3 for storm water regulations (incorporated into the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 16.11) that apply to residential land development projects that create or replace between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. The applicant must implement one or more of the following site design measures on the grading and drainage plan:  Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse  Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas.  Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas.  Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas.  Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces.  Construct driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces 26. Provide the following as a note on the Site Plan: “The contractor may be required to 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 surrounding properties , and schedule of work. The requirement to submit a logistics plan will be dependent on the number of applications Public Works Engineering receives within close proximity to help mitigate and control the impact to the public-right-of-way. If necessary, Public Works may require a Logistics Plan during construction.” PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION Strictly comply with all recommendations contained in the tree protection report. Results of exploratory trenching shall be submitted as part of the building permit or as a special arborist report prior to initial inspection of tree protection fencing. There is a duty for the project applicant/developer to protect neighboring trees. 27. OBLIGATION TO MONITOR AND PROTECT NEIGHBORING TREES. Project site arborist will protect and monitor neighboring protected oak during construction and share information with the tree owner. All work shall be done in conformance with State regulations so as to ensure the long term health of the tree. Project site arborist will request access to the tree on the neighboring property as necessary to measure an exact diameter, assess condition, and/or perform treatment. If access is not granted, monitoring and any necessary treatment will be performed from the project site. 5.c Packet Pg. 380 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) 28. 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. 29. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures as a condition of the building permit, 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. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. Tree fencing shall be adjusted after demolition if necessary to increase the tree protection zone as required by the project arborist. 30. 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. 31. 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. UTILITILES - WATER, GAS, AND WASTEWATER 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. These comments are provided as a courtesy and are not required to be addressed prior to the Planning entitlement approval: PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 32. 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. 33. 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. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT 5.c Packet Pg. 381 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) 34. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., 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). 35. 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. 36. 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). 37. 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. 38. 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. 39. 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. 40. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the city inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 41. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 5.c Packet Pg. 382 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) 42. Existing water services that are not a currently standard material shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 43. 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. 44. If 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. 45. 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. 46. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must conform to utilities standard details. 47. A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans. A profile of the sewer lateral is required showing any possible conflicts with storm, electric/communications ductbanks or other utilities. 48. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 49. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 50. 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. 51. 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. 5.c Packet Pg. 383 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) 52. 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”. 53. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. FIRE DEPARTMENT The public fire hydrant located at the Hawthorne Avenue and Waverly Street intersection shall be upgraded to a Clow model 76. Contact CPA WGW 650-566-4501 to a submit work order. 54. The public fire hydrant located at Hawthorne Avenue and Waverley Street intersection shall be upgraded to a Clow model 76. Contact CPA WGW at 650-566-4501 to submit a work order. 54. PUBLIC WORKS WATERSHED PROTECTION The following comments must be addressed prior to issuance of a building permit: 55. Stormwater Treatment  Clear, detailed maintenance agreement regarding driveways composed of pervious pavers. These measures, although not required, will be inspected by City staff once project is completed  Must meet all Bay Regional Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements.  Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Handbook (download here: http://scvurppp-w2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for pervious pavement specifications. 56. Bay-friendly Guidelines (rescapeca.org)  Do not use chemicals fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil amendment.  Use Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost. Refer to the Bay- Friendly Landscape Guidelines: http://www.stopwaste.org/resource/brochures/bayfriendly- landscape-guidelines-sustainable-practices-landscape-professional for guidance.  Avoid compacting soil in areas that will be unpaved. 57. Stormwater Quality Protection  Trash and recycling containers must be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter the containers.  Drain downspouts to landscaping (outward from building as needed). 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. Formatted: Normal, No bullets or numbering Formatted: Normal, No bullets or numbering 5.c Packet Pg. 384 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) 58. PAMC 16.09.055 Unpolluted Water. Unpolluted water shall not be discharged through direct or indirect connection to the sanitary sewer system. 59. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper. On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt, provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinad at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory. 60. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping. Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical. The plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing. 61. 16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches. Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps. 62. PAMC 16.09.205(a) Cooling Systems, Pools, Spas, Fountains, Boilers and Heat Exchangers. It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas, fountains boilers and heat exchangers to the storm drain system. GREEN BUILDING & ENERGY REACH CODE REQUIREMENTS NOTICE FOR PERMIT APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED ON OR AFTER 6/22/15.: Please be advised that the Palo Alto City Council has approved Energy Ordinance 5326 and Green Building Ordinance 5326 for all new permit applications with an effective date for June 22nd, 2015, as summarized below. To review the specific changes, visit the Development Services webpage .On the left hand side under “explore”, hover over “Green Building” and select “Compliance” You may also email Melanie Jacobson at Melanie.Jacobson@CityofPaloAlto.org for specific questions about your project. 63. GREEN BUILDING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL a) The project is a new construction residential building of any size and therefore must meet the California Green Building Code mandatory requirements outlined in Chapter 4, (with local amendments) plus Tier 2 minimum pre-requisites and electives outlined in Appendix A4* (with local amendments). The project must hire a Green Building Special Inspector for a pre-permit third-party design review and a third-party green building inspection process. The project must select a Green Building Special Inspector from the City’s list of approved inspectors. PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5393 § 1, 2016) 5.c Packet Pg. 385 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) (1) *Note: Projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 shall not be required to fulfill any requirements outlined in Appendix A4.2 Energy Efficiency. All energy efficiency measures are found in the 2016 California Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18 as described in the Energy Reach Code section of this letter. b) Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO): The project is a residential new construction project with an aggregate landscape area of 500 square feet or more included in the project scope of work and therefore shall comply with the requirements of the Landscape Documentation Package (§492.3). Please see the Outdoor Water Efficiency Webpage for compliance documentation. (MWELO Title 23, Chapter 2.7) c) The project is a residential construction project of any size and therefore must meet the enhanced construction waste reduction at Tier 2 (7580% construction waste reduction). PAMC 16.14.160 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) d) The project is a new detached single-family dwelling and therefore shall comply with the following requirements for electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE): (a) The property owner shall provide as minimum a panel capable to accommodate a dedicated branch circuit and service capacity to install at least a 208/240V, 50 amperes grounded AC outlet (Level 2 EVSE). The raceway shall terminate in close proximity to the proposed location of the charging system into a listed cabinet, box, enclosure, or receptacle. The raceway shall be installed so that minimal removal of materials is necessary to complete the final installation. The raceway shall have capacity to accommodate a 100-ampere circuit. (b) Design. The proposed location of a charging station may be internal or external to the dwelling, and shall be in close proximity to an on-site parking space. The proposed design must comply with all applicable design guidelines, setbacks and other code requirements. PAMC 16.14.420 (Ord. 5393 §2, 2016) 65. LOCAL ENERGY REACH CODE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL a) The project includes new residential construction of any size and therefore triggers the Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. For all new single-family residential there are two compliance options and one all-electric exception. i) Single-Family Residential Options: (1) OPTION 1: Performance: New single- family residential construction projects without a solar photovoltaic (PV) system, the performance approach specified within the 2016 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed building is at least 10% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design, if the proposed building does not include a PV systems. (a) Solar Ready Infrastructure: A dedicated solar zone shall be located on the rood or overhang of the building and have a total area no less than 500 square feet. Install a conduit extending from the roofline and terminating at the electrical panel. 5.c Packet Pg. 386 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) (2) OPTION 2: Performance: New single- family residential construction projects with a solar photovoltaic (PV) system, the performance approach specified within the 2016 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of proposed single-family residential construction is at least 20% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design, if the proposed building includes a photovoltaic system. (a) Solar Ready Infrastructure: A dedicated solar zone shall be located on the rood or overhang of the building and have a total area no less than 500 square feet. Install a conduit extending from the roofline and terminating at the electrical panel. b) All Electric Exemption: i) All- Electric Exception to the Local Energy Reach Code: New single-family residential construction that is designed and built to be all-electric shall be exempt from the requirements of Section 100.3. Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. 66. Additional Green Building and Energy Reach Code information, ordinances and applications can be found at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp. If you have any questions regarding Green Building requirements please call the Green Building Consultant at (650) 329-2179. 5.c Packet Pg. 387 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) Attachment D Context-Based Design Criteria 356 Hawthorne Avenue 17PLN-00367 Pursuant to PAMC 18.13.060(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Massing and Building Facades Findings Massing and building facades shall be designed to create a residential scale in keeping Palo Alto neighborhoods, and to provide a relationship with the street(s). This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed designs of each unit utilizes varying materials, colors, and articulation along the building facades to help distinguish volumes, scale and mass. The street facing units provide front entries and walkways visible from the street that help engage visually from the street perspective and pedestrian walkways. 2. 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 can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed homes are designed to be compatible with existing abutting properties. The street facing units are proposed with one- and two-story designs that are appropriately dimensioned in height with respect to height and privacy of the surrounding structures along the streets they share, incorporating mitigation measures such as raised second-story window sill heights, obscured window, and landscape screening to ensure privacy is maintained. 3. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of a site. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed site design satisfies the open space requirements of the RM-15 zoning district (see Attachment F), providing adequate private and usable open space for residents and guests to utilize. 4. 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 site planning and proposed parking design work with the restrictive lot dimensions to provide efficient parking access for each unit while avoiding making it a visually detracting design aspect from the pedestrian environment. Low-profile landscaping is proposed in the front yards of both street facing units to distract and soften the views of the uncovered parking spaces. 5.d Packet Pg. 388 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : C o n t e x t - B a s e d D e s i g n C r i t e r i a C o m p l i a n c e ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) 5. Large (multi-acre) Sites Large (in excess of one acre) sites shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood. This finding is not applicable as the project site is 0.21 acres. 6. Housing Variety and Units on Individual Lots Multifamily projects may include a variety of unit types such as small-lot detached units, attached row houses/townhouse, and cottage clusters in order to achieve variety and create transitions to adjacent existing development. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed development includes both one- and two- story detached condominiums designs that are compatible with the adjacent existing developments. 7. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design shall be incorporated into the project. Green building design considers the environment during design and construction. Green building design aims for compatibility with the local environment: to protect, respect and benefit from it. In general, sustainable buildings are energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed development will be required to comply with the California Green Building Code and the City of Palo Alto’s local amendments; see PAMC Section 16.14. 5.d Packet Pg. 389 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : C o n t e x t - B a s e d D e s i g n C r i t e r i a C o m p l i a n c e ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) Attachment E Performance Criteria 356 Hawthorne Avenue, 17PLN-00367 Pursuant to PAMC 18.23, the following 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 project provides covered trash enclosures for each unit that shall be able to store at minimum the default service – one 32 gallon garbage cart, one 64 gallon recycling cart and one 96 gallon compost cart. As conditioned, the applicant will relocate the trash enclosures of Unit 2 and 3 away from the abutting residences to be fully consistent with the stated performance criteria. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The project is consistent with the stated performance criteria in that the outdoor sconces proposed on the first-floor level of each of the units are downward directed, resulting in minimal light pollution on neighboring properties. 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. The stated performance criteria are not applicable to this residential development project. 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 is consistent with the stated performance criteria in that the proposed landscape plan provides adequate screening between properties as appropriate and utilizes the canopy of existing trees on the subject site and the adjacent lots to screen views. 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 5.e Packet Pg. 390 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : P e r f o r m a n c e C r i t e r i a ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) 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 stated performance criteria is not applicable to this residential development project as the subject lot is located in a residential zone (RM- 15) that does not abut an industrial or commercially zoned property. 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 is consistent with the stated performance criteria in that the proposed parking layouts are designed to make the required parking spaces a secondary aspect to the overall visual impact of the homes. 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 project is consistent with the stated performance criteria in that the proposed site design does not create or increase potential conflicts for vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle access to the site, and that bicycle and pedestrian connections are maintained through and to the project site. The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. The stated performance criteria are not applicable to this residential development project. 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. The stated performance criteria are not applicable to this residential development 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 5.e Packet Pg. 391 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : P e r f o r m a n c e C r i t e r i a ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) ATTACHMENT F ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 356 Hawthorne Avenue, 17PLN-00367 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.13 (RM-15 DISTRICT) Regulation Required Proposed Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 8,500 sf area, 70 foot width, 100 foot depth 9,506 sf, 50 foot width, 189.98 foot depth Maximum Residential Density 15 units per 1 acre (3.27 units) 3 total units Minimum Front Yard 20 feet 20 feet (to the closest front exterior wall of Unit 1) Rear Yard (to alley) 10 feet 16 feet (to the closest rear exterior wall of Unit 3) Interior Side Yard (for lots w/widths of < 70 feet 6 feet 11 feet (left); 6 feet 3/4 inches (right) 6 feet 5/8 inches (left); 9 feet 2 3/8 inches (right) 6 feet 1 inches (left); 6 feet 7/8 inches (right) Max. Building Height 30 feet 23 feet 23 feet 5 inches 16 feet 8 inches Side Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at interior side lot line then 45 degree angle Compliant Rear Yard Daylight Plane* 10 feet at rear setback line then 45 degree angle Compliant Max. Site Coverage 35% (plus an additional 5% for covered patios or overhangs) 35% (3,325 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 0.5:1 (4,753 sf) 0.48:1 (4,561 sf) Minimum Site Open Space 35% (3,327 sf) 35% (3,325 sf) Minimum Usable Open Space 200 sf per unit 660 sf 597 sf 690 sf Minimum Common Open Space 100 sf per unit 287 sf 338 sf 450 sf Minimum Private Open Space 50 sf per unit 337 sf 358 sf 129 sf *Lots in the RM-15 zoning district which are less than 70 feet in width have no daylight plane beyond 10 feet from the property line Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Multiple-Family Residential Type Required Proposed Vehicle Parking Two (2) spaces per unit, of which at least one space per unit must be covered. Two (2) spaces per unit; each unit provides one (1) covered parking space Bicycle Parking One (1) Long-term bicycle parking space Three (3) total; one (1) for each unit 5.f Packet Pg. 392 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : Z o n i n g C o m p a r i s o n T a b l e ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) ATTACHMENT G5.g Packet Pg. 393 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n L e t t e r ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) 5.g Packet Pg. 394 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n L e t t e r ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) O-(650) 521-0109 356 HAWTHORNE AVE 3-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPEMENT Page 3 October 19, 2017 NORTH 356 HAWTHOREN AVENUE 357 BRYANT COURT EXISTING USE EXISTING USE HAWTHORNE RESIDENCEBRYANT CT.RESIDENCE GARAGE GARAGE DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY HA W T H O R N E BR Y A N T CT . Existing Structures: Currently, the property contains a total of four structures: two residences and two accessory structures (garages). Built in 1922 (per County records), there are several non-conformances with the applicable zone RM-15 ordinance. Of these various non-conformances most are considered "legal non-conforming" (e.g. setback encroachment and exceeds maximum allowable lot coverage), with the exception of the number of dwelling units in the Hawthorne Ave residence which results in a shortage of required two- stalls per unit off-street parking. We are proposing to construct three residential units which is the appropriate number of dwelling units for a 9,506 sf lot located in Zone RM-15. Below are photographs of the existing homes. 5.g Packet Pg. 395 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n L e t t e r ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) 5.g Packet Pg. 396 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n L e t t e r ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) 5.g Packet Pg. 397 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n L e t t e r ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) 5.g Packet Pg. 398 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n L e t t e r ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) 5.g Packet Pg. 399 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n L e t t e r ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) 5.g Packet Pg. 400 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n L e t t e r ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) 5.g Packet Pg. 401 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n L e t t e r ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) 5.g Packet Pg. 402 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n L e t t e r ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) 5.g Packet Pg. 403 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n L e t t e r ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) From:Brennan, Phillip To:"Steve Frankel" Cc:"Michael" Subject:RE: SGLG: 356 Hawthorne Ave/357 Bryant Court Revised Design Date:Monday, February 05, 2018 1:38:00 PM Steve, Conditions associated with demolition are typically handled at the building entitlement stage. My understanding is that the applicant is required to apply and be issued a "J" number by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and adhere to best practices related to dust mitigation and hazardous pollution (e.g. asbestos). I would contact our Building Department for any further specific related questions and information. Thank you, Phillip B. -----Original Message----- From: Steve Frankel [mailto:sfrankel@me.com] Sent: Friday, February 02, 2018 3:02 PM To: Brennan, Phillip Subject: Re: SGLG: 356 Hawthorne Ave/357 Bryant Court Revised Design Mr. Brennan, Regarding the subject project, I am thinking ahead and wonder what the City requires regarding demolition of these older structures and control of hazardous materials. Older paints can often have lead, and paster walls and wallboards can contain asbestos. Does the City require testing and identification of hazardous materials prior to demolition? Does the City require abatement of any identified hazardous materials prior to demolition? What controls are required during demolition to control dust? Regards, Steve Frankel 351 Bryant Court ATTACHMENT H5.h Packet Pg. 404 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : P u b l i c C o m m e n t ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) From:Brennan, Phillip To:"Michael" Subject:RE: SGLG: 356 Hawthorne Ave/357 Bryant Court Revised Design Date:Wednesday, January 03, 2018 11:03:00 AM Hi Michael, California "Good Neighbor" Law allows for neighboring residents to trim/prune vegetation that encroaches over any shared property line to the extent that it is not detrimental to the health of the tree. I'm not going to require pruning of any proposed tree canopy as a condition of approval. However, I would be mindful to provide adequate space for growth of any proposed trees and to provide tree barriers "blockers" for any proposed trees near the property line. Phillip B.- -----Original Message----- From: Michael [mailto:michael@mac-archcon.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 3:52 PM To: Brennan, Phillip Subject: SGLG: 356 Hawthorne Ave/357 Bryant Court Revised Design Phillip, I received the below email from the neighbor at 351 Bryant Ct. I am not sure how to respond to his comment re: the dripline overhanging adjacent properties. This is a common condition throughout the City - from decades-old landscapes with trees to newly landscaped projects. Limiting canopies from overhanging adjacent properties seems like an impossibility, not to mention a less-than natural setting of the multitude of trees in our City. Can you provide me with your thoughts on the neighbor's comment so that I can respond. Thank you, Michael MAC Architecture|Construction 135 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94301 o-(650) 521-0109 m-(650) 796-8895 www.mac-archcon.com -----Original Message----- From: Steve Frankel [mailto:sfrankel@me.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2017 10:02 PM To: Michael <michael@mac-archcon.com> Subject: Re: SGLG: 356 Hawthorne Ave/357 Bryant Court Revised Design Michael, I hope you enjoyed the Thanksgiving holiday. I reviewed your revised design plan for the 356 Hawthorne project. It seems you addressed many of my concerns. I appreciate your incorporating horizontal siding elements into the units. I am pleased the Unit 3 driveway and garage were swapped to afford me more privacy. 5.h Packet Pg. 405 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : P u b l i c C o m m e n t ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) The location of the Unit 3 trash receptacles should be moved to the west side of the bicycle locker to move them away from my bedroom windows. My concern are odors and flies. I would prefer the common property fence between Unit 3 and my property to be full allowed height starting at 16 feet from the Bryant Court public right-of-way, continuing west towards Hawthorne Ave. This appears as represented on Drawing 5, however I would prefer a fence that does not allow viewing through to my house. Drawing 6 seems to indicate new landscape with tree drip lines across my property line. This must be avoided. Also any landscape should include root blocker to avoid roots and plants moving under the fences to other property. Regards, Steve Frankel 351 Bryant Court 5.h Packet Pg. 406 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : P u b l i c C o m m e n t ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) Attachment I 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 “356 Hawthorne Avenue” and open record by clicking on the green dot 3. Review the record details and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. Open the attachment named “356 Hawthorne_12.20.2017_ARB Submittal (revised).pdf” and dated 01/05/2018. 5.i Packet Pg. 407 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : P r o j e c t P l a n s ( 8 8 9 8 : 3 5 6 H a w t h o r n e A v e n u e : T h r e e R e s i d e n t i a l U n i t s ( 1 s t f o r m a l ) ) City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Alexander Lew, Vice Chair Kyu Kim, Board Member Wynne Furth, Peter Baltay, Robert Gooyer Absent: Chair Lew: (Video started mid-sentence) Review Board meeting for December 7, 2017. Can we have a roll call, please? Oral Communications Chair Lew: Great, thank you. Now is the time for oral communications for items that are not on the agenda and I don’t think that I have any. I think I have lots of speaker’s cards for Item Number Two. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and Administrative Staff-Level Architectural Review Approvals Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 250 Hamilton Avenue [17PLN-00169]: Consideration of a Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permit Application for the Deployment of Small Cell Wireless Communication Equipment on Utility Poles in the Public Right of Way. This Application Proposes 15 Small Cell Node Locations Within the Mid-Town, Palo Verde, St. Claire Gardens, and South of Mid-Town Neighborhoods. The Approximate Location of Each of the Nodes is Available Online at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62257. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: Various. For More Information Contact Project Planner Rebecca Atkinson at rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Lew: Let’s go into the first Item, Number two, a public hearing for a quasi-judicial item; 250 Hamilton Avenue. Deployment of small cell wireless communication equipment on utility poles in the public right of way. The application proposes 15 small cell node locations within the Mid-Town, Palo Verde, St. Claire Gardens, and South of Mid-Town neighborhoods. The approximate location of each of the nodes is available at cityofpaloalto.org – I won’t read the whole thing here but it’s on the agenda. The environmental assessment is pending and the zone district various. Our project planner here today is Rebecca Atkinson and maybe I’ll take a moment here to introduce all the Staff. We have our Chief ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: December 7, 2017 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 Planning Official Amy French, Assistant Planning Director Jonathan Lait, and from the City Attorney’s Office Albert Yang. I think what I wanted to outline first is we’re going to do disclosures from the Board Members, we’ll do a Staff presentation, applicant presentation, and then we’ll have public comments. I have a lot of speaker cards so that will probably go on for about an hour. Then the applicant will have time for a rebuttal and then we’ll do Board Member questions and comments. The recommended – Staff recommendation is to continue this a date uncertain which is different than in the agenda so let’s get started. Are there any disclosures from the Staff – Board. Could you please come to the microphone because we’re all – it’s on (inaudible). Ms. Genie Fleming: Of course, excuse me, I’m sorry I missed what you said. Did you just say that the – this is not going to be continued until January, what was it 17th or 18th but that a date has not been set? Chair Lew: Yes. Ms. Fleming: Alright. Mr. Jonathan Lait, Assistant Director of Planning: I can speak to that so… Ms. Fleming: Thank you for explaining and also if you could just example, almost everybody here with us is new to this process so we have been assuming that this is a pole by pole process, is it? Mr. Lait: Ok so… Chair Lew: Yeah, let's differ to Staff. Mr. Lait: Why don’t we – so I’ll respond to the question and then we’re going to go back to our disclosers and then we’re going to have the public, the presentations and so forth and Rebecca, in her presentation, will describe the application that’s before us. One clarification, we have a recommendation in the Staff report that it be continued to I think it’s January 18th. Since that agenda has been published and Rebecca will speak to this in her presentation, we’re recommending that the ARB continue this item to a date uncertain. We would re-notice a future public hearing that would take place probably in January or February but right now we’ll go to disclosures, then we’ll go to the Staff, then the applicant and then public testament. Thank you. Ms. Fleming: And may I ask… Mr. Lait: No, I’m sorry, excuse me, we do need to stick to this program. If you want we can have a sidebar conversation while the proceeding begins, ok? Female: Thank you, I appreciate that. Mr. Lait: Thank you. Chair Lew: Kyu. Vice Chair Kim: Yes, so I will disclose that back in February of this year I did meet with some representatives of Verizon, as well as Paul Albritton. Chair Lew: Peter. Board Member Baltay: I’d like to disclose that I met with numerous members of the public on site and in very informal capacity, just discussing this applicant. I don’t have anybody’s names or anything but just – I was out there talking to quite a few people. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Chair Lew: I would just disclose that I visited the mock-up yesterday and I also looked at it previously before they added the shrouds and that I visited all of the sites. Wynne. Board Member Furth: I do have visited the sites and looked at other antenna installations around the City. Vice Chair Kim: I three. Board Member Gooyer: Ok, I guess I didn’t – yes, I visited all the sites also. Chair Lew: Rebecca. Ms. Rebecca Atkinson, Project Planner: Thank you, Chair and Board Members, good morning. The project is as you stated in your introduction for 15 small cell deployment node locations in multiple neighborhoods including Mid-Town, South of Mid-Town, St. Claire Gardens, Palo Verde neighborhoods and (inaudible). This is the first cluster of multiple clusters that are anticipated to come through under the Vinculums application on behalf of Verizon. We have a total of three Formal Applications to date and I will have the application numbers on our last slide for everyone’s reference. In general, we have three Formal Applications on file right now. We anticipate applications that would include up to and about 93 nodes eventually. Verizon and Vinculums propose three equipment configurations in the September 12th plans. I think the September 12th plans are really important to note because that’s the current submittal that we wrote the Staff report on. The applicant plans to debut some additional design configurations options today that Staff has not yet reviewed and when I say Staff, I mean not just Planning Staff but Urban Forestry, Electrical Utilities, City Attorney and things like that. So, we haven’t reviewed what’s going to be debuted today. I wanted to also let you and members of the public know that we do have a City Manager’s website available to follow this project, as well as all wireless projects on City Manager. I thought that was really important to prepare for members of the public. I’ll just briefly show here, just for reference, the location map. There are three configurations identified in color codes and in brief, Configuration One as the ground mounted cabinet and everything else is pole mounted on the other two configurations. Again, these are the configurations from the September 12th plans, which you also saw in the prelim. The purpose of today’s meeting is to receive feedback from the public and ARB Members and we also hope that you will discuss key questions posed by Staff and the applicant. Here’s a slide that outlines the requested feedback. Staff has, in general, a request for feedback on location information and I’m really interested in where nodes meet the findings or maybe where they don’t. I’m interested in feedback and the applicant is interested in feedback on that in terms of evolving their project so just in general. As well as locations of nodes near corners with respect to Architectural Review Finding 2. Locations of nodes in proximity to other existing adjacent wireless installations relative to Architectural Review Finding 2B. Landscaping at all nodes with respects to Finding 5. The applicant in this last plan set put in some screening trees and some nodes – not necessarily to screen the equipment 100% but just to interrupt views and we’re like to hear some feedback on that. Any feedback that you might have on the orientation of the pole mounted equipment with respect to Architectural Review Finding 4 and physical and visual clearance of equipment above sidewalks with respects again to Architectural Review Finding 4. That’s a lot, I know you’re not going to make a motion today but in any case, that’s the kind of direction Staff would find really helpful. The applicant is requesting feedback in regards to design options with respect to Architectural Review Finding 3. This is just a brief slide to outline for reference that we have many requirements that we have to go through in order to process and review a Tier Three Wireless Communication Facility Permit. Architectural Review Board has a purview and in addition to the purview of the Architectural Review Board, we have all of these other in additional requirements. Including that this project much be found to be compliant with FCC Radio Frequency Emission Standards and Noise Standard and Policies, those are really key review requirements. Also, particular to wireless applications we have this timeline – processing timeline commonly referred to as the Shot Clock and this presentation is available for members of the public to review as well. Just in brief, our – we have a current tolling agreement in place with the applicant and that tolling extends into February 2018. Next steps for this application, the public and Architectural Review Board discussion today and we’re really looking forward to that. We have a recommendation to – for continuance for a date uncertain instead of the January 18th. City of Palo Alto Page 4 We plan to re-notice any future meeting in order to – the next bullet I think is really important, Staff is anticipating a comprehensive resubmittal of all application materials for the public review and City review. Including all City departments and including further evaluation of the project relative to noise and radio frequency emissions. Here’s my contact information and again, the City Manager’s website and just so you know, here’s this pocket slide with the application number for reference that we have on file. We have Crown Castle, we have a preliminary application for AT&T and I’d be happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Oh, I do have some additional remarks, I apologize. We did receive some correspondence this morning which we don’t have copies of. It looks like it’s unique correspondence so anybody who turned this in, I’d be happy to get more copies around but I just wanted to acknowledge the receipt of additional public correspondence this morning. We also compiled public correspondence up until last night and it’s At Places here. I think all total, my estimate is we received about 1,000 pages thus far of public correspondence. I really want to appreciate the public for weighing in, we have members of the public here today obviously. We also have City Staff members that worked on the project, including Albert, Jim Fleming, Greg, Henry and Dave Doctor of Urban Forestry and Amy French. Our sub-consultant Jonathan Kramer from Telecom is not available today to attend but he will be able to attend a future meeting and a color and materials board is available for review. Thank you very much. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Rebecca. For the applicant, you have 10-minutes. Mr. Rommel Angeles: Alright, Chairmen, Members of the ARB, good morning. My name is Rommel Angeles, I am with Verizon Wireless and I am the manager of the small cell deployment for northern California and thank you for the time this morning. We’re here to present the Verizon Wireless small cell project here in the City of Palo Alto. On May of 2017, we presented on the preliminary ARB hearing and we received feedback from the Board. We’ve also been working with the Staff, received comments from the Staff and the community throughout the length of the project. What we wanted to say today is that we heard you, we received your feedback, we received your comments, and we’ve incorporated these feedbacks and comments into our new designs that we will present to you today. We’re requesting your feedback and recommendation so that we can finalize our designs and we can submit in January of 2018. Just a brief timeline of the project thus far so on June 27th of 2016, Verizon and the City of Palo Alto signed a Master License Agreement for the ability for Verizon to attach on City assets in the public right of way. On March 30th, 2017, we held a community meeting for Cluster One at the Palo Alto Art Center. On May 18th of this year we attended our preliminary ARB hearing with the project and subsequent to that we submitted our formal application. On October 5th, 2017, we conducted a text campaign on the project and we received a great positive response from the residents. We received 430 people in favor of the project and only 6 that are opposed to the project. So, as you can see, we’ve been working with the City for about a year and half on this project and we’ve received a lot of comments on design. Here’s a summary of the feedback that we received from the ARB and the Staff. The first item is to reduce the standoff between the equipment and the pole and to put it closed into the – onto the utility poles. Proposing a shroud around the bayonet and that is the extension of the pole to the antenna to provide some sort of shrouding component into that design. The third item is to propose a shroud on the equipment on the pole to make it more seamless and provide some covers into the cabling and the axillary equipment. Painting the bracket and all the components of the equipment to match the pole and to add some custom landscaping on the City – to blend in with the streets. Then from the community side we have received overwhelming feedback pertaining to noise. We received feedback from the residents in that they don’t want any additional component to add noise to anything that we’re putting into the utility poles. This slide here shows the initial three designs that we have presented in the preliminary ARB. You can see from the design on the left, this is actually our very first design that we’ve come up with and it takes about 68-cubic feet of form factor. That is due to the cabinet on the ground where the backup batteries are placed. The designs that we’re going to propose to you today will significantly reduce the form factor of the design and there are four designs that we’ve come up with. The first design is what we call the Sun Shield Design so what we’ve done here is that as you can see from the design on the right in this drawing, we’ve put panels of metal between the radios and the purpose of this is to cover the cabling and all the other equipment between the radio. The Palo Alto – the mock site that we have at the Palo Alto Art Center actually reflects that particular configuration. What this enables us to do is to cover the cabling, make it look a little cleaner and it enabled us to move the City of Palo Alto Page 5 equipment closer to the pole and that’s one of the feedback that we received from the Board. The second design is the Cake Design so this is an evolution of the Sun Shield Design. What we’ve done here is instead of having individual panels connected into the radio, we’ve come up with two separate boxes; the top box and the bottom box. The top box will provide a covering – a seamless covering into the top two radios and the bottom box covers the bottom radio so this is very similar to the Sun Shield Design except that it’s a lot cleaner because it’s just one unit or two separate units covering the equipment. Again, the objective of covering the equipment and moving the them closer into the pole. The third design is called the Box Design so what we’ve done here is that instead of two separate components like the Cake Design, we’ve come up with one universal box that covers all of the radios. So, the dimension of the box is the same at the bottom to the top of the radio and again, accomplishing the covering and moving them closer into the pole. Then the fourth design is what’s called the Cage Design and in this particular design we have put all of our radios and equipment into one box and instead of all of the radios in a vertical configuration, the top two radios were configured into a pancake configuration. So, in this case, we were able to accomplish by lowering the size of the box from about 11-feet to 7-feet but in doing so, the depth of the box gets a little deeper. This would be a matter of preference in whether it would be longer or narrow but deeper or thicker. All of these designs accomplish those feedbacks that we’ve received from the Board. I also want to discuss the Bayonet Shroud, we’ve been working with the CPAU on this. What we’re trying to accomplish here is to have a seamless design from the pole all the way to the antenna. The Bayonet is required because we need that clearance between the antenna and the nearest conductor of about 7-feet so what we’re trying to accomplish here is to provide that shroud to make it look like one unit. We’re still working with CPAU on this but so far with the feedback we’ve received, it’s very positive so we’re looking forward to finalizing this design that we can actually build. In summary, these are some of the components that we’ve included into our revised designs. Number one is removing all the noise emitting equipment so as Rebecca mentioned in the design earlier, there were four poles – four nodes that had back up battery components in the design. Actually, those fans and those backup batteries cabinets are the ones that producing the noise because the fans are designed to pull the batteries. We have illuminated those cabinets on all of our designs so there will be no noise emitting equipment on any of these designs we’re presenting. The radios and the antennas do not produce any noise, they are passively cooled and they don’t produce any noise. We’ve reduced the volume of the equipment so from the 68-cubic feet, now we’re looking at about 19-20-cubic feet of form factor on the equipment. We’ve reduce the standoff bracket to now we’re looking at about 5-inches away from the pole so the equipment got closer into the pole. Then we also propose camouflage landscaping and also, we will paint all of the equipment to match. So, what is us ask from Verizon to the ARB today? We’re asking your preference on the concealment design options that we have presented; the Sun Shield Design, the Cake Design, the Box Design or the Cage Design. Also, will you be supporting the shroud options that we’ve designed to conceal the bayonet on the pole. With that, we’ll open up to questions later on in the meeting, thank you very much. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Mr. Angeles. Ok, so we’re going to do the public speaking next. I think we have – so the first speaker I have for Genie Fleming and I do – do you want to check with Staff? I think that – was she going to speak for five people? Ok and – so, it’s the first five cards? Right so Genie Fleming, is it [phonics] [Yehia Wong], Ann [Lum], Annette no last name, and it is Mary Ella or [Manchella Yarma – Varma]. So, you’ll have 15-minutes for – in total and then all the other public speakers will have 3-minutes. Ms. Fleming: Alright, thank you, good morning to all of you. As you just introduced me I won’t introduce myself but I will say that I’m with United Neighbors which is a Grass Roots Group of Palo Alto resident all over the City, not just in Cluster One but of course, we are all concerned with what’s going on in Cluster One. United Neighbors visited each of the 15 proposed poles for Verizon to install a site and we reviewed each of those poles in terms of the guidelines that you laid out for approving or denying approval to each of these sites. We have submitted our review of each of the 15 poles to you, have you received those? No, you haven’t. We turned those in before your cut off time yesterday so I’m confused about why they haven’t received them as I read your documents regarding these hearings, as long as they are received before 3 o’clock on the day before they will be distributed here today. So, you have not distributed that ma'am? City of Palo Alto Page 6 Mr. Lait: I’ll just say, this is the time for your presentation to the Board. The Board can ask us questions but this is not a dialog between the public and Staff at the moment, Chair. So, if we can focus on the presentation and if there are questions we need to answer afterward we will do that. Ms. Fleming: Well, all of you, I trust you will have an opportunity to reveal – to reveal, to review our review of each of these poles site. I don’t have too much time here, let me say that first of all, of course, we looked at these sites with respect to siting, with respect to why Verizon chose to put the sites there. We understood your objective to be that these be as hidden as possible and that is that any equipment that is on these poles be as hidden as possible. I can tell you in summary that almost all of these sites have absolutely no tree screening or any other kinds of screening. So, not surprisingly, that means that just about every one of these sites is in full view of not just one home but multiple homes. Including, of course, in full view of active living areas in those homes, in full view of pedestrian and cyclists and in full view of cars. Moreover them – moreover, many of them are in very close proximity to intersections so they are in full view not just of traffic on the street in which they are being erected but to cars on other streets. With respect to safety and in particular fire safety, almost none of these sites meet your directive that the cell towers be on poles with the least electrical equipment, the lowest voltage and the most support. For example, in almost every case Verizon is planning to put a 4-foot antenna on top of a 50- foot pole within exceedingly close proximity to high voltage wires. I ask you to picture that antenna whipping around in one of our windy winter storms. One of the things that I’ve included with the packet for you is an article from the Los Angeles Times that talks about a $99 million fine brought against a utility company and against Telecom companies, including Verizon, because they are being blamed for the Malibu Canyon fires. It is there equipment overloading these poles that lead to these fires. Moreover, the assertion has been made that these companies, again including Verizon, tried to hide evidence that it was their equipment overloading these old poles that lead to the fires. A couple points with respect to design, the housing stock of Cluster One does now consist of Quonset Huts. This material – this – these facilities that Verizon proposes to install are completely incompatible with the nearest homes or indeed any home in Cluster One or any home in Palo Alto; again, our housing stock is not Quonset Huts. They do not comply with Palo Alto’s aesthetic ordinances. Verizon is proposing these installations that consist of hundreds of pounds of noisy – I hope I can believe the gentleman who just spoke that in fact there will be no noise but let’s say merely ugly, crude metal boxes and cylinders, hundreds of pounds on them because that’s what’s cheap for them. Not because they can’t do a lot better, not because they can’t put in installations that are much more respectful of this community and of our aesthetics. Other communities have demanded that cell companies, just for example, underground their equipment and guess what, Verizon and AT&T can do that. I have a comment about significant gap, as you know there is no – if there is no – pardon me, if there is no significant gap in cellular coverage, Palo Alto may, under federal law, deny approval for Verizon’s proposed cell towers. In that regard, Verizon submitted a coverage map to the City that it asserts demonstrate that there are significant gaps in coverage. Those maps don’t demonstrate anything, they are assertions in a visual format. There is literally no data and no evidence in those maps. I can also tell you with respect to significant gap that we visited every single site and to be brief, not only was service just fine but we were able to play a live video stream at each and the quality of the video was excellent. So, I am actually giving you some data unlike Verizon which didn’t give you any data, they quantified nothing. They didn’t even bother to pretend that they were telling you anything. Verizon’s playbook is really simple, they come into a City like ours, they overwhelm Staff with a huge volume of applications and in this case, over a hundred and they come with their bullying lawyers and well-paid consultants. Their game plan is to have the City just give up on fighting back. Why are they doing this? Well, they see a window of opportunity to install these ugly cell towers in our community that are dirt cheap for them and they never plan to remove them. This will be the legacy here, to have this material in our communities forever, they will never remove them. These facilities are so cheap for them. We’re asking you today to not let these people get away with this. We’re asking you to please insist that Verizon abide by our aesthetics, noise and other ordinances just as we residents of Palo Alto have to do. Piedmont is doing this, Palos Verdes is doing this, Irvine is doing this, Palo Alto surely can do this too. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you. I do want to ask the audience not to applaud for any speakers. We want to have an environment such that anybody can say whatever – feel comfortable to say whatever opinion City of Palo Alto Page 7 they have. So, I do request you do that and we do that for all City meetings, all – the City Council does that. Ms. Fleming: Excuse me, did I use my full 15-minutes? Chair Lew: You did not, you used about half. Ms. Fleming: I used about half, ok. Well, I scarcely know where to begin. You know I’m really concerned that you haven’t see the materials that we prepared for you. We submitted those in a timely manner and you were supposed to have them today and I’m concerned about this. I’m hoping that perhaps that there’s somebody on City Staff, one of the 1,500 people, who works for the City of Palo Alto who might be available to make copies of those materials for you. Is it possible to get a response? Chair Lew: I don’t have a particular response. Maybe the City Attorney wants to say – has something to say about the time window but we did receive a public communication packet here, At Places today, so it’s possible that it could be in there. Ms. Fleming: I’m sorry. Ok, well, since I have a couple of minutes left, I would like to make one final point and it’s rather a small one but I think it speaks to the kind of people we’re dealing with when we’re dealing with Verizon and that’s the following. When I was standing in the lobby I heard one of their Vinculums flaks talking to a Palo Alto resident who said that she was here because what really made her support having these cell towers was that she had read that it was – that emergency calls where being dropped. They were being lost because Verizon didn’t have enough cell towers in our community and the context here is, Verizon sent out a letter to everybody in Palo Alto who’s near one of these sites, in fact making that claim that emergency calls where being dropped. I have asked Verizon and Vinculums for any kind of data that they have on that point, anything, anything at all that supports their assertion that emergency calls have ever been dropped because there isn’t sufficient coverage in Palo Alto. They, of course, have not bothered to respond to me. This is fear mongering of the worst type. They are sending the people of Palo Alto letters with fantasies, with made-up language in them because they will do anything to get this cheap equipment into our town. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Ms. Fleming. The next speaker will be William [phonetics] [Stracka], followed by Barbra [phonics] [Stracka] and then Francesca [phonetics][Coutts] and you have 3-minutes. Mr. William Stracka: Ok, I’ll try to rush it through. I’m Doctor William [Strocka], I have – I’m a Ph.D. whose worked in the aerospace industry for a number of years but although I’m retired at this point. Currently and one of the reasons why I came to this, I’m a volunteer for the Offices of Emergency Services which is located here in this building. The function that I have with the OES is communications in case of an emergency. This means I have to carry a handheld radio when I’m on-call, as well as being available for calls on my cell phone. One of the things that I will note, not only for our house but for other houses around, one of the things that I find is that in fact the – quite contrary to what was stated here, we have much weaker calls and service inside of the house. I can go outside on the balcony and get better reception but just having a house around your cell phone actually does reduce the strength of the call. So, I’m all in favor of increasing the coverage in these small cell devices. I’m also pretty familiar with the benefits and risks of using devices that emit electrical radiation. There was a lot of stuff that was handed out -- flyers that were handed out talking about the amount of radiation and in fact, if you read some of the stuff that was put out, we’re all going to be fried like Colonel Sander’s chicken. They are talking about a lot of things that are there and a question for all of you to think about, do you have a cell phone? Do you have a computer? Do you have a TV set – one of these large screen TV sets? Those all put out radiation so when you talk about the radiation from a cell phone or a tower, you better think about the other things that you have as well. Anyhow, as a hand radio operator and volunteer with OES, I do have an obligation to the citizens here of Palo Alto to be readily available. Which means that I have to be available when an emergency such as flooding of the rivers and streams that flow through our town or events such as 4th of July when people all over the area are firing off fireworks and setting fires as it turns out. Well, the big ones coming one of these days --- oh, that means stop right now huh? City of Palo Alto Page 8 Chair Lew: Yes, please but – yes so – but you can send emails and we will have another meeting for this so you will have another opportunity to speak. Mr. Stracka: Oh, ok, thank you. Chair Lew: Thank you. Barbra Stracka. Ms. Barbra Stracka: My name is Barbra Stracka and I live in Mid-Town and the reason that I am for this project is that the coverage inside my house is sparse. If I we were want to receive, which I do, the reverse 911 call, I may not get them because the coverage in my house is too weak. Getting any one of these boosters is not going to help because there’s yet another thing and that is that you have to increase the coverage and that these cell towers would do. They are small and they are not going to be in the way. The services for the emergency people need to be supported and they also need wide coverage and increased coverage. I volunteer also with the emergency services and us my cell phone and my hand radio to participate in that. Those services are very important to the community’s safety and again, needing wider coverage with the cell towers. In addition, we need towers to support the ever- growing increase in the number of people using cell phones and other devices that use the cells. Verizon had a very informative meeting in the spring where they addressed both the noise and the RF radiation. They have shown that they have addressed – just today saying that they will completely remove all the noise and I will note that if you’re worried about noise, we have aircraft, we have 101, we have trains, and you can’t get away from noise from outside your house. The RF remission – I mean emission, there are other devices in your home that give more emission than these towers would give. They are far enough away from homes and they demonstrated that with an outside consultant who showed the range of any of this and it affected no homes within the area of each of the towers. So, I would like the Committee to approve the installation of these cell towers. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, followed by Jerry Finn and Jim Vanhorn. Ms. Francesca Coutts: I’m Francesca Coutts and I’ve been a resident of Palo Alto for the last 50-years and lived in the same house in the Cluster One neighborhood for 32-years. I’m concerned about the unsightliness of the cell nodes and the lack of thoughtful consideration of the surrounding environment. I have friends in the neighborhood who have Verizon cell service. They say their service is good and see no need for more cell nodes. I’m worried about the extra 200 lbs. on a pole, especially in the case of an earthquake or fire; such as recently we saw what happened in Santa Rosa. I am shocked that we taxpayers are liable, not Verizon if a utility pole with a cell tower on it causes damage or hurts someone. I’m looking forward to having underground utilities someday and I’m afraid these cell nodes will make that more difficult, if not impossible. I have carefully examined many of the proposed locations in Cluster One and many of the cell nodes will stick out like sore thumbs. They will make our neighborhoods an aseptically unpleasing place to be and destroy the scenic qualities of Palo Alto. All our property values would suffer while Verizon’s profits increase. There are 19 utility substations and well sites in Palo Alto and that is where these cell nodes should be placed, just like the mock one at 1350 Newell. Otherwise, Verizon should rent space on a commercial or industrial building or go underground as we all hope to someday. Please deny Verizon’s request to put these cell nodes in our residential neighborhoods. They are visually intrusive and are not architecturally compatible with our neighborhood. They do not blend with the existing surroundings and negatively impact public health, safety, and welfare among other things. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you and again, please no applause. Jerry Finn and then Jim Vanhorn and Chris Lyn. Mr. Jerry Finn: Hi, I’m Jerry, I’m also against the installation of cells – these antennas. A few points that I wanted to make, one is I wanted to understand the process after the antenna has been put on the poles if that does happen. Can Verizon then come back and put more installation on because there is a reason why the original proposal included fans for the battery packs. I would assume that there must become City of Palo Alto Page 9 performance reasons or perhaps stability or emergency reasons why the batteries were these in the first place. So, if it is true that would improve emergency response and we remove the batteries, during emergencies it doesn’t really help us at all so I want to call (inaudible) to that question. Next thing is the text campaigned that was mentioned in the very beginning where they actually saw something like 400 plus respondents that were for the proposal. I do want to say that I did follow an online petition that Verizon has made available to Palo Alto residents and when I went through it myself there was no option for me to say I am not for the project. In fact, in product design, this is called a negative pattern in which you tell users that we want to hear your support but you don’t provide or your obscure options for users – for people who are against this option so that I call into question. The funny thing is, I’m not a Verizon customer and I was able to go through that survey and they never asked me at any time for Verizon customer ID so I also don’t know if those users – those respondents were actually Verizon customers that they reached out too. Home values, we could talk here all we want about how pretty we’re going to design the antennas but the fact is that they will be visible. Perceived value or perceived impact of the antennas in front of our homes and these telephones are literally right in front of homes. Many time – in fact in all the clusters that – in all the Cluster One poles that I’ve been too, they are visible within 30-feet, at most, from inside the home. So, imagine how that would do to our home values when you have someone trying to sell their homes and they see this big antenna. However well it’s distinguished, it’s still going to be a big box that’s sitting there and it will be super visible. Your neighbors – the pole may not be in front of your house but if you’re neighbor’s house – their value was affected, eventually, it will affect your own value so I call that also into question. I think we need to consider that in addition to all the aesthetics and whether or not it fits with home styles here. Anyway, so again, I strongly oppose the antennas, thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Mr. Fan. Jim Vanhorn. Mr. Jim Vanhorn: I also am a 50-year resident of Palo Alto. I’m a Professor at Stanford and economics is my specialty. I’m opposed to this Verizon proposal. I will not repeat some of the things that have already been said in that position. I am a Verizon customer, I have not have had any problems with respect to cell phone coverage in the City of Palo Alto. I have not been everywhere in Palo Alto but I have not had a problem and I suspect that the main beneficiary of this is on a (inaudible) with people on cell phones that pass from one cell tower to another with inadequate service, perhaps in the transition. I’m not sure that’s a particularly worthy cause for this proposal. Also, I’m concerned with the liability on the equipment. If a teenager climbs up or anybody climbs up and accidentally pulls down and crashes to the ground, the City, as I understand it, there’s that liability and will be sued. I do not think that Verizon bares any of that. The return to Palo Alto of roughly $260 per antenna a year is very, very small in relation to the cost of a cell tower or other means of providing service. Moreover, what we will find is that if Verizon is approved, other companies will also be approved and virtually every telephone pole – power pole in Palo Alto will have this equipment on it so for these reasons I am opposed. In addition to reasons of noise which may or may not be abated entirely and other aspects that affect our community. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Vanhorn. Next speakers will be Chris Lyn, followed by – is it Channing? Channing Nick or Channing [phonics][New] and Herk Quan. Mr. Chris Lyn: Good morning. I am a property owner -- my name is Chris Lyn and I’m a property owner and resident at 2802 Lewis Road, one of the proposed sites for one of the small cell towers. I’m opposed to the project in its current form. I understand – I use cell phones, I understand the desire to increase coverage but I am somewhat puzzled that Verizon’s own coverage map on their website shows full strength coverage throughout my neighborhood. So, there some disingenuous there that makes me not understand what the real coverage needs are. My many – I understand that there are additional applications coming in the future from other companies and it seems that this piecemeal approach to adding cell towers throughout the City will just result in a creeping presence of these unsightly towers. I don’t know when it will end so it seems like there’s not a strategic approach to solving the problem. I’m not particularly concerned with the radiation but mainly the unsightliness of the tower and the potential for noise. I know the tower down the street from me is making constant fan noise. An earlier speaker referred to being unable to escape noise due to jets and whatnot but that’s not quite true. My front yard City of Palo Alto Page 10 right now, at many times, is completely silent. I can’t even hear 101 when the weather conditions are correct or just right but I have no desire to have a fan or a bunch of boxes on the tower. The proposals I saw today looked like just reconfigurations of boxes and not really a new design. I think there’s no reason these shouldn’t be treated essentially like public art if they are going to be installed in neighborhoods. They should be every bit as attractive as some of the more attractive public art that Palo Alto has. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Mr. Lyn. Then is it Chinning or Channing New? No, ok, we’ll pull another card. Herk Quan. Mr. Herk Quan: Chairman and the Board, good morning. I’m Herk Quan, I have a Ph.D. in electrical and computer engineering. I have actually spoken here on May 18th but I think you may remember me. Basically, I’m the owner of 2490 Lewis Road and I’m opposed to this project; totally opposing it. The fact is that I – actually in the package I think one of the letters actually belongs to my house with clear pictures of how my daughter’s room faces this pole. We basically just finished our remodeling and we just moved back to our house at the end of July, I think so basically August. Now our driveway is right next to this pole and we just did – the City just sent out some people to clear up the branches and everything. They also cut down a tree around that area and made it real clean so basically, that pole is totally visible to the entire public there. There’s no way you cannot see these big ugly boxes on the pole. I mean, not to mention the noise if it’s going to cause any problems. I’m actually the – eligible to talk about the OES that somebody talked about earlier. I’m actually apart of the PAN, the neighbor's group. I actually also operate the radios when we – in case any emergencies -- so basically, we are trained to not believe in the wireless system when there are emergencies like the big one coming. We basically have these hand- held devices ready all the time. When we are called to service, we also know how to call, which channel to listen to and what – who –how to communicate to people. Basically – and I also have land lines at home so what’s the purpose of land lines? Basically, if you have emergencies, you are being told by even Skype or anybody who produces wireless or this communication equipment, you don’t trust this equipment basically. So, the thing is not to mention those things then and if you look at pictures in the packet later, you can see how clearly this pole is now too – from our backyard to our great room and from our rooms. Everywhere you can basically see clearly the entire bare pole right there. Basically, I just oppose to the – we think that our property value will basically go down if people see oh, you have big antenna close to this high voltage wire on the pole. Then basically I don’t know what to describe so please look at that carefully in the letter. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Mr. Quan. Next speaker is [phonetics] [Kauri Shugee], followed by Russian Wyn and is it Jon Macintyre or Joan Maken – [phonics Mellenchunk]. Mr. Quan: Kauri is my wife so I already spoke on behalf of (inaudible) – yeah, thanks. Chair Lew: Excellent and is there a Russian Wyn? Ok, great. Mr. Russian Wyn: Hi, good morning. I’m Russian, I live close to a pole near 2802 Lewis Road which a small cell will be proposed to be installed. We’ve used a cell phone for many years, we (inaudible) connection with a reception problem and that the signal was very strong inside the house and outside the house. Actually, one AT&T small facility is (inaudible) install in our neighborhood block, just off of 400- feet from this pole. We didn’t understand why two small cells are required to be installed so close in distance. When you’re – these two facilities belong to two different companies but there are so many providers so if each one asks to install so we don’t know what’s happening in Palo Alto. We totally disagree in install this cell in a residential area and there are many other reasons. We hope the City of Palo Alto keep the (inaudible) and natural. Ok, thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Mr. Wyn. Jon Mellenchuck, followed by James [phonetics][Mishocko]. Mr. Jon Mellenchuck: I’m Jon Mellenchuck and I’m a resident of Palo Alto since 2002. I’m in South Palo Alto and the cell towers as planned right now are not in the neighborhood that I live in but I’m concerned City of Palo Alto Page 11 about the creeping approach and a lack of overall strategy that the City is – is absent in the City’s plan for introducing cell towers. I oppose the project for all the reasons that my other neighbors have suggested and I would just emphasize that I think the towers as presented are ugly. They are the cheapest possible technology and you can see that it’s going to kind of be intermetal battle like a tennis match. We’re going to say they’re cheap, they are going to say it’s not possible – the Verizon people are going to say that it’s not possible to make more aesthetically pleasing and less offensively looking cell towers. I think that there are too many poles overall in the plan. I’d like to see them buried, that technology is possible so let’s do that. As far as the noise consideration goes, more noise is not better. Whether there’s traffic noise, whether there’s Caltrain noise, whether there’s airplane noise and so forth and also the proliferation of cell towers from one company is going to be followed by applications for others. I’m concerned that this is sort of the beginning of wedge and we’ll get our maneuvered here. The interest to Verizon is to provide secure service and to make profits for shareholders. That’s fine, they have every right to do that but I think the residents here have also the right to say that we don’t necessarily agree with the corporate strategy to increase their profits by implementing the cheapest possible solution. I’d like also to ask the Review Board to review – commit to reviewing the documents that Genie Fleming’s group has put together. That Grass Root Group that’s prepared the documents that didn’t make it to your desk today and thank you so much for your consideration. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Mr. Mellenchuck. The next speaker is James [phonetics][Mishocko], followed by Celia and then [phonetics] [Bocna Ramakrishnan]. Mr. James Mishocko: Good morning, I’m Jim Mishocko, I’m the Present of the Homeowners Association at 365 Forest. I’m here to just provide a brief statement in support of the project for a couple reasons. The users of Verizon service who are residents in our building would definitely… Vice Chair Kim: Could you please speak directly into the mic. Mr. Mishocko: Sure. The users of Verizon services that are residents in our building would definitely benefit from the improvement in service. All of us would welcome the additional emergency backup that is proposed as part of the project – proposed to be delivered as part of the project. Including the battery backup which is an important component if this thing is to perform as represented. Finally, we have one of the proposed poles just caddy corner to our building and we have no objections to the aesthetics. Especially as they’ve been improved during the course of the review so we’d be pleased to see the project proceed as it’s been proposed. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Mr. Mishocko. Celia. Ms. Celia Chow: Good morning, my name is Celia Chow, I’m a member of the United Neighbors and Genie Fleming actually already covered all my points but I would still like to emphasize our concerns over noise, aesthetic, safety, liability, and also the long-term (inaudible) risk from the radiations. We ask the City to take our concerns into your consideration. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Ms. Chow. Next speaker is Bocna Ramakrishnan, followed by Elizabeth Cody and then Ann Lyn – Ann Lee. Ok, Elizabeth Cody? Ms. Elizabeth Cody: Hi, I’m a property owner at 365 Forest and for me, the most important thing to think about is public safety and being able to get emergency service. So, I want that to be looked into, the truth of whether really is adequate coverage or not. Chair Lew: Great, thank you. Ann Lee. Ms. Ann Lee: Actually, I’d like to speak – have [phonetics][Almeta] speak before me and then if she has some time left over, I’d like to speak after her. Chair Lew: Ok. City of Palo Alto Page 12 [Ms. Almeta Cotamory:] Hi, good morning. My name is Almeta Cotamory and I’m a Palo Alto resident. My background is in Computer Science and Mathematics. After doing some research into cell tower technology, I request the ARB to reject the Verizon Wireless Small Cell Project Application for installation of privately owned cellular equipment on public poles and facilities for the following reasons. Cell tower and antennas with associated cabling can weight up to hundreds of pounds. The Board needs to consider what could happen when a teenager or drunk driver should run into one of these poles that has a 100 lbs. weight on the top and how much of a life threating risk this would be when the tower falls. Not to mention literally millions of dollars in property damage it could cost to the surrounding residential areas. When these private companies install their privately-owned equipment on publicly owned facilities, there is no legal safeguard protecting the public from liability due to any hazard that could be caused by this equipment including fires. According to Harry Lehman, Attorney at Law in the State of California, defendants in a lawsuit does not get to choose whether to be sued. That choice is made by the plaintiff’s Council and there’s no way for Verizon or the Telecom Industrial representative to honestly claim that the City will not be sued for such injuries. Once the involved cellular antenna boxes attached to the government utility pole, for several reasons including the (inaudible) of fixtures as often used in tenancy situations, a melding takes place and the plaintiff’s Council will (inaudible) as it’s consistent with the law, that the melded unit as a whole is public property. If they want to install this heavy, potential fire hazards on poles in our residential neighborhoods right in front of our homes, they need to build durable structures themselves that they can ensure that will be safe and for which they will be responsible if the structure should collapse or become damaged in any way. Occurring to the Center of Responsive Politics, the Telecom industry pours $1.3 trillion dollars into lobbying for it since 1998 but even with all its massive founding, the industry has not been able to buy insurance for itself to cover of any potential health hazard caused by wireless technology. Wireless technology being a health hazard is established by law in the Five (inaudible) Exemption which prohibits the installation of cell towers on fire stations due to adverse health effects experiences by California firefighters. For some reason, the Telecom industry is a widening installation of cell towers on fire stations but think it is ok to install them in front of our homes with children. (Inaudible) industrial giant like Zurich and Lloyd announced long ago that they would not insurance for personal injuries caused by cellular devices. As a result, the telecom companies ship their responsibility… Chair Lew: You can finish that sentence and then… Ms. Cotamory: …of liability to another entity or entities, otherwise they could face massive and potentially (inaudible) risk. If this application is approved, that liability would shift to the Palo Alto public. It is a… Vice Chair Kim: We’re going to have to cut you off there, I apologize. You can feel free to send in your comments by email or (inaudible). Thank you. Ms. Cotamory: Ok, thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Ms. Cotamory and then Ann Lee. Ms. Ann Lee: Hello, my name is Ann, I’m a physician and I’m here to request for the ARB to reject the cell – the small cell residential expansion application. I’m going to speak kind of quickly. Here’s some information about background, I attended medical school at the University of Texas, completed a residency at Loma Linda University in southern California where I did research and published papers on traumatic brain injuries. Afterwards, I accepted an academic position at Stanford Medical Center and I was the attending of the Polyatomic Traumatic Brain Injury Unit at the VA Hospital. Over the years my proactive has expanded from Nero Trauma to include treatment of neuromuscular pain and chronic inflammatory syndromes, all of which are highly likely adversely affected by various types of wireless radiation. As a medical doctor, I’ve read peer-reviewed papers and other studies on the bio-facts of radio frequency, micro radiation and do testify that micro-radiation such as that admitted from the wireless equipment to be employed by this proposal has been showed to cause neurological damage, cardiac dysfunction, reproductive harm, immune compromise, and cancer. Our body’s function is dependent on the cellular electrical stability of its organs. Non-ionizing radiation used for the therapeutic purpose in City of Palo Alto Page 13 medicine such as pulse electromagnet frequency and infrared radiation are dose and time limited for a reason because overexposure can do more harm than good. As doctors, we can get sued for this and similarly, the 1996 Telecommunication Act does not protect municipalities liability when environmental effects of wireless radiation cause adverse health events. You may find these surprising but local governments are legally responsible for the operation of this type of equipment and undue exposures can be measured and used in court for FCC violation. The Telecom Industry wants us to believe that there is no conclusive evidence that wireless radiation causes us biological harm. That is a false belief and simply a belief because it is not based on sound science. In 2011 the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the World Health Organization, after reviewing thousands of peer-reviewed studies made a press release classify wireless radiation as a 2B carcinogen. Many experts today currently are working to reclassify wireless radiation as a Group One carcinogen, a known carcinogen such as tobacco, why is this? Because since 2011 several more Cities have concluded that there are bio-effects – bio-toxic effects from this type of exposure but most notable of which was performed by our own United States Government. The National Toxically Program, wireless radiation scientific study was sponsored by the NIH Grant that cost American taxpayers $25 million and is to date the most powerful, well controlled and long-term animal study on wireless radiation. This study showed DNA damage was significantly increased in the frontal cortex of male mice, white blood cells of female and hippocampus of male rats. The authors concluded, “Exposed to radio frequency radiation has a potential to induce measurable DNA damage under certain exposure conditions.” When an agent causes DNA damage, it is by definition a carcinogen. A substance capable of causing cancer in living tissue. This is now confirmed by our government in an independent study without telecommunication industry bias. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Ms. Lee. The next speakers will be [Keysan Chow], followed by David Vanderwilt, and then after that is Stewart Raphael. [Ms. Keysan Chow:] I’m Keysan Chow and I’m a retired software engineer and I’ve lived here in Palo Alto for over 30-years and I use wireless communication for many years as well. I don’t feel like we – it necessary to install additional cell towers in our area because there is already some other communication company. Again, not Verizon but as my understanding there’s AT&T cell tower over there so my question – I think many of the people who spoke before already present the concerns that we all have. I think the City of Palo Alto needs to consider how to serve the residents here because I don’t believe every individual communication company should install their own equipment on the public utility pole. Besides, the City overall has a good architecture design, a good environment policy on how to make – really benefit all the residents in Palo Alto instead of each individual company. I think this is a big concern of mine. Chair Lew: Thank you, Ms. Chow. David Vanderwilt. Mr. David Vanderwilts: Good morning. I’m David Vanderwilt and I live at 419 El Verano which is one of the sites proposed for installing a cell tower. I’m a – its personal but in my instance, this directly affects the quality of my life. Our second-floor den and office look right at the cell tower so every time that I look up from the desk, I will be looking at this cell tower. I’m also a gardener and the radiation -- and our basketball court is in the driveway right under this cell tower. I expect or I have spent hours outside and my kids were playing basketball out outside right under this cell tower. This is directly affecting the enjoyment of my property so whether it’s a property value or not, that’s not my biggest concern. My biggest concern – the other thing is the noise. I’m also a cyclist so bike down to Lincoln to check out the cell tower there and listen to the noise and it was almost rush hour and I was like 15-feet away from it, which is entirely within the range of my lifestyle and I’m hearing the cell tower. I have to live with that noise for the rest of my life I guess every time I go out and wash my car or plant flowers in my flower garden. It’s just a personal thing to me that how could we, in a residential area, subject our citizens to this type of an intrusion into their life? I’m just concerned that there should be or there will be newer technology that will come along – this is the newest supposable but there will be some other technology that will come along that we can mitigate these problems. Finally, I’m not convinced that there will be no noise. We have an ordinance in Palo Alto that there are no leaf blowers. I hear leaf blowers every day so City of Palo Alto Page 14 when they say well, there’s going to be no noise, that would be great but that’s not something that in the future we can actually commit too. I would urge you to reject this proposal, thank you. Chair Lew: Thank you, Mr. Vanderwilt. The next speaker is Stewart Raphael, followed by Judy Decker and then Brian Chan. Mr. Stewart Raphael: Hello Chairmen and Palo Alto and Architectural Review Board. I’m a resident of Palo Alto, my name is Stewart Raphael, I’m a Ph.D. up at the station of Information Management and I’m a Business Development Executive. I’m in support of the cell tower – small node cell tower expansion that Verizon Wireless is proposing for a number of reasons. Number one, we need secondary back up for first responders in the event of an emergency. We need better transitioning of wireless services as you move from one location to another. Thirdly, we need to mitigate the amount of traffic that occurs on businesses and individuals by allowing applications to work more effectively over these wireless facilities. Such as video conferencing and other applications that can have a much better – in a high bandwidth capacity arrangement. We also have to have a situation where technology over time does improve and we can expect that improvement to occur as the need arises and before there was a lot of these long, very large cell towers and now they’ve been able to miniaturize them with (inaudible) technology. I think it’s very important that we embrace that transition into the new world and allow these applications to work more effectively. Verizon is bringing this technology to us and making it very economical and I whole heartily support it as a resident of Palo Alto. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Mr. Raphael. Judy Decker. Ms. Judy Decker: Hi, I live on Bryant between Seal and Tennyson and actually I’m in favor of the Verizon towers – antennas. I actually have an AT&T antenna on my telephone pole in the front of my house and it’s not intrusive at all. However, I have Verizon and my calls are constantly dropped. I have to go outside or I have to sit in the car. Actually, I literally sat in the car a couple of nights ago because my call kept on being dropped. I have clients who call so I can’t just say I’m sorry, I can’t talk to you right now. One of the objections seems to be that house values might suffer. Actually, I’m a realtor so I can go back and full out the data and I took a look at the map of where the AT&T poles are and where those areas – the neighborhoods have actually appreciated faster since they were put in. I’m not saying it was because of the AT&T poles, I’m just saying that it doesn’t seem to have a detrimental effect. So, there was a 36% appreciation from 2014 to end of year 2017 in the areas where there are AT&T poles and there was a 28% appreciation in the areas where there weren’t so I don’t think it really makes any difference. Anyway, I just wanted to put in my two senses, if you’d like the data I’d be happy to leave it with you. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Ms. Decker. Brain Chan. Mr. Brian Chan: Well, my name is Brain Chan and I live in South Port and I’m about 600-feet away from one of the proposed installations. Several things have already been spoken about and I just wanted to echo some of the sentiments of some of the other members of the community regarding the health issues. I looked at the previous Verizon small cells that were installed in downtown Palo Alto and their planning documents and specifically their consultant specified radiation – RF emissions to be a certain level but after the installation [Scientist for Wire] came down and did accurate measurements on each installation demonstrating that the actual RF emissions where ten times greater than that predicted by Verizon. I’d like – I believe that Verizon needs to come back and account for those discrepancies to let us know why they are ten times greater and if they are, then they need to provide adequate RF shielding for pedestrians below the street. The next thing that I wanted to address is some of the planning document regarding the structural integrity of the poles themselves. There are calculations provided by Verizon consultants that – of regarding moment bending. These demonstrate that with the addition of Verizon equipment of about 200 lbs., moment bending reaches approximately, in some cases, over 80% capacity of these poles. We’re pushing the limit of these poles by adding this equipment on and there’s -- and the question that I have is I do not see any assessment of the integrity of the poles at the – underground. Specifically, with all the recent rainfall last year, there has been significant saturation of the ground. City of Palo Alto Page 15 These poles may have – need to be assessed for early signs of shell rot, internal dry rot which is underground. If – I did not see any of that assessment in their documents and if there is indeed rot, then all these calculations that they have provided, especially where pushing the capacity of these poles to 80% plus, are going to be off and need to be redone. Finally, there’s no assessment – their calculations for moment bending also do not include ice calculations. Although it’s not required in this area, we all know now that climates changing. We’re waking up now our car – our vehicles are now covered with ice so they need to include ice calculations as their estimates in moment bending because of just another 100 lbs. of ice on top of the poles can create additional 2,000-3,000-foot-pounds a moment bending which can cause these poles to now exceed their capacity and become a public safety hazard. In the case of Malibu fire, these were related to excessive weight on the poles collapsing and causing the Malibu Fire Canyons. We don’t want that to happen in Palo Alto. Thank you very much. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Mr. Chan. So, that’s all the speaker cards that I have for today. Thank you all for speaking and thank you all also to all of the emails that we’ve received today. It was a record or this week or past few weeks, I think a record amount as I understand from the Staff. The next portion will be the applicant’s rebuttal. You will have 10-minutes to address any of the issues that were raised by the public speakers or anything else that you would like to say. Mr. Paul Albritton: Paul Albritton and outside counsel for Verizon wireless and Rommel Aneles the Verizon Wireless Small Cell Director for Northern California are here with me. Ms. Fleming: Excuse me, could you say your name again (inaudible)? Mr. Albritton: My name is Paul Albritton, I’m… Ms. Fleming: Albritton? Mr. Albritton: Albritton, like all the British Isles. Albritton. Ms. Fleming: (Inaudible) Mr. Albritton: Thank you and I wanted to address a couple quick points. First of all, I want to thank you so much for all of your time and effort in this whole process because we know it’s going to continue and that we will be back before you again. Hopefully, refining this project and making it perfect for Palo Alto. When Rommel was describing the amount of bulk that we were able to reduce in our new designs, he didn’t mention that the mock site that you may have looked at still have the 12-inch bracket – 12-inch setoff bracket. If you’ve looked at that mock site, you need to imagine that bracket reduces to 5 to 7- inches so we’re able to pull the equipment in and that allows us to reduce the bulk considerably in that design. You’re the Architectural Review Board, you know that and you have a dozen or so findings that you have to make and we’re going to try and focus on those design-related findings and not a lot of the information that you heard today. We heard it as well and we pay attention to it but we’re not going to address the gap that we have in capacity for facilities, we’re not going to address our affirmations. Other than to say all of our tests are required – all of our facilities are tested post installation and for the most part are a thousand times below the predicted levels. Rajat Mathur from Hammett and Edison are here, he’s a registered professional engineer in the State of California and can speak to you about any of those specific emission issues. We provide calculations that are required by the FCC and they do post installation testing to confirm compliance with FCC standards. Generally, the emissions are far below the calculated level which is worst case scenario level. I want to – in your architectural review, I want to reiterate something that we said – that we’ve always said and that is that we’re putting telephone equipment on telephone poles. So, when you’re looking at the architectural review of the telephone pole, a telephone is designed for utilitarian purpose to handle as many utilities as possible within the structural requirements and limitations of the pole itself subject to very stringent state laws, GO-95 and other laws, that are designed in order to maintain the structural integrity of that pole, maintain climbing space. The reason for the set off of the bracket is so that the linemen can put his belt around the pole and climb the pole, particularly in an emergency when a bucket truck can’t get up the pole. So, we have many City of Palo Alto Page 16 separation requirements and the reason for that 7-foot bayonet on top of the pole separating the antenna from the top of the pole is not for height of the antenna for our purposes but in order to separate the antenna from the transmission lines at the top of the pole. Essentially so a lineman can stand and work or can get to the antenna or the structural element without in danger of touching those lines below it. So, a lot of the limitations on the pole are related to those requirements. We can’t put designs, elegant flower pots and – it’s been suggested – and bird cages and that sort of thing around our equipment because it would defeat the whole purpose of the utility pole. Which is utilitarian to provide structural support for utilities and to accommodate utilities without having to put in other infrastructure such as other poles. The principal review findings for you, compatibility with the Comprehensive Plan, compatibility with the environment and the Telecom Law firm memo’s that you received are good and we are reviewing and able to comply with some of their desires but they focus in that case on the findings that are required for the Wireless Ordinance. They focus on footprint and they focus on bulk and those are no your findings, those are findings that will be looked at, at the Planning Director level. In terms of bulk, they recommend vaulting and I’ve got a photo up here of a vault that Verizon Wireless actually recently through Crown Castle installed in Santa Cruz, excuse me, which was required in that case. In installing this vault, it was determined that the amount of space that had to be excavated for the vault turned out to be 10-feet by 18-feet by 8-feet deep. The interior of the vault is only 4-feet by 6-feet but the excavation is required in order to allow for shoring while the vault is being installed, it provides for radios. Then with a vault like this, we have – that’s a very, very large space compared to the sidewalks you have in Palo Alto. In addition to that, the vault has to be mounted with a sump pump in order to pump water out and the water has to – in this case it either has to go to the sewer system or into the street. In addition, there needs to be ventilation to keep the radios cool so on 3-feet on either side of the vault are large vents that come out and are actively cooled within the vault. That means we have fans running and we have pumps running and those all generate noise. As Rommel told you, in order to eliminate all noise from our facilities, the radios are passively cooled on the pole itself and we’ve eliminated the batteries which are the only thing which is the only thing that had any noise generating element at all. So, although we respect the suggestion of vaulting the equipment, we think it is not feasible in Palo Alto because of the lack of space, because of noise and other issues. One of the speakers mentioned Piedmont and Piedmont did require Crown Castle to vault recently or earlier this year and Crown Castle has now sued Piedmont for – particularly – naming particularly this point. It is infeasible for them to build a vault that will comply with the noise standards of Piedmont and that’s the status of that current lawsuit. In case, we’re required to comply with LDN Standards under the Comprehensive Plan and with fans and with sump pumps, we would not be able to comply. We’re here today – I want to emphasize that we’re here today really to get your direction. It’s been a long time since we were here last May but we listened to you and we heard, we want you to streamline the look, we want you to reduce the bulk, we want you to provide a consistent circumference up the antenna, and we’ve actually worked very hard. There’s a lot of engineering that has gone into each of those different designs that we’ve provided to you and we’d like to get some feedback. There’s the Sun Shield Design which puts covers over – between the radios and pulls back the mounting bracket and tucks in the cables. There’s the Cake Design which is a narrower rectangular box over a lower rectangular box, it’s about 2-inches wider. We have something completely different called a Cage, it’s the saber cage which rotates the equipment slightly but reduces the profile from 9 ½-feet to 6-feet and then we’ve got the bayonet. We want to know what you have to say about the bayonet. I will touch – quickly touch on a couple of the points. We do look at trees in all cases, in seven of the sites we will be adding landscaping and trees. A total of 13 trees are proposed but in every case, we try and put our facilities close to trees. We have a photo of every pole if you wanted to see it and you’ll see that a majority of them actually have been located next to trees in order to try and screen. We’re all in favor of undergrounding if and when undergrounding comes to Palo Alto. We will be putting in facilities like the light standards that we’ve put in downtown, where we’ve put the antenna on a light standard instead of a utility pole so this doesn’t in any way get in the way of that. With that, unless Rommel has got something to add, we would love to answer your questions. Particularly about specifics one design and how you would like us to move forward with this application. Chair Lew: Great, thank you Mr. Albritton and I’m going to close the public portion of the hearing so the Board can make it’s – ask questions and make its deliberations. Are there any questions? Wynne. City of Palo Alto Page 17 Board Member Furth: Thank you. I have reviewed in the sense of sometimes closely and sometimes flipping through this 362-page Staff report. Plus, the accompanying packet of additional materials and I find myself needing your guidance on what this process is as opposed to our usual reviews here. I understand that we’re operating in an area of a great deal of federal and state preemption. These are utility poles regulated by the California Public Utility Commission Standards, this is telecommunication equipment regulated by the Federal Government, we have a City Council approve license agreement to – with Verizon, no, to install these things? I’m looking at our Council here. My first question is – then we had Mr. Albritton statement in which we suggested that matters of bulk our role in this decision making at this point? What happens after we make our recommendation to the Director? Mr. Albert Yang, Deputy City Attorney: Albert Yang, Deputy City Attorney, so the wireless permits that we’re considering today require that the Director make not only the Architectural Review Findings but also CUP Findings and a number of specific findings for wireless installations which do have to do with design. I think we are looking for the Board’s feedback on the Architectural Review Findings, as well as the design related specific findings for wireless permits so that would include issues like bulk. Board Member Furth: So, both of those and then I noticed that in our ordinance, which is specific to these kinds of the antenna and related facilities, there’s a discussion of looking at future expansion that would be permitted under the Spectrum Act. Then when I look at the analysis, it’s the position of the applicant that’s way too speculative to think about or analysis, I think that’s a correct statement, and when I look at our report from our own outside expert there’s also some concern about how much we can tell. When I try to read the Spectrum Act in excerpts in our code, it seemed to suggest that once a pole becomes a base facility or tower, then expansion – significantly large expansion (inaudible) a matter of right, am I understanding that correctly? I’m looking at – you probably know which pages of the report but I’ve got it marked if you don’t. Mr. Yang: That is true as a general matter. Board Member Furth: Page 79 of the report. Mr. Yang: It is true as a general matter that the Spectrum Act allows some expansion as a matter of right but there is an important caveat which is that expansion cannot defeat the stealth elements of what’s currently there. Board Member Furth: The stealth elements? Mr. Yang: If there is something that is camouflaging the equipment or if there’s something -- for example a bayonet shroud that is meant to create the appearance of a single pole. An expansion can’t – there no right to expansion if that element of camouflaging is defeated as a result of the expansion. As I understand, the applicant’s statement is not only that these installations would be – are – future expansion is too speculative but also that as a practical matter, given the nature of the utility pole it’s not feasible to have a significant expansion. Board Member Furth: So, you might have a right to go 10-feet higher but in fact, we wouldn’t be able to bear the weight. Is that the argument? Mr. Yang: Either it wouldn’t be able to bear the weight or if you were – if the purpose of going 10-feet higher where to add another antenna that – or something like that, I think our position would be that that defeats the stealth element of what’s currently there. Board Member Furth: Ok, I’d appreciate hearing more on that because the idea of going 10-feet up and 6-feet out as a matter of right as opposed to the commentary in some places that these poles can’t handle it anyway. That leaves us with an area of difficulty in trying to apply that section in our recommendation so that would be helpful. Then who has – who in the City has the responsibility of City of Palo Alto Page 18 addressing issues of structural soundness? We’re not talking here about safety issues related to radiation but we’re talking about safety issues related to the integrity of the poles and the likely hood of them collapsing or moving at such a clip that they cause fires. Ms. Atkinson: In this case – well, the usual case it would be the Building Department but in this case, our Utilities Electrical Department is reviewing the pole structural calculations. We required these pole structural calculations to be included in the plan set at this time because we are aware of the Conditional Use Permit Findings and public safety integrity of the pole is really important towards being able to determine one way or another if the pole would be safe relative to Conditional Use Permit. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Then a number of people raised the issue whether in fact there is a coverage gap and I gather the coverage gap is what entitles Verizon to install something. Who is in the City – how does the City make that determination whether there’s a coverage gap? Mr. Yang: The coverage gap is what would – what Verizon would assert to preclude the City from denying an application. Board Member Furth: Right. Mr. Yang: We – the City would engage with an outside expert to assess and evaluate that claim if we found ourselves in a position where we would have that dispute. Board Member Furth: In this case, have we? Mr. Yang: We have a consultant who we are able to use but we haven’t engaged them for those services yet. Board Member Furth: Thank you. I think that’s it. Chair Lew: Any other questions? Peter. Board Member Baltay: Yes, thank you. For Staff two questions please. I’ve noticed the existing AT&T installations seem to have the antenna less than 7-feet above the top of a utility pole. Do we have a dimension for how high those are and if this is an absolute? The applicant has said that 7-feet is required clearance from the antenna to the top of the pole for safety reasons. What’s the response to that? Ms. Atkinson: Thank you for your question. With research with the Utilities Department, we found that the bayonet and the antenna on – sorry. With research with the Utilities Department, we found that the existing AT&T deployment had a bayonet plus antenna of 6-feet. Board Member Baltay: Ok, thank you. The second question I guess is just clarification, in our package of information here it seems attached to the back of this is a memorandum and I’m just trying to understand what it is. It’s from Telecom Law Firm which seems to recommend in almost every case that the equipment is put underground. I want to be clear, is this is the recommendation from the City subcontractor or is this a part of the application what the applicant wants to do? Could you clarify please what the purpose of this is and what the stance is? Ms. Atkinson: Thank you. The City is very interested in making sure that all aspects of the application, including all the technical aspects, do comply with all of our noise requirements, our radio frequency requirements with the FCC, and also aesthetics. So, our particular sub-consultant that we have for the RF, as well as design alternatives, is Telecom Law Firm so it’s a City sub-consultant. Board Member Baltay: This information is a recommendation of the City sub-consultant? Ms. Atkinson: Yes, it is. City of Palo Alto Page 19 Board Member Baltay: Thank you. Chair Lew: Robert. Board Member Gooyer: Just a quick question, going back to the idea of installing a vault. I heard the applicant say that they would have to be a hole dug that’s 18-feet by 8-feet by 10-feet to put this vault in and yet from what I see on the picture here is that this looks like a slab that was sawed cut open and vault dropped in and it sure doesn’t meet those – the size of those. That looks to be more a 4-foot by 8- foot opening so I mean, my god, I would think – I’ve had vaults put in and if somebody told me that they’d have to put an 18 by 8 by 10-foot hole to put a 2 by 2 by 4 vault in, I’d fire them and hire somebody else. I mean I’m sorry but those numbers don’t make sense to me. The other thing is I heard your comment about the electrical engineers going to determine or review the calculations for the structural integrity of that pole and I don’t think really that’s appropriate. Mr. Atkinson: It’s the City’s electrical engineers. Board Member Gooyer: Ok, great if the City has electrical engineers, fine but that’s – I wouldn’t want an electrical engineer calculating -- I’m guessing (inaudible)(crosstalk)… Board Member Furth: It’s engineers for the electric section of the Utilities Department. Board Member Gooyer: …structural engineer that… Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Sorry, you know the utilities electrical is a division of the Utilities Department. They have folks that are trained in structural (inaudible)(crosstalk)… Board Member Gooyer: Ok, then it’s not an electrical engineer. It’s a structural engineer that works for the electrical… Ms. French: Correct. Board Member Gooyer: Ok well that’s not what was stated. Ms. French: Right, I’m trying to clarify. Board Member Gooyer: I know it’s nit-picking but it’s something like that – these poles do – are quite strong and don’t rot very often or whatever but still we’re talking about putting a lot of weight on these things. Thank you. Chair Lew: Kyu. Vice Chair Kim: I just had one quick clarification question. There were some volume numbers as far as cubic feet for each of the newly proposed configurations and I just missed the first one for the Sun Shield so if that could just be clarified later on. Chair Lew: I have some questions so with regard to the – from Telecom’s recommendation for putting in vaults, has City Staff considered the flood zones in Palo Alto? So, typically, at least if you’re trying to build a house – if you’re building a house in a flood zone, mechanical equipment is not allowed below the floodplain level for example. Would that apply in this kind of situation, like a similar requirement for a utility or do we know? Has that been a consideration? Ms. Atkinson: Thank you very much. Telecom produced these memos and Public Works reviewed a draft version and Public Works is not opposed to having underground vaults as a general rule and we’re going to look at it very, very, very specifically node by node. They looked at all of the nodes and they didn’t mention that as a problem. City of Palo Alto Page 20 Chair Lew: Then also many homeowners, when they are remolding the house – their houses, will put the electric utilities underground so usually there’s a diagonal line underground from the pole to a corner on the – of the house. It seems to me that – I just want to make sure that, that is factored into the vault if we do – if the City is recommending the vault design and that it’s coordinated with potential underground utilities. It’s all going to be coming to one point if you imagine the utility pole. It seems to me that, that should be factored in because that’s something that most homeowners do and it’s a pretty substantial expense so we want to make sure that happens in the future. I was wondering if Staff could outline some of the previous conditions of approval that we’ve done for the field testing after construction for the radio – for the EMFs? I think we did that for – I think it was mentioned in the – from one of the public speakers and I think we did that for one of the Crown Castle projects. Ms. Atkinson: I’d like to point out Packet Page Number 83 under the Wireless Code, Conditions of Approval J, number 3. Chair Lew: Great, thank you for that and basically, we’re saying it would be tested within a year of completion. Then in talking to Staff yesterday, I think the -- you mentioned that there was – there are different noise requirements in the City, right? There’s one for Comp. – mentioned in the Comp. Plan and then others mentioned in our Wireless Ordinance. I was wondering if you could -- if there – my understanding is that the Comp. Plan has a 3-decidable requirement for noise and I was wondering if there’s – if we have some sort of analogy to what 3 decibels are? I should be able to -- I should know this but I don’t know – I actually don’t. Ms. Atkinson: I’m sorry, offhand I don’t have actually an example but I do think that some of those diagrams wherein the former Comprehensive Plan about – examples of what the – what made the certain types of decibels and then what kind of decibels are reasonable to expect in a residential neighborhood versus commercial and so forth. I would differ it back to the diagrams it somebody needed something really quickly. Chair Lew: Then I just wanted to add that when you add decibels together, it’s not like 2 plus 2 equals 4. It could be 2 plus 2 equals 2 ½ when you are adding decibels. I think that’s all the – oh, I have another question on – with regarding the battery backups; actually, I have a multi-faceted question about this. One is that our – the – what’s in the Staff report and what’s in the drawings and then what has been mentioned today are all different. I think in the packet it shows three locations with battery backups, the drawings show two locations with battery backups and then I think today in the verbal presentation I’m hearing that there aren’t any. So, I was wondering what is correct? Maybe that’s for the applicant and not Staff. Ms. Atkinson: Either one. Mr. Albritton: Let us – we’re trying to be polite, let us know when you’d like for us to get up and answer some questions. First, I want to say that the bulk of the – I didn’t say you don’t review bulk, I just said it’s under a different criterion than the Architectural Review Board Findings. It’s 19.3 cubic feet for the Sun Shield and that includes – that’s including the air space between the pole and the bracket so if you take out the air space between the pole and the bracket, it’s actually smaller than that. We’re trying to match apples and oranges amongst the various applications. Your question was about batteries and you may remember me from the previous AT&T application and at that time there was no Conditional Use Authorization required so there was not a question of whether we had to comply with the Comprehensive Plan Noise Standard. We complied with the Palo Alto Municipal Code Noise Standard for public space which is 15 DB above ambient and minimum ambient is 40 in Palo Alto. The LDN Standard – Mr. -- (inaudible) engineer can speak to this as well is 60 daylight level. That’s a 24-hour level and we feel that the batteries – it would be very difficult for any equipment that’s 5-feet away from the property line to comply with that standard. Whether it’s the batteries or the vents for vault or the sump pumps for a vault so it’s the LDN Comprehensive Plan Standard that we felt required us to pull the batteries off of our application. That’s your number one finding for your Architectural Review Board is in compliance if our City of Palo Alto Page 21 project with the Comprehensive General Plan so if that answers the question. Then quickly, the vault is actually – I have more photos, it’s craned dropped into the hole so its pre-fab, it’s not poured in place so the hole has to be cut and shored to OSHA Standards so the walls don’t collapse and then they crane in the vault. The reason that it’s actually larger than the vault size itself, which is 5 by 8, is to allow for those venting fans which are on either side of the vaults – they aren’t outside of the vault – are the large vent holes. I hope that helped explain some of that and any other questions you might have. Chair Lew: Ok so just to clarify that the – you’re not – you’re pulling the batter backups from all nodes. Mr. Albritton: That’s right. I have to say if you don’t mind when the AT&T project was brought before you believe it or not that was 5 or 6-years ago. This Board removed the batteries because of aesthetic considerations, the City Council put all the batteries – required the batteries on the AT&T project because they wanted the redundancy at the time so that was – that’s how the AT&T project ended up with batteries on all of the nodes. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Mr. Albritton. Board Member Gooyer: One – I have one quick question, you’re telling me that’s a 5 by 8 vault, the picture that’s on the screen? Ms. Albritton: 4 by 6 interior, 5 by 8 exterior, I have my experts with me. Mr. Angeles: That is correct, it’s actually 5 by 8 inches on the width and the length is about 8-foot 2- inches. The picture is not – it’s not – doesn’t quite represent that but that’s the scale of the… Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, based on the equipment in there, that looks to be about a 2 by 4-foot vault at most. Mr. Angeles: Nope, it’s 4 by 6. Mr. Albritton: Interior. Board Member Gooyer: Ok. Mr. Albritton: The problem with – oh my goodness – the problem with smaller vaults is – I’ll say very quickly, Verizon Wireless and AT&T, the two largest wireless providers in the nation, we operate on four frequencies and so we require more radios. Some carriers, T-Mobile, MetroPCS, for example, operates on one frequency, one radio so it allows a much smaller footprint. We have the majority of customers, the majority of service, a majority of information that we need to meet the demands in Palo Alto and that’s we require a little bit more equipment. Chair Lew: Any other Board questions? Wynne. Board Member Furth: So, having just heard that Staff what’s the City’s position, meaning Staff at this point, on battery backup for this new set of equipment? There’s – we have a kind of shifting project description, to put it mildly, and so we were looking at one with battery backup, now we’re looking at it without battery backup and we just heard that the City Council has wanted battery back up in the past. So, are batteries no longer needed? Are they no longer desired or is it likely to be desired? Mr. Lait: I wouldn’t draw from the comments that you’ve heard a moment ago as leading toward a City position on this particular application relative to batter back up. There’s clearly a need or an interest in battery backups for this type of service, that’s why they were proposed. Staff in its review of the project and the comments that we heard from the public expressed concern about noise and the applicant has heard those comments and has made a decision to pull the battery backups away from the antennas at City of Palo Alto Page 22 this time. That’s the project that’s before the Board and if this goes to Council on appeal, Council will have an opportunity to consider those options. Board Member Furth: Well, you can see the problem for us is we're supposed to be commenting on design and we don’t know exactly what that design might be though it’s good of you to point out that at the moment it’s a design without it. When you say at this point, then is this a question for Council, once we approved it without the batteries, what would be the process for adding the batteries? Would that be a non-reviewable item or automatically approved under the Spectrum Act or would it be reviewable? Mr. Lait: If the Board – if the Director is… Board Member Furth: If we recommended etc. etc. Mr. Lait: This Board has an opportunity to make a recommendation to the Director, the Director would ultimately make a decision on the project. If that decision is appealed, the City Council would consider it in the manner that it does these applications. It would have if the hearing were held, the opportunity to make adjustments to the project. Board Member Furth: I’m asking you a different question and I wasn’t clear. If we recommend to the Director and the Director agrees and the City Council agrees on a design that doesn’t include back up batteries at this point. Once it does its installation, I believe Verizon has more rights to expand than it did before this was approved. My question is if they then came back to say well, it turns out we want batteries, what’s the review process then? Would it involve another big public hearing process or would it just be ministerial? Mr. Lait: Albert will correct me if I am wrong on this but if there’s – if it’s the decision of the Director, for the reasons that have been articulated in the record about noise associated with the battery backups, we would likely put a condition on the approval, the Conditional Use Permit and the Wireless that no battery backups be permitted and an amendment to that entitlement would require review again. Board Member Furth: The Spectrum Act wouldn’t re-emp that? Mr. Yang: That’s something that we can – I can look at more closely but I don’t believe adding a new cabinet which, as I understand it, is almost twice the volume of what would be existing, in that case, would qualify for the automatic expansion (inaudible). Board Member Furth: Thank you. Chair Lew: Let’s move onto Board Member comments and again, let’s focus on what the Staff is asking for and the applicant which is landscaping, screening, the alternates, clearance above the sidewalk, the orientation of the equipment, and such. Peter, will you start us off, please? Board Member Baltay: Sure, thank you Alex. I’m going to repeat the comments that I made for the previous cell phone application, I think they are applicable here. Base stations and antennas need to be concealed per City ordinance 18.42.10I Section 6. In my opinion, that means that utility mounted poles need to be concealed with shrouds of the same color, texture, and diameter as the pole for the full height of the antenna and the mount. Secondly, all ground equipment should be below grade. I think that’s the only way to meet that objective of concealing the equipment. I think once you do that, all these other questions we’re talking about like a visual intrusion and potential noise impact with or without batteries is mitigated to the greatest extent possible. I think that is a viable option and as you’ve presented, people have done it and have been required to do it. I think the City consultant also has pointed it out as a viable option. I’d like to encourage my fellow Board Members to stand on this issue because once we set a standard, this is what will go forward for all 93 of these towers coming up down the line. Additionally, I have a lot of faith in our – the technical prowess of our society as a whole and Verizon as a company and I’m sure that having to prepare 93 vaults with all this equipment in it, you will find a way to do it City of Palo Alto Page 23 economically, efficiently, and appropriately. I think that’s a real win, win for everyone, all the equipment is out of sight and hopefully, the only thing you have up on top is the antenna. If we ever end up undergrounding utilities, all we have to do is relocate the antenna somehow which is the only piece that has to be up in the air. We are able to have a robust and more efficient cell network throughout the town, which is an obvious goal that we should all embrace. Hopefully, we could even streamline the approval process for these applicants if it’s – everything is underground and it’s no longer an architectural issue. I feel that in order to meet the standards required in the code, the antennas need to be concealed to the greatest extent possible and the equipment needs to be underground. Thank you. Chair Lew: Robert. Board Member Gooyer: I basically couldn’t have said it better myself, I agree completely. The shrouds around the bayonet and the antenna, like you, said most people don’t look more than about 15 to 20-feet above their point of vision anyway so I think those are fine. The one thing that did bother me a little bit is the comment that the City of Piedmont had instructed that the vaults are installed and now the installer is suing the City of Piedmont because of that. To me, that seems like a bit of a threat of either you let us put it on the pole or we end up suing you. Maybe that’s pushing it a bit but that’s the way I take it. So, like I said, I pretty much agree exactly with everything that Peter said. Chair Lew: Kyu. Vice Chair Kim: Yeah, thank you for coming back for this first formal hearing. To be rather succinct, I think of the four options, to me while volume metrically the Sun Shield is the least volume, I think the box design is actually probably the most efficient as far as kind of unifying all those radios together and tying together – tying them together as one clean unit. As opposed to the Sun Shield or the Cake Design where you can kind to begin to separate out different pieces of the radios. The Cage Design, in my opinion, doesn’t look quite as friendly and I think I would opt for the box although it is on the higher side volume metrically. As far as the bayonet and the antenna shroud, I’m in favor of it. I would actually comment that although it’s an improvement and having that shroud is definitely better than not having it. It still, to me, feels like it’s something that’s added to the top of the antenna. If there’s anything we can do to streamline that even more so that there’s no change in the taper of the existing utility pole, I think that would be favorable. The question that I’ve had in reviewing all these documents is we’re moving towards how do we place this equipment onto the existing poles and make it look like it’s not an afterthought and it’s not something that’s been attached later. I don’t know if that means some where along the line if there’s an agreement between the City utilities and telecom companies, if there’s a way to actually incorporate all these things into the pole itself but I think we – maybe it’s a far-off dream but I think that’s kind of the direction we need to push it into. So, that whatever we attach, whatever is designed to be on top, that it remains as close to the existing pole as possible. I appreciate the fact that the battery backups have been removed. I would not be so much in favor of putting all the equipment underground if that means having to revive fans and producing noise again so my recommendation or the best solutions of the ones that you’ve provided so far would be for the box. I think if there can be some improvements made to the bayonet and the antenna shroud then we may have something. Thank you. Chair Lew: Wynne. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Certainly, my preference would be for something that’s quiet and underground. Partly I’m driven towards wanting an underground alternative because I mean my dream – I don’t know if we’re still – are we doing any undergrounding of existing utility lines in the past few years or have we abandoned that program? Are we still underground utilities in the City? Good. One – I mean my vision is if you look at all these pictures, one of the things you look at is none of these poles particularly look like something that would be designed to look lovely with the houses that they serve. In fact, our future vision is underground utilities so this is a step towards that future vision so this is what I would support. I try to think of what a stealth installation would be and you know it’s not the palm trees with barrettes here but you know what I have outside my window is a great big, huge, transformer. I City of Palo Alto Page 24 suppose you could hide this equipment and make it look like a transformer and that would be a stealth installation but it would not be an aesthetically pleasing stealth installation. So, I think the real – only real approach is a straightforward, well-integrated antenna and everything underground to the extent possible. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you, Wynne. I think I’m – of all the comments that we’ve had from the Board, I think I’m probably most aligned with Board Member Kim. I think I – the box design somehow seems more streamlined. It seems – having just one vertical element seems more similar to the AT&T DAS. I think there’s something with the current proposal like when you break up the elements into three different components, that just makes it look much more cluttered. The – I do support the antenna shroud and also if you could – if the brackets can be reduced from 12-inches to 6-inches, I think makes – I think that does make a difference. I think Staff you had asked about the orientation of it, I think that many of the AT&T DAS ones we tried to orient them towards the street as opposed to let’s say towards the front door of a house. I think that is – generally, I think that’s the preferred option in my mind. I am not opposed to vaults if the City decides to go that route. You know I’ve worked on basements in houses in Palo Alto and the sump pumps and all the waterproofing and everything is an issue. It’s not easy and I have heard the fan noises from equipment mounted out near the sidewalk and it is noticeable on hot days. In my mind it's not louder than like a refrigerator inside your house, that’s my unscientific analysis of it. I’m a gardener, I would be concerned about – if the vault excavation – let’s say on my own house if the City were proposing a 10-foot by 18-foot vault excavation near my house and I have an oak tree near my utility pole to help screen it. I would be opposed to that and I would prefer – in my own particular situation, I would prefer a shrouded box configuration but I could see other – in looking at the sites in Mid-Town, I do agree with some of the neighbors saying – who are saying that there really isn’t enough screening and I think that is my – I think I do actually agree with that. When I looked at the AT&T DAS project in Old Palo Alto and Professorville, there were a lot more tree canopy, they have planning stripes and not rolled curbs and it seemed like there was more – there’s just – it seemed easier to screen them in many of the locations for that particular project. It seems – with Mid-Town it seems much harder to screen them. I think that’s all that I have. Oh, I think also Staff you asked for any comments on locations near existing wireless facilities and I think, if I understand the Staff report right, it’s within a hundred feet possibly. I think there were two locations that were mentioned because they were within 100 feet of an existing facility and I did not review that because I didn’t know exactly where the – those existing poles where. If they were right side by side on the same property line, I would be concerned. If they were – if it’s a corner site and one was on one street and the other was on the side street, I might not be as concerned about that. It doesn’t seem fair to have like one – if there’s one property owner having two within a 100-feet. That’s typically a Palo Alto lot, maybe like 60-feet by 100-feet so we’re saying that they’re – yeah, they are pretty close together. You have mentioned clearance above the sidewalk and I think when the AT&T DAS came through, I was hoping that they would be higher, like 14-feet or so approximately because that would be above the tree canopy or in the tree canopy. I think a lot of times City street trees are trimmed for large trucks somewhere around the 13 – around 12-14-feet. It seems like that couldn’t happen, it was so difficult to make that happen given the existing wires on the utilities and so they are lower. I guess I can – I think I can live with that given the constraints there. You had asked about locations at corners and I think I agree with Peter and Robert that if you put it under the ground, that seems to resolve a lot of these issues with that so I think a corner location could be ok if there’s a vault. It seemed like some of the locations – I think I was looking at two of the nodes that have batter backups proposed, there’s one on Lewis and one on Verano and I did look at those assuming that there was a battery backup there. It seemed like they were putting them – trying to put them where there were existing hedges and not by somebody’s front door. They sort of tried to be in the corner and I think the one on Lewis Road have an existing tree as well as some shrubs. I think that approach is – I think that’s generally the correct approach and then I think I have to acknowledge that it would still be visible from second-floor windows from those houses so I think that is still an issue. I think that’s all that I have for this one. I think I’m willing to entertain motions or if there are any other comments. Vice Chair Kim: I have one more comment. I believe I read somewhere, I don’t know exactly which of the two but that two of the poles are actually being replaced. So, if at all possible, is it possible to eliminate the bayonet in those two cases so that the utility pole ends up higher and that the antenna is directly City of Palo Alto Page 25 attached? I think that would be a stealthier way of going about that and it sounds like they are in agreeance. MOTION Board Member Baltay: If the Chair is willing to entertain motions I’d like to move that the ARB direct Staff to request the applicant to provide a design option with all the equipment underground to the greatest extent possible. Board Member Gooyer: I can second that. Chair Lew: Would you like to speak to the motion? Board Member Baltay: Yes, I would. I urge my fellow members to consider that. What we’re doing now sets a president for the rest of these applications coming down the line and I just can see no other way to get this equipment out there in a sightly manner. By our deciding something firmly and directly now, by telling the applicant what will be expected, it will save everybody. The City, the applicant, all these citizens that take up their precious time to come out, a lot of aggravation by setting a clear standard for what I think is a reasonable middle ground. These poles and these cell phone tower antennas are necessary, the equipment can be concealed. I think we can set a strong standard to go one direction right now. Chair Lew: Robert, do you want to speak to the motion? Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, I mean I agree. It’s one of these things that I hear that obviously, the ideal situation is if you have one pole then the next carrier comes in and they share the pole but if there are limitations as to what they can actually put on that, the second carrier is going to go forget it. If they’ve got a pole install, I’ll just get a pole installed 15-feet away from it. After a while, we’re just opening the door so I think we need to put a real strong statement. The reality of it is I don’t blame Verizon, they are going to take the most cost-effective way that they can but there are a lot of people that have a lot of money invested in their homes and in their community. I don’t think we ought to just say ok, well what the heck, we’ll just do whatever the company wants. Chair Lew: Ok we have a motion to – you’re saying direct Staff to provide an option for underground equipment to the greatest extent feasible. Board Member Baltay: That’s correct, (inaudible) important clause at the end of it. Chair Lew: Ok all in favor? Oppose? Ok, that passes 4 to 1. MOTION PASSES WITH A VOTE OF 4-1. Chair Lew: I think that we should clarify that this is a Staff recommendation that is to a date uncertain. Board Member Baltay: Yes, the motion is to continue to a date uncertain. Chair Lew: Ok so that is it for today. Mr. Lait: If we could just formalize that a little bit more with a separate motion to continue to a date uncertain. MOTION #2 Board Member Baltay: I move that we continue this application to a date uncertain. City of Palo Alto Page 26 Board Member Gooyer: Second that. Chair Lew: Ok all in favor? Opposed? That passes 5-0. MOTION #2 PASSES WITH A VOTE 5-0. Chair Lew: Ok, I think that’s it for this particular item. Thank you, everybody, for coming and we will see you at the next hearing. We’ll take a break for 10-minutes. [The Board took a short break.] 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 Hamilton Avenue (17PLN-00171): Consideration of a Minor Architectural Review to Allow for Exterior Improvements to an Existing Hotel. The Proposed Changes Include: Replacing the Ground Floor Store Fronts Along the Hamilton Avenue and Emerson Street Entries, Replacing the Existing Awning at the Emerson Street Entry, New Façade, Finishes on the First Floor and Part of the Second Floor, and Sidewalk Improvements. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CD-C(GF)(P) (Downtown Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org Chair Lew: We’re ready to reconvene. Item Number Three is a public hearing for a quasi-judicial item, 180 Hamilton Avenue. Consideration of a Minor Architectural Review to allow for exterior improvements to an existing hotel. The proposed changes include: replacing the ground floor storefronts along the Hamilton Avenue and Emerson Street entries, replacing the existing awning at the Emerson Street entry, new façade, finishes on the first floor and part of the second floor, as well as sidewalk improvements. The environmental assessment is it’s exempt from the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act per Guideline Section 15301 and the zone district is CD-C(GF)(P). Project planner is Samuel Gutierrez, welcome Sam. Mr. Samuel Gutierrez, Project Planner: Thank you. Once again, Samuel Gutierrez, Associate Planner and Project Planner for this project. This project is located here in downtown at 180 Hamilton Avenue. It involves exterior changes to an existing hotel and that is shown here on the first slide. Moving on, just to touch on the overview again, these are the proposed changes and this did previously go before the Board. The Board has some recommendations for additional changes along the exterior and to improve the sidewalk environment for pedestrians at this intersection at Hamilton and Emerson. Now we are including a new planter along Hamilton that will wrap around to Emerson so it starts at the Hamilton entrance and wraps around to Emerson. There will be new sidewalk grading to improve the grade and I’ll go over that in just a moment and a new street tree. There’s currently a street tree that is directly outside of the Emerson entrance to this hotel that just isn’t suitable for the well that’s there so working with Staff, we recommended a new one. To talk about the changes – the major changes to the project from the previous hearing, the sidewalk shown here along Emerson has a large planting area that’s not really a tree well, it’s a large planting area next to utility boxes. The Board has comments about pedestrian traffic going into that, walking into the dirt and it’s just not suitable for pedestrians. We looked into this and now the applicant is recommending to or proposing to expand the sidewalk so there would be more sidewalk area here. Looking at the lower right picture there you see a zoomed in area, you’ll see that the sidewalk is actually lifting up in that area. Staff looked at this here and the grade is a little significant, it’s about 4% so it will be reduced and made even to be brought in line with the rest of the sidewalk heading away from Hamilton on Emerson. Then, if you noticed, the Hamilton sidewalk is flat and smooth so it’s going to make it more unified in that way. There will also be some new plantings in this area and then the picture to the lower left shows the existing kind of planting situation and there’s a bit of a pushback in the building’s façade right there. They are actually going to plant or install a new planter that wraps around to kind of just add more green to that intersection. Again, the key project changes involve the sidewalk improvements and the regrading along Emerson. The new street tree which would be a Catalina Ironwood which would be better suited for our climate and is more water efficient. Actually, City of Palo Alto Page 27 it would do better in the tree well that exists there so it would just grow into a much nicer tree and improve the pedestrian environment. The new planting along the well area will also brighten it up and it is again, oversized and there’s a lot of just dirt that is not landscaped at all so it would actually improve that visual appeal for pedestrians and the environment. Another change, because it was a comment, was about the wood trim panels along the building façade. The trim that runs along the existing awning and that overhang toward the balconies between the first and second floor were previously proposed to change and now it’s going to remain as is. Then again, the new planter box that’s going to wrap around the Emerson/Hamilton corner of the building. This is more of a rendering of what that planter box would look like, that kind of wraps around that – again, that recessed façade that isn’t pushed against the public right of way right there at that corner. There was a question by the ARB previously to have an expanded rendering because there is currently an application in to expand the existing restaurant, the Nobu restaurant at 180 Hamilton, into the adjacent building located at 620 Emerson so that is a rendering of that larger expanded façade right there. How – this new design for the ground floor would tie into the expanded building over there at 620. Staff recommends that the Board recommend approval of this project to the Director of the Planning and Community Environment based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval found in the Staff report. If there are any questions, I’d be happy to answer them, thank you. Chair Lew: Before I forget, are there any disclosers for this particular item? No. Ok so we’ll do the applicant presentation and I think you’ll have 10-minutes. Then we do have one speaker and we’ll – and then you’ll have a rebuttal period and then we’ll come back to the Board. So – and you –so, you come – please come up and state your name. Mr. Greg Stutheit: Thank you, hello my name is Greg Stutheit, I’m with Montalba Architects. Thank you for having us back again to talk about the project. I almost want to say that Samuel covered it all but we did prepare a few comments so I’ll just kind of quickly go through those. Ah, there we go. Wait a minute. Am I all the way there? Yeah. Sorry about that. Oh, I get it now, I’m going backward. Ok so again, here’s the building as it exists now and you know last time we were here we had a good discussion about what to do to make this a more pleasing space. Especially for the pedestrian and the general public who are walking by or potentially going into the business. Three things that we discussed, in particular, was the replacement of the belt course which was raised as a kind of more technical concern with the wood. We also discussed the proposed street level façade and how to liven that up. It seemed like there was an agreement that the existing light mosaic, as it is now, worked pretty well at night but perhaps isn’t so effective during the day. Then finally, there was a lot of discussion about the improvement of the sidewalk and the public space. Including that the current sidewalk creates a pinch point at the corner, the current planting is sparse, to say the least, which translates as dirt, and the sidewalk slopes quite a bit which we can get into a little bit more detail. I think we can improve that as much as possible but some of the existing conditions sort of limit what’s able to be done there. Then are there opportunities to increase pedestrian interest and activity in the area? So, here are – here’s a view with some of our proposals which we can – we’ll get a little bit more into but first, as just a quick refresher, this is sort of what we looked at before. The interior lobby is going to be renovated to be renovated to be much lighter in color, inviting and open and kind of a mix of classic tradition with the clean modern aesthetic. Then over here on the bottom left, as you had requested, we’ve included an image that shows the new restaurants that are also being proposed. I’m – obviously this isn’t intended to be a full submittal, I’m sure we’ll talk more about that at a future date but I am kind of glad that you brought it up because previously we had looked at this image and talked about how the existing restaurant there opens to the street and really creates a lot of vibrancy on the street. If I go back here, our plan would be with the new restaurant that we’re proposing, is to install these large windows that essentially do the same thing. Providing visibility to and from the street and so it kind of starts to get into what we see as being sort of an overall concept for this. Where we have these two sorts of vibrate restaurants creating bookends to the corner and then the corner being more of a sort of transitory space between the two. If I just skip forward now a little bit to our proposed improvements here at the corner. We did decide that the belt course is already rendered as part of the building above and perhaps there really isn’t that much benefit to replacing it. So, we’re proposing that we can leave that as metal panel and that the design is just as successful and doing that is not. The rest of the adjustments that we’re looking at are really aimed at City of Palo Alto Page 28 enlivening the corner and improving the pedestrian experience. As suggested last time we studied some options of putting a bench in somewhere here but what we kind of found was that this is the sort of narrow portion of the sidewalk, right at the corner. If a useable bench where actually installed there, it could start to really kind of impeded actually on the pedestrian walkway that goes through and so we actually haven’t proposed that right now. We also, at your suggestion, studied some different lighting techniques on the façade and sort of quickly found out that the Public Works Department frowns on lighting in the sidewalk so that was sort of a deal killer there but we were able to make several, I think good improvements. As Samuel mentioned we’re planning on replacing the crumby little tree down the way a little with a new Catalina Ironwood. We’re adding – proposing to add tree grates to all of the tree wells on both streets fronting the property which will improve movement around the base of the trees. Coincidentally, we will be suggesting the same thing for the future phase of the project – the future restaurant extension. The Emerson entry doors, which are right here existing, we’ve justified as far to the south as we can and pushed them in as far as we can so that the door swing really is as clear as possible to the pinch point that we have out here on the street. Then the – because we’re changing the – replacing the sidewalk here and refreshing the paving, it also gives us the ability to make this existing planter at the corner a little bit narrower which will increase the sidewalk width here at the pinch point to approximately 7-foot 9-inches. We’ll be planting in the dirt planter which provides a good visual cue where you can walk and where you can’t and hopefully will keep people from stumbling haphazardly into the planter. This planter here has been extended around the corner. This is actually on our property and doesn’t really increase – decrease the width of the sidewalk any because there’s an existing little curb there as it is right now but it does provide some buffer from the wall and this sort of layered planting experience that you walk through. Finally, we have some plans for a few little floating steps stones in the planter so that in the event that there is car drop off or people who decided to cut the corner here, it can accommodate that while still being a nice planted area. In summary, what we’re suggesting is having this vibrant façade here with a vibrant façade down at the bottom and treating this as sort of a transitory area where people walk and kind of be seen if you will. I have a few more slides here but they’re primarily ones that we’ve looked at before so I think unless there are questions and we need to refer to them, I’ll just cut it off there and sum up. Thank you. Chair Lew: Great, thank you Mr. Montalba and we do have one speaker which is Martin Bernstein and you have 3-minutes. Mr. Martin Bernstein: Thank you, Chair Lew and Board. I’m Martin Bernstein, I’m a neighbor to the building and I live behind Nobu and the property there. I’m also an architect and enjoy seeing the presentation. I spoke with the manager of the building, I spoke with the design team and also the construction manager and I’m confident that this will enhance and beautify the neighborhood and I’m in full support of the project. Thank you. Chair Lew: Thank you, Mr. Bernstein. We do allow a rebuttal period if you wanted to address any comments but I think you’ll approve of his comments. Are there any questions? Wynne. Board Member Furth: Thank you. I noticed that on sheet A-101 it says that the planter – the planting will be a maximum of 42-inches tall. What – but I didn’t see what plants were proposed for that space or what – I’m concerned about the minimum height. (Inaudible) Chair Lew: Your microphone was off. Board Member Furth: I beg your pardon, let me try that again. I noticed on sheet A-101 in the – looking at the sidewalk area improvements, it talks about in grade planting maximum 42-inches tall. I would like – could I have some more information about what’s being proposed? My concern – my interest here is that there would be a minimum height so that it doesn’t turn into ground cover and a place for pedestrian traffic to sort of slide over. Mr. Gutierrez: Sure, I can address the height that’s noted here, is to maintain the vision triangle because it is close to an intersection so we don’t want something to grow in extreme height. Then possibly a small City of Palo Alto Page 29 child or something would not be visually seen by a car turning or backing up as they are loading. That is the corner where the valets operate so there could be a potential for cars slightly backing up as they are trying to parallel park to pick up and drop off. Board Member Furth: I understand the visibility triangle but one of the goals here is to convert the dirt area into something that significantly planted so that people walking by don’t get sort of shoved into it. I mean the great example was Ralph Cornell’s pittosporum on College Avenue in Clairemont that keeps all the students from jay-walking because you can’t get through it. I was just asking what plants are proposed here and basically sending my message that I’m hoping they’re sufficient height and sturdiness so what is proposed? Mr. Gutierrez: It’s just to match existing -- we could add that as a Condition of Approval that it would be required to match existing. Board Member Furth: But existing is nothing. Mr. Lait: I would just suggest in this case that if the Board has a recommendation as far as landscaping, that we’d love to hear that recommendation. We can include that as a Condition of Approval. Board Member Furth: The applicant has not proposed anything specific here? Chair Lew: I think that – if you look, there isn’t a landscape plan right but – and the Staff has a Conditional Approval Number 19 which is to submit a landscape plan. I guess if the Board wants to see it, I think we should include that in a motion. Mr. Lait: Yeah or just specify species. Board Member Furth: Ok, yeah, I thought I might have just missed it somewhere in the plan set and I’m not going to – we can talk about that later. Chair Lew: The applicant may have an answer for you. Mr. Stutheit: To answer your question, we haven’t specifically proposed any specific plant types but our intent would be to have something that meets obviously the (inaudible) corridor or the v-triangle will be knee height, in that range and probably a somewhat Asian aesthetic that fits in with the architecture. Board Member Furth: Thank you. Chair Lew: Peter. Board Member Baltay: Two questions for the applicant, please. The planter on the corner just – my eyes are not what they should be, what are the dimensions? It’s asymmetric around the corner but how far off (inaudible) the wall on each side? Mr. Stutheit: I believe on the Emerson side it’s around 3 ½-feet – 4-feet? Oh, excuse me on the… Chair Lew: Yeah, should clarify there are street planters and then there’s the raised planter next to the wall. Board Member Baltay: I’m referring to the raised planter next to the wall that wraps the limestone corner. Mr. Stutheit: Yes, so I’m sorry, I believe on the – I’m forgetting my streets now. Chair Lew: Hamilton and Emerson. City of Palo Alto Page 30 Mr. Stutheit: Yes, thank you. On the Hamilton side, it’s deeper, it’s in the range of about 4-feet. I can’t recall off the top of my head exactly what the dimension is and then as it wraps around, the dimension is less, it’s about a foot or so and that basically fills the space between our façade and the property line. Board Member Baltay: Great, thank you. Second question, the limestone wall is indicated in your renderings as being down lite from the soffit I gather; light fixture shining down but is that in the plans someplace? What fixture are you using? How is that being done? Mr. Stutheit: Right now, we’re using a sort of shallow linear LED fixture that is – it’s a light (inaudible) so it goes right up against the façade. I don’t know exactly where it is in the drawing set. Board Member Baltay: I’m looking at your drawing sheet A-6.10 and it shows a recessed microlux round recessed light that I would assume is the wall washing light, is that case? Mr. Stutheit: Yes. Board Member Baltay: That’s not a linear light, it’s just a series of spots. Mr. Stutheit: No, this is a linear fixture. Board Member Baltay: Is there an electric plan or is that described in this packet someplace? Mr. Stutheit: There is, I don’t know that is has been submitted with this packet. Chair Lew: There is an LED (crosstalk) – there is a linear LED light right above that, number two. Board Member Baltay: Right. Ok, I guess we’ll pick it up with conditions then, thank you. Mr. Stutheit: Ok, sure. Chair Lew: If there are no more questions, we can go onto comments. Kyu. Vice Chair Kim: Thank you for coming back to the Board. I really don’t have any other comments then to say it sounds like you have addressed the minor concerns that we had at the first hearing. I definitely think that it makes sense what you’re doing and it goes along with the vibe of the restaurant and of course, the change in name now. I think the tree grates are also an improvement to what’s there currently and I don’t really have much else to say than that. I would be happy to recommend approval of this project. Chair Lew: Can I ask a question about the tree grates? I think my understanding is that this Board had asked for them, they are not included in the large planter strip on Emerson but it seems like in the drawings there is a tree grate at the new tree, is that correct? So, it’s just that one location? Mr. Gutierrez: Yes, that’s correct and because of the amount of planting in that well area, combined with the tree and how large it is, it would be difficult – plus the utilities and the irrigation that one of the conditions requires, it just wouldn’t work in that area. Chair Lew: Great, thank you. Vice Chair Kim: But it did sound like it was implied that for the 620 Emerson tree in front of that building would eventually incorporate the same grate, am I correct? The tree in front of 620 Emerson at the restaurant expansion, that tree would also get the same tree grate treatment? Mr. Stutheit: That would be our intent, yes. City of Palo Alto Page 31 Chair Lew: Wynne. Board Member Furth: Thank you. I really appreciate the work that’s gone into address our concerns. I think the tree grates are good. I trust that it’s going to be a design that can handle people with high heels. So, it doesn’t have holes wide enough for high heels to slip through, I think that would be important in this location. It’s a very lively block, Emerson and with Richard Sumner Gallery and other visually interesting things going on. At the moment the two corners have been the dead spaces, congested dead spaces in the case of this building and so I really like the increased real windows looking into brightly lite spaces. It looks like the addition of the restaurant will make that whole block and corner work better which I appreciate. I also appreciate that the currently dirt planter is a really difficult space to operate in and landscape. Of course, I wish we would take out the trees, start again and 5-years from now have something great but we will work with what we’ve got which is a lot of utilities. Those rectangular – those rectangles in this are large stepping stones, is that right? Mr. Stutheit: Yes. Board Member Furth: That show in the plan? Mr. Stutheit: Yes. Board Member Furth: Those are designed to be stepped on and I think that’s a big improvement. I would ask my colleagues if they would support a condition that the landscaping in the currently un-landscaped area, I don’t know what we’d call that, be, I don’t know, a minimum height of 24-inches. Substantial enough to discourage pedestrian – what I am trying to say is big enough so people don’t step into it. You don’t get pushed off the sidewalk into it so it creates a barrier. Chair Lew: Ok, Robert. Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, I’d have no problem agreeing to that. I can pretty much except the project or approve the project as it’s presented. Chair Lew: Peter. Board Member Baltay: Yes, well I support what everybody has said and it’s a fine project. You guys are a talented architect, these are high-quality materials in the design here. Two things that I’d like to question, one to my fellow Board Members, I’m not really convinced that the planter around the corner is doing what we want it to do. I’m thinking it might be better if you just had a bench on the side under the Nobu sign. Chair Lew: You’re -- can you just clarify? This is the raised planter? The 1-foot raised planter? Board Member Baltay: The raised planter. The one that’s around the corner of this limestone, it’s 1-foot on one side and 4 on the other. The 1-foot side I’m afraid – I’m sure these guys will maintain it well but it’s the kind of thing that can look seedy and I think 1-foot to 4-foot is so asymmetric. It doesn’t really wrap the corner and I’ve been on that corner so many times at night. It’s just jammed with people and more so as everybody is waiting for their Uber or their ride or to be picked up. Just a bench there and Wynne is constantly pushing us for that and I think… Board Member Gooyer: But the thing is a 1-foot bench… Board Member Baltay: No, no, no, on the other side. There’s a 4-foot section – not a corner bench but just a bench next to the door on the side facing Hamilton where they have plenty of room there. Board Member Gooyer: Oh, that – I was thinking on this side. City of Palo Alto Page 32 Board Member Baltay: No, I don’t – I think on that side Staff made a good point that it just narrows the sidewalk too much but as you go around the corner, a bench would fit just fine next to the entry. I don’t want to hold up this process for that but that’s just my thought looking at it that the planter feels forced. You’ve got a beautiful planter in front of the dinner area just down Hamilton and this, at best, is just going to feel like a weak cousin to that. It doesn’t, in my opinion, hold the corner to well so I’m just throwing it out as a suggestion I suppose. The second issue is that I had wanted you to try to get uplighting on the stone wall and I understand that that’s not possible. In lieu of that, you’ll get some kind of down lighting. To me, it needs to have a very strong presence, that stone wall, to do what the current situation does. (crosstalk) Chair Lew: You guys so when you talk, let’s not talk at the same time then it doesn’t – if you look at the minutes it just says crosstalk so – then your microphone is not on as well. Board Member Baltay: So, my understanding was that Staff replied that uplighting could not be put in the public right of way. Actually, Staff can you address that? Why can’t we have up lighting? Mr. Gutierrez: Sure. In this location the building, for the most part, -- for most of the façade that’s changing along Emerson is built right to the property line and actually, if you look at the existing conditions, it’s actually raised and the façade that’s existing is actually kind of cantilevered out above – kind of floats over the air or excuse me, the sidewalk there. So, they are right against the public right of way and Public Works Engineering does not support these light elements in the public right of way due to maintenance. There are some examples down the street and I believe you mentioned that during the last hearing but there is a strip of private land adjacent to the sidewalk and that’s the location of those up lights. So that’s how it was allowed and technically, we do have some space because the building again is pushed back slightly but only a small portion of this new façade would actually have the up lights then on private property. So, it would only be a small segment of it having that up light feature, where the rest would only be able to have a downlight. Board Member Baltay: I hear you thank you for that explanation. That makes sense and I think it’s not desirable to have the façade ununiformly lit. I’d like to see perhaps that we request this to come back on a consent, just to see a better design of the lighting. What I’m concerned about is this linear LED strips and in my experience, they are generally not very bright and I think the stone with all the texture needs a fairly sharp glancing light to really bring it to life. Especially at night and I think if it’s not done carefully, it will just have this warm glow at the top which is the wrong effect. I’m confident these architects can pull off what we’re talking about but it might just be good to ask to see that back again to approve it. So, again my two comments where one, to consider whether we replace the planter with a bench, the planter at the corner of the building. Secondly, the light for the façade come back on consent, thank you. Chair Lew: Ok, a question for Staff on consent. So, we’ve done it on rare occasions in the past but I think we’ve had discussions that – more recently that that’s not part of the ARB bylaws and so I just wanted to hear Staff’s thought on how this could return to the Board? Mr. Lait: I think there’s broad discretion on how it returns to the Board. We haven’t done consent only because we don’t typically have so many items on the agenda that we couldn’t spend a few minutes talking about an item. We could agendize it as the first discussion item if you wanted to dispense with it quickly. It could also come back to the subcommittee but that’s a little bit more uncertain in terms of timing. Board Member Baltay: I’m sorry Alex, I meant subcommittee, not consent. I don’t want to open up a different thing. I meant for it to go back just to two Members of the Board to look at after one of our meetings so, I’m sorry, we call that subcommittee. Thank you. Chair Lew: Ok, thank you, Peter. I can support the project. It seems to me that the – I think I share your concern about the 12-inch planter. We’ve – I’ve seen -- we’ve done it on a couple of occasions, there was one on the Alma Street affordable housing. It was a triangular – they proposed a triangularly shaped City of Palo Alto Page 33 planter that came to a point and in the end, they just cut off the point because it just couldn’t work. Then also at Bloomingdale’s at Stanford Shopping Center, they had a fairly shallow planter and I looked at it after it was installed and it was just barely large enough to get the pot in the planter so I think it’s tricky. It seems to me that things like certain kinds of succulents and stuff can work in a very small planter but it’s limited. You’re not going to get – in a foot, it’s going to be hard to get something substantial in there. So, I would be welcome to some alternates but to me, this is a minor issue. It should be a subcommittee, it should not be the whole Board or something like that and I think if – I think Wynne had wanted to see the landscaping. It seems like that could come back to the subcommittee so I would support those amendments to the Conditions of Approval. Board Member Baltay: Would you object to having the applicant address the question of the planter versus a bench just to see what they think, through the Chair? Mr. Stutheit: As to whether we would be… Chair Lew: Are you agreeable to a bench on Hamilton instead of the L-shaped planter? Mr. Stutheit: I would probably want to differ that to our hotel operator. I think there’s a little bit of concern that a bench becomes a place just to hang out and isn’t necessarily helpful. Chair Lew: Ok, thank you. For Peter, what is the exact language you where thinking of? Is that consider or are you – or do you want to direct them to actually make the change? Board Member Baltay: Can I ask Wynne to chime in on this? Thank you. Board Member Furth: Well, as you know, I always like benches and I like to sit down. I think this is such a lively and engaged corner that this bench is likely to be used in ways that would enhance the experience. I also know that you do see people hanging around in this corner and they are hanging around on this corner because they are waiting for their table or they ran into friends and I think it would be – it would really be helpful. This building is constrained by the fact that it started out as a different use at a different time. You have that big stairwell there and so you can’t – all the other corners over there carve out and they provide a social space that isn’t to close to traffic, that lets people stop and chat and this a street and a corner where, in my experience, you run into people you know and other people are running into people they know. I’ve been mourning our – the fact that we don’t have lovely plazas that we all go sit in at sunset to drink our Aperol spritzers but this is probably the most social corner in the City. I support having a bench, I’m confident that you can design one that won’t be used by people who have nowhere else to sleep. I would also say that in my experience, people in those circumstances in the City don’t seek out this corner. It’s too busy, it’s too occupied, it’s too disturbed so I think you could do it. I actually think some foot-wide plantings work if they are high enough so that the plant is close enough to people walking by. If they are intensively maintained because they are flower boxes and flower boxes can be that width and work very well. If it was extended along the side of the bench, it might provide a bit of enclosure and sense of comfort so I would like to see this design revised to incorporate a bench on the Hamilton Avenue side. Chair Lew: Ok, I’m willing to entertain motions. Wynne? Peter? Kyu, do you want to make your – for your last meeting, would you like to make a motion? MOTION Vice Chair Kim: Sure. Well so maybe I’ll comment on the bench. I think it’s a good idea but I really think we’re making a little bit too much of it and so I will make an amendment and perhaps it will get – I’m sorry, I’ll make a motion and perhaps I’ll get a friendly amendment but I will move that we recommend approval of this project. Also, that the landscape plan and specifically the plants in that planting stripe along Emerson come back to the subcommittee and I’ll leave it at that. City of Palo Alto Page 34 Chair Lew: I will second that. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #1 Board Member Baltay: Can I amend the lighting to come back to the subcommittee for the soffit? Vice Chair Kim: I will accept that amendment. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. Chair Lew: You need a second with an amendment. Mr. Lait: Well, you – I think it’s a friendly amendment if you… Chair Lew: Oh, if he accepts it. Mr. Lait: But then you as a seconder would also need to accept it. Chair Lew: I will accept that amendment. UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT #2 Board Member Furth: I have what I will suspect if going to turn out be an unfriendly amendment through actually it’s to advocate friendliness. I would like to add a condition that the planter presently shown at the corner of Hamilton Avenue and Emerson facing Hamilton be redesigned to incorporate seating. So, that’s my proposed amendment, friendly or unfriendly and that this is referred to a subcommittee. Board Member Gooyer: Can I make one comment on that? Maybe the way to it, as he said, maybe the hotel owner would have – or operator would have an issue with that. Why don’t we say make an effort to design or something to that effect that it isn’t a mandatory issue because if we approve it that and it – the hotel operator has a real problem with it, then it’s going to be an issue. Board Member Furth: So, I understand that and I may not get support sufficient to make this amendment but I think that this fear of undesirable people sitting in our Cities in places we don’t want to see them is excessive. I look at the privatizing of public spaces and I realize this is private land but we would never approve this as a new building with this kind of corner proximity without some kind of better pedestrian amenity. This is the busiest corner in terms of pedestrians without this kind of access and we’re not going to have another chance. I think properly lite, properly designed and this is also a hotel where there is a lot of street presence by Staff. I mean I – every time I walk by there, right? I do appreciate the relocation of the entry further down the street. I think that’s going to help but I would like to have them incorporate seating. Chair Lew: Is there a second for this amendment? Board Member Baltay: Is it friendly or unfriendly? Board Member Furth: It hasn’t been accepted by… Chair Lew: Oh (inaudible) – well, yes, I’m sorry, I had the process wrong so Kyu? Vice Chair Kim: I will not accept the amendment. Board Member Baltay: Very well, I will second the amendment. Chair Lew: Ok so we’re going to vote on the requirement of… City of Palo Alto Page 35 Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible) Chair Lew: He did not so… Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible) Chair Lew: We’re going to vote on it. Board Member Gooyer: Oh ok. Board Member Baltay: So, we vote just on the amendment. Chair Lew: So, we’re voting just on the amendment to require seating in the raised corner bench or raised corner planter. Board Member Furth: Not in the raised corner bend – bed. Chair Lew: Ok so all in favor? Opposed? So that amendment fails on a 2-3. AMENDMENT #2 FAILS WITH A OF VOTE OF 2-3. Chair Lew: Are there any other amendments? FRIENDLY AMENDMENT #3 Board Member Baltay: Can I make, what I hope is a friendly amendment, that we allow the applicant the option of providing seating instead of a planter if they so desire. It doesn’t have to be the planter, they can consider one or the other. Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second that. Oh, that’s right. Vice Chair Kim: I’ll accept that. Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second that. Chair Lew: (Inaudible) Board Member Gooyer: Ok, fine. Chair Lew: Ok so this is considered an option for adding seating. All in favor? Opposed? Mr. Lait: That was a friendly amendment so you’re fine on that so you don’t need to vote on it. If your deliberation is done, you can vote on the whole package. Chair Lew: If there are no other amendments, we have a recommendation to approve with the landscape to come to the subcommittee. As well as the lighting design, in particular, the LED strip down lighting. Mr. Lait: I would just for process-wise if the applicant desired to pursue a bench, that would be reviewed at Staff’s level is my understanding. Thank you. Chair Lew: Ok, all in favor? Opposed? None so that passes on a 5-0 vote. ORIGINAL MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. Chair Lew: Congratulations. Does anybody need a break? We have… City of Palo Alto Page 36 Vice Chair Kim: Several additional items. Chair Lew: Yes, we have the annual ARB Report to Council, election of Chair and Vice Chair, minutes and we have a subcommittee item. 4. Discussion Regarding the Annual ARB Report to Council. Chair Lew: Are you guys ready to – ok so Item Number Four is a discussion regarding the Annual ARB Report to Council. This is required by City ordinance and it’s actually to Council as it’s written in the ordinance to the Council and the PTC. For the Board, in the packet, I did a spreadsheet showing all the projects for the past 2-years and I used the same format that previous Chair Randy Popp did for 2013 and 2014. The current – what I did for this particular thing was 2016 and ’17 so I don’t have 2015 documented. It was mostly shopping center projects and some Page Mill Road projects and then also I did have the Staff send just some comments – additional comments and that came by email regarding awards that projects have received some large projects that were constructed this year. Also, I did itemize out some of the projects that were reviewed both by the ARB and the HRB. I did that because there was a change after the 429 University project where non-historic projects that were near historic buildings would get reviewed by the HRB so I did put that in there because that’s been a recent change. Just in the last 2-years, there’s been a 40% drop in the number of projects reviewed by the ARB so that’s significant. There were several changes made at the Council level and we have revised findings as well that came into effect earlier this year. I did that just as some talking points and I didn’t put in a lot of editorializing or recommendations to Council but I think we can add that in if the Board think that that’s warranted. I tried to put in things that the Council Members have reacted to based on the previous letter that Randy Popp had sent on behalf of the ARB. Anyway, if there are any thoughts or if are there any other additional issues that you would like to put in there, I would welcome that. Peter. Board Member Baltay: I had a couple of thoughts and questions and ideas but first, I’ve been on the Board 2-years now and this is the first we’ve done a report of any kind. I know you mentioned in the past that the Board just had a joint meeting with the City Council and is that how it uses to be done? Chair Lew: Generally, yes and then I would say this year the City Staff was very good in contacting the City Clerk and the Mayor about meeting several times and as you know, Council have been very busy. A lot of very big planning issues and so the Council hadn’t decided to meet even though we had contacted them several times. So, yes, that’s the generally we would do a meeting instead of the letter. Board Member Baltay: I can’t blame the Council; those meetings tend not to always get a lot of strong ideas coming out but I guess I want to throw this out then. I’ve, over the past year or two, made an effort to just speak to as many of the Council Members, just one on one, as possible and I’ve consistently heard that they view our role in part as a quasi-judicial decision-making recommending to the Planning Director. A lot of them have also asked about policy and said what’s your policy-making decisions? I just kind of scratched my head because I didn’t – we tend to react to applications that come to us. At the same time, I’m always thinking that there’s sort of a thread in some of these applications and there’s some consistent ideas that a lot of times we’re looking at each other thinking well, it’s just to bad the code is this way. So, it seems to me that it’s an opportunity for us to not only do what you’ve done Alex, which is a good summary of our quasi-judicial actions which is important but I may just quickly, two sets of general things. One is we just – the Council just voted in a set of Architectural Review Findings and why not get them a report of are they are working good or bad or here’s what we see. Give them some feedback on it, it was a big process to get those changes made. They, I’m sure, haven’t thought about it much but I for one think it’s great, just fewer of them and you can remember what they are and work with it. If we collectively came up with some opinions just to give feedback. Secondly, I find that there’s a number items in the zoning code that I wish were different and in my discussions with Council Members, they are just not as tuned into the details on it. I think if we could collectively come up with a few bullet points of things that maybe are worth thinking about it might help them. So, I threw out three items that just crossed my mind but it would be good if we could collectively brainstorm. One is that there seems to City of Palo Alto Page 37 be a constant tension of office buildings being approved in research and development zoning areas; that area is down on Park Avenue. Those are office buildings, they are not research buildings and that’s the original intent of the zoning code. I think Council is maybe aware but not really aware of the impact on the design and the approval process and certainly, it wouldn’t hurt to tell them that. A second one that I’m dealing professionally a lot is if you try to develop a small residential project, just like the one we saw the other day on the corner on College Avenue in the College Terrace Neighborhood… Chair Lew: So, that’s Staunton Court. Board Member Baltay: Yes, the applicant is essentially forced into putting in two units on that property and then if you look at the economics behind it, they’re going to max it out. Their basement is the biggest square footage and they looking at a $3-$4 million resale for each one, that’s their target. My understanding is that goes against the general grain of what the City wants to do, against the Comprehensive Plan effort to get smaller housing that’s not low income but more affordable. It could be done if you modified the zoning so that those kinds of parcels could be developed at a higher level of density. I think that City Council again is probably just not aware of how tied developers and people who build these things are. Another project that my firm has done recently on Alma Street, we ran into the exact same problem on a 10,000-square foot lot on Alma Street. Our client would have been happy to build 6 or 8 units on that, zoning was quite specific it had to be 3; no more, no less. When pressed the Staff just sort of said look, this is just the way the math works out on these codes that were written and you’re in between two categories. Again, if we could just tell the powers that be what’s going on. Lastly, I find that the impact of parking requirements has a big impact on the design of housing especially. Personally, I feel that we ought to consider different ways of regulating parking that would make it more feasible to produce smaller level, more affordable housing in town. Again, I think the Council could really do well to hear that from us, we’re the design experts. I’m throwing those ideas out there to see if there’s any traction behind expanding the scope of the report. Chair Lew: Peter, for the last two items – well, let me address the first item. One is that there is a – the Planning Commission has been working on that area and so I think that is – that has been discussed elsewhere in the City in that particular area. I realize there are other – maybe other R&D areas as well. With regard to the housing and the number of units and the parking requirements, that is an issue. There was a Colleagues Memo by Council Member Fine, Wolbach and Kniss and this was back in November. I think I have the date, Colleagues Memo, November 6th and all the Council Members agreed to that memo and the memo is to work with – for the Council to work with the PTC to examine things like the parking requirements for housing units and stuff. That is an issue and I think that – I know – I think Board Member Furth has an interest in that as well. The – at the moment, I think in that memo it does not include ARB so I think if you want we could ask Staff to -- if proposed changes in the zoning ordinance are coming through, that may be the ARB can also comment on that before it goes to Council. Board Member Baltay: Yeah, I don’t want to be misunderstood, I’m not out to be advocating for changes as much as I am saying that what we see from the Architectural Review level sometimes is information that other people don’t see. I’m not – I don’t want to – I mean I have opinions but I’m not saying that I want to be advocating for one position or another. Actually, just to be saying the parking really impacts the design of the housing and we see it firsthand. Chair Lew: Right and I think that the directive from the Council is to study this with the PTC. It was not necessarily advocating one way or the other, they were looking for alternatives to get more units. Board Member Gooyer: I agree with Peter, that I mean it doesn’t hurt to let them know that even if it’s in a memo form saying that we see these things happening here, then probably that is should be addressed. Not that we have any particular, as you said, option of which way it should go. Chair Lew: That’s fine. I’m not…(crosstalk) Board Member Baltay: I don’t think it’s for us to advocate a direction of the change in the zoning code, That’s for the Planning Commission and the City Council. City of Palo Alto Page 38 Chair Lew: We actually do – on other previous zoning changes it sometimes comes back to us just for comment, not on a vote. Chair Baltay: I’m thinking of – there was another project a year or so ago with again, two or three houses on a small lot in North Palo Alto and to get the backup space to pull out of the two-car garage required all kinds of giggling in the corners of the building. It just becomes an incredibly constrained design by an automobile parking configuration into a two-car garage. It creates all kinds of friction and I don’t think that level of detail gets to the attention of the Planning Commission or City Council. That’s what we seem to struggle with, we’re trying to balance that. That’s what I am thinking about more. Chair Lew: Ok. I think that’s – I think those are all legitimate issues. We can discuss it now or the other thing too is if you wanted to go into more detail about other zoning, I get you were just using that as an example, we could continue this to a retreat if you wanted to really go into a whole bunch of different issues. If you just wanted to use these as a couple bullet points, I think that’s fine. Wynne. Board Member Furth: Thank you. I – thank you very much for the analytical work that’s already been done, I think it’s very helpful. I think – I would suggest that we try to address these issues as part of getting this report to Council. I think it could be worthwhile to say to Council that we believe the Architectural Review Board has expertise that would be helpful in analyzing these proposed stages. I would think you would want to do it while the Planning and Transportation Commission is discussing this, not afterward; in other words, commenting to the PTC and Staff. I’ve been listening to the debates and writing revised Planning Ordinances here for the past 19-years and these issues always arise. I think there are very few people who understand how the different bits and pieces of the zoning requirements actually work in real economic life and design life as well as architects do and getting that contribution in earlier would be helpful. We—the first thing you learn is we have RM whatever zoning and the second thing you learn is that actually means RM something minus ten and I think that creative thoughts on how to address this if they want to address this, would be very useful. I think that’s all that we need to tell them in our report. Chair Lew: Kyu, do you have any comments? Board Member Baltay: I was going to propose that we ask Kyu to write up a report for us that we could then circulate. In all seriousness, I know Jonathan wouldn’t allow us to but normally this is the kind of thing where I or somebody would write up an email. We’d go to the next person and the whole Board would just keep chiming in until we have something we like. I suppose that violates the Brown Act in a big way but… Mr. Lait: I could suggest an alternative. Board Member Baltay: Please. Mr. Lait: It sounds like – I mean there’s certainly an opportunity for the Board to have a dialog about these issues and maybe there’s are two or three different things we’re talking about here. One is sending a message to the Council as part of the annual letter of the Board’s interest in wanted to engage more and communicate more issues or concerns that the Board sees to the Council and signal the interest to do that. Then subsequently we can agendize this topic of what do we want to tackle first, what’s the first discussion we want to have? Maybe develop a short little list of things that you’re interested in and then we can agendize those for a discussion of the Board. You’d have your dialog here in this forum and one of you could be selected or a pair of you selected to prepare a letter that would be transmitted to the City Council making a recommendation that here’s this issue, we think that these tweaks to the code could be helpful in these regards, and send that to the City Council. Then see if they are in agreement to that and they would direct Staff accordingly to make any kind of refinements. So, I think there’s certainly a process that exists to allow that kind of a discussion. City of Palo Alto Page 39 Board Member Baltay: Is there a process of just creating a subcommittee so that two of us could draft something and… Mr. Lait: Yeah, absolutely. Board Member Baltay: … then we could bring that back. I think… Chair Lew: The bylaws of the Chair can create a subcommittee for anything so I think we should – we could do that now or next item we’re going to be changing Chair and Vice Chair. Board Member Baltay: I mean I – what do you recommend Jonathan? Mr. Lait: So, if you want to form a subcommittee I would do it toward the end of your agenda which is this sort of questions, comments, announcements. I might suggest that it happen at that location in your agenda if you want to form a subcommittee. Board Member Baltay: I’m going to leave it to you Alex. I said my piece, you’re the Chair, good luck. Chair Lew: I guess – what do I want to say? In previous – under previous Boards, Board Members have had issues with say the height limit for example and wanted some discussion about that. We did it during a retreat and for the retreat, that particular Board Member, he actually came up with a presentation on what is happening. He actually made his case for that and I think that is important instead of just talking about – just verbally, we actually see it and analyze it and not just do it with one or two antidotes. So, I think that’s what – I think the subcommittee would be useful for that so that a proper presentation could be made and I think that’s probably the right way of doing it if there are two Board Members that are willing to do it. We should probably do it, as Jonathan said, after because we’re going to have a different – we’re going to have a new Board Member. Board Member Baltay: Maybe it’s appropriate, if you’re the outgoing Chair, you submit the report you’ve just prepared to Council as our Annual Report; this is what it is. We try to even set a president that the annual report goes out with the outgoing Chair because it really should go through the Chair I believe. Chair Lew: Then I would say that we can add – I think we could add – the two projects that you sited about – with regards to the housing are both duplexes in the RMD zones so we could say that where issues with them. Those – both of those projects took a lot of time, in of them in particular I think went through maybe as many as five hearings so I think we could highlight that. That that’s an issue and that’s also something that the Board has not reviewed very many of those RMD projects so it’s something different so we can highlight that there were some issues there so I can add that. If that’s it, why don’t we move onto… Board Member Baltay: Do we need to move to submit the report that you’ve done to Council? Chair Lew: Oh, do we need to make… Mr. Lait: No, you don’t need to make a formal motion. Chair Lew: I will talk to Staff on how we actually do the letter. I don’t actually know physically how (inaudible)(crosstalk) the letter. Mr. Lait: We’ll get you through that. It will be a letter from the Chair representing your perspective of the – you’re 10-years and so it doesn’t – it’s a singular perspective of the – of your time. Chair Lew: Of the Board. Ok, so I will close that item. 5. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair for the Architectural Review Board City of Palo Alto Page 40 Study Session MOTION Chair Lew: We’ll move to Item Number Five which is the election of Chair and Vice Chair for the Architectural Review Board. I do want to thank all of the Board Members, it’s been a very interesting year. I’ve had feedback from critics of the ARB that they think this is the best Board in years and I think that’s because you guys have really put on the thinking caps and really come up with some really strong arguments on projects. So, I will nominate Wynne Furth for Chair. Is there a second? Board Member Baltay: I’ll second that. Chair Lew: All in favor? Mr. Lait: So… Chair Lew: I’m sorry. Mr. Lait: …I’m sorry. Just before – you – good to nominate and second. I would just give pause for a moment to see if there are any other nominations that are being sought before you make a vote. Chair Lew: Entertain other options. Yes. Board Member Furth: (Inaudible) Mr. Lait: I do not. Board Member Baltay: I’d like to second what Alex just said and think that his leadership of the Board has been outstanding. There’s really nothing like having a calm, thoughtful person at the helm and your experience is also really great so it’s been a good year. Thank you. Chair Lew: Ok so all in favor? Opposed? None. Mr. Lait: Any abstentions? Chair Lew: Great. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY WITH A VOTE OF 5-0 TO MAKE WYNNE FURTH CHAIR. Chair Lew: I am willing to entertain motions for Vice Chair. Vice Chair Kim: I will nominate Board Member Baltay as Vice Chair. Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second that. Chair Lew: Ok, are there any other motions? Seeing none, we will vote on the motion for Peter Baltay as Vice Chair. All in favor? Opposed? None so that’s 5-0. MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY WITH A VOTE OF 5-0 TO MAKE PETER BALTAY VICE CHAIR. Mr. Lait: I think… Chair Lew: So that’s… City of Palo Alto Page 41 Mr. Lait: As you are beginning to wrap up, you’ve got your minutes and then maybe you want to do your Board Member if you want to form a committee before you… Chair Lew: Right, before the subcommittee. Mr. Lait: Yeah. Approval of Minutes: 6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 2, 2017. Chair Lew: We received electronically minutes for November 2, 2017. Are there any comments? Vice Chair Kim: I noticed that in the attendance report that I think Board Member Gooyer was marked as absent but then I did see that he presented comments later and so I didn’t know exactly what was going on there. Board Member Gooyer: Which date was that? Vice Chair Kim: November 2nd. Did you come late to the meeting? Board Member Gooyer: I think I was out that week. Vice Chair Kim: You do make comments later on. Board Member Gooyer: You know, I try and pitch in. Mr. Lait: He was in attendance so we’ll correct that. Chair Lew: Ok. I had a comment, there is in yellow – I don’t have the page right in front of me, an unidentified… Board Member Gooyer: No, I’ve got myself as I was here. Chair Lew: Ok, we can check, I mean it’s all on video so we can check that. On the unidentified speaker was a representative from Jay Paul, the developer but it wasn’t Jay Paul. Board Member Furth: It’s on Page 9. Excuse me, it’s on Page 9, it just says male. Chair Lew: Yeah and that was for the Park Avenue project. Ok so… Board Member Furth: I have some typos which I’ll just give to Staff. One of the problems is they clearly don’t know the name Hohbach and… Chair Lew: There’s an extra H. Board Member Furth: … and buried because berried which I thought was kind of nice and hostile became hostel. Chair Lew: Are there any motions to approve the minutes as amended? MOTION Board Member Gooyer: So, moved. City of Palo Alto Page 42 Chair Lew: A second? Board Member Furth: Second. Chair Lew: Seconded by Furth, all in favor? Opposed? None so that passes 5-0. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. [The Board moved to Board Member questions, comments, and announcements] Subcommittee Item 7. 300 Homer Avenue [15PLN-00290]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to Courtyard Pavement Details, Risers to the Courtyard, Railing Details at the Front Entrance, Trellis Details, Comprehensive Landscape Plan, and Lighting Plan With Photometric Data. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: PF (Public Facilities). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Adam Petersen at apetersen@m-group.us Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Chair Lew: Board Member questions, comments, and announcements, we do need to do the subcommittee item and I just wanted to mention briefly to the Board that the Council has weighed in on several things. So, we do have on November 6th they reviewed retail – what do you call it? Retail ground floor requirements for 425 Portage. The owner is looking for an exemption from the retail requirement and that passed 6-3. Also, November 6th there was a housing – a Colleagues Memo about housing and that passed 9-0. On November 13th the Council reappointed Wynne Furth and also Guzma Thompson to the Board. On November 13th they also approved the Comp. Plan update, that was a 7-2 vote and I think the EIR portion of that only passed on a 5-4 vote. On November 27th the Adobe Creek bicycle bridge passed on a 9-0 vote and that was not the actual construction contract but that was the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Parks Ordinance and the Record of Land Use Action. Also on November 27th, is it 285 Hamilton? The house building across the street from City Hall came in for a study about adding roof decks to a grandfather, non-conforming building and that passed on a 5-4 vote. Mr. Lait: Actually, just to be clear, there was no action on that one but there were comments. Chair Lew: It was a study – right, a study session. On December 4th the Junior Museum went to the Council and that passed on an 8-0 vote and they were very happy with the design of that. I am going to – how do I do this? Am I going to – do I just will it into happening? I’m going to add a subcommittee to the… Mr. Lait: Yeah, you would identify the members and give us a title for the subcommittee. Chair Lew: I’m going to add a subcommittee to – how do I want to say this? To consider zoning issues. Board Member Gooyer: I thought we were going to do that with the next Board because we don’t have the fifth Member of the Board sitting here? Chair Lew: I think Jonathan was saying to do it now, right? Mr. Lait: Well, it’s the Boards discretion if you want to do – form your committee now or later. Chair Lew: It would make sense to do it… City of Palo Alto Page 43 Board Member Furth: So, this is an AD HOC Committee to identify the zoning issues that the ARB might address? Chair Lew: Wants to highlight to the PTC and Council. Board Member Furth: Right. Board Member Gooyer: Right. Chair Lew: That’s – well, why don’t we – let’s try to do it now and if we don’t – if there aren’t two people willing to do it now, we’ll try to do it at the next meeting – next time. Are there – I think Peter is interested. Is there anybody else interested? Board Member Gooyer: Sure. Chair Lew: We love that enthusiasm. Board Member Furth: I think I have a new job, why don’t you do it? Board Member Gooyer: No, that’s fine. You and I can do it, she’s Chair. Chair Lew: Yeah. Board Member Baltay: (Inaudible - no mic) Chair Lew: Mind you, Peter, that there’s – as Vice Chair you also have Metro Meeting on Wednesdays. Ok, I think we have two volunteers, Peter Baltay and Robert Gooyer for the subcommittee. Board Member Baltay: Alex, (inaudible- no mic)? Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible – no mic) Chair Lew: If Robert doesn’t want to do it, I’ll do it. Board Member Baltay: No, I was going to say you and Robert. Board Member Gooyer: Now wait a minute, you’re the one that started this and now… Vice Chair Kim: (Inaudible)(crosstalk) Board Member Furth: How about Peter and Alex, the two obsessives. Board Member Baltay: I’m happy to serve, I’m happy to do whatever but I don’t want to take away from somebody else who’s also passionate to do this. Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible - no mic) Board Member Baltay: What do you think is best Alex? What’s the best make up for your Committee? Your Committee? Chair Lew: I will be happy to do it. Ok so than between the two of you. Peter? Board Member Baltay: You and I will do it, Alex. Chair Lew: Ok so it’s Peter Baltay and Alex Lew for the subcommittee. City of Palo Alto Page 44 Board Member Baltay: You’re ok (inaudible)? Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible -no mic). Chair Lew: Do we need to vote on the subcommittee? No. Mr. Lait: (Inaudible – no mic) Chair Lew: Peter Baltay and Alex Lew on the subcommittee. I think that’s it. We have a subcommittee item. Kyu? Vice Chair Kim: Yeah, I just wanted to make a quick closing comment as the last meeting as Vice Chair and last meeting as a Board Member. I just wanted to thank my fellow Board Members, including those that may no longer be serving on the Board. You know everybody that’s encouraged me, including those that have reached out to me to take some more interest in a position like this and I hope the public and Council of course knows but realizes that this is a volunteer position. The number of hours just spent at these meetings is only the fraction of the number of hours that we spend reviewing the documents. So, I just wanted to thank everybody here, as well as Staff for supporting us; Jonathan, Jodie, Amy, and all the way down. Yeah, it’s been a pleasure and honor and just to somebody who’s grown up here in Palo Alto to be able to serve my City again, that has been great. Thank you. Chair Lew: Thank you, Kyu. Board Member Furth: Thank you for your saved advice and good company. Chair Lew: Ok, we’re adjourned. Adjournment