HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-11-15 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 or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Architectural Review Board
Regular Meeting Agenda: November 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, and 2) 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: Architectural Review Board Input on Peninsula Corridor
Electrification Project (PCEP) Overhead Contact System Foundation & Pole Layouts
Design for Installation Within Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB)
Right of Way in Palo Alto. Environmental Assessment: The JPB Certified the Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan (MMRP) in January 2015, Following Publication of the Draft EIR in
February 2014 for Public Comment. For More Information Contact the Chief Planning
Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org
3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4256 El Camino Real (18PLN-00096):
Consideration of a Major Architectural Review for a new 51,300 Square Foot Five-
Story Hotel Including 100 Guest Rooms and Below-Grade Parking. Director's
Adjustment Requested for a Reduction in Required On-site Parking (15%) and
Loading Space Dimensions. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zone District: CS
(Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel
Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@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 or less 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
Subcommittee Items
4. 744 San Antonio Road [15PLN-00314]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously
Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to
Lighting. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Section 15061(b)(3) That the
Project is not Subject to CEQA Because the Proposed Revisions Will not Have a
Significant Effect on the Environment. Zoning Districts: CS (Service Commercial). For
More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-
group.us
5. 3945 El Camino Real [16PLN-00374]: Second Subcommittee Review of a Previously
Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to
1) Designated Guest Parking Spaces, 2) Details for Several Material Choices, 3)
Location and Design of at Least two Benches, and 4) Alternative Colors/Stains for the
Siding. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with Section 15301 (Existing
Facilities). Zoning Districts: CS/RM-30. For More Information Contact Project Planner
Graham Owen at graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org
6. 3223 Hanover Street: Subcommittee Review of Building 1 (16PLN-00190) and
Building 2 (17PLN-00255) Landscaping and Bicycle Path Improvement Plans in
Accordance with Respective Conditions of Approval.
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 or less 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 # 9848)
Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 11/15/2018
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, and 2) Tentative Future Agenda items.
From: Jonathan Lait
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 are assigned by the ARB Chair.
The second 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.
Administrative staff-level Architectural Review approvals can be found on the City’s webpage at
http://bit.ly/PAstaffapprovals. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the
ARB on the proposed director's decision(s) 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.
No action is required by the ARB for this item.
1
Packet Pg. 4
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
Attachments:
Attachment A: ARB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX)
Attachment B: Tentative Future Agendas (DOCX)
1
Packet Pg. 5
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 Thompson/Lew
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 Furth
9/6/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Baltay/Thompson
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 Thompson
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 5/3 Furth/Lew
July August September October November December
9/6 Lew/Gooyer 10/4 & 10/18
Thompson/
Baltay
1.a
Packet Pg. 6
Architectural Review Board
2018 Tentative Future Agenda
The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change:
Meeting Dates Topics
December 6, 2018
Crown Castle/Verizon Cluster 2 (1st Formal)
Crown Castle/Verizon Cluster 3 (1st Formal)
4115 El Camino Real: 7 Unit Mixed Used project
3128 El Camino Real: Exterior Modifications
3705 El Camino Real: Wilton Court
1.b
Packet Pg. 7
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 9759)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/15/2018
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Overhead Contact
System
Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Architectural Review Board Input on
Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) Overhead
Contact System Foundation & Pole Layouts Design for
Installation Within Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers
Board (JPB) Right of Way in Palo Alto. Environmental
Assessment: The JPB Certified the Final Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) and Adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan (MMRP) in January 2015, Following Publication
of the Draft EIR in February 2014 for Public Comment. For
More Information Contact the Chief Planning Official Amy
French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s):
1. Provide comments on the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) Overhead
Contact System (OCS) design for proposed pole and foundation installations in Caltrain
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) right of way.
Report Summary
The Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP), partly funded by the Federal Transit
Administration, is the conversion of Caltrain from diesel-hauled trains to electrically-powered
trains for service between San Francisco and San Jose. The OCS design is for improvements
only within the Caltrain Joint Powers Board (JPB) right of way. The City of Palo Alto does not
have permitting authority; therefore, this review is considered a courtesy review. The JPB has
agreed to accept and consider input from the City Council, with advice from the ARB and
Historic Resources Board (HRB). This report provides the ARB with information to enable
discussion and any input on the project for the JPB’s consideration.
2
Packet Pg. 8
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
The Caltrain Joint Powers Board (JPB) published the PCEP Draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) in February 2014 and Palo Alto City Council provided comments on the Draft EIR. In
January 2015, JPB certified the Final EIR with a statement of overriding considerations, and
adopted the mitigation monitoring and reporting plan (MMRP, viewable here:
http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Electrification+Documents/
MMRP.pdf). The PCEP webpage containing environmental review document links is here:
http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/Modernization/PeninsulaCorrid
orElectrificationProject/PCEP_FEIR_2014.html. The PCEP Final EIR disclosed ‘permanent visual
alterations’ from the project, along with other impacts.
Foundation work for the poles is anticipated to begin in March 2019 or thereafter. JPB staff
stated that there are remedies if the contractor fails to follow the EIR mitigation measures; staff
can issue a Statement of Objection to require the contractor to fix any work that has been done
incorrectly. JPB staff committed to considering input from Palo Alto boards, as designs move
beyond the current plan set, which reflects 65% completion. The JPB will enter into an
agreement with Palo Alto; a draft agreement was considered by the Rail Committee on
September 26, 2018 (included in Attachment A, also viewable here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=60164.71&BlobID=66798).
The agreement is tentatively scheduled to be approved by City Council on November 26, 2018.
On November 1, 2018, the ARB members received the HRB staff report for this project
(https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67562) containing information
about historical resources, links to and excerpts taken from the Final EIR Cultural Resources
chapter and Cultural Resources Programmatic Agreement. Links to cultural resources
documents are not repeated again in this ARB staff report focused on aesthetics. Staff will
provide a summary of comments provided during the HRB hearing of November 8, 2018 and
excerpt HRB meeting minutes will be at ARB member places if they are available.
Background
Project Information
Owner: Caltrain JPB
Architect: Balfour Beatty Infrastructure Inc.
Representative: Stacy Cocke
Property Information
Address: Palo Alto Southern Pacific Depot address is 95 University
California Avenue Depot address is 101 California Avenue
Note: Caltrain JPB Corridor has no address
Neighborhood: Northern City boundary to southern City boundary
Protected/Heritage
Trees:
El Palo Alto
Historic Resource(s): San Francisquito Bridge
El Palo Alto Tree
2
Packet Pg. 9
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
Palo Alto Southern Pacific Depot
University Avenue Underpass
Embarcadero Underpass
Greenmeadow Neighborhood
Existing
Improvement(s):
Train depots and tracks, primarily; Sprint facility near 195 Page Mill
Existing Land Use(s): Public Transportation
Adjacent Land Uses &
Zoning:
Public Facilities
Prior City Reviews & Action
City Council: 4-21-14; Council discussed and approved comment letter on the Draft
EIR. The draft letter is viewable here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/40017
Council approved the letter with the following changes:
1) taking a look at ridership estimates up and down the peninsula,
2) clear and demonstrative language (should to shall), and 3) the future impacts of
High Speed Rail,
3) add centerfold alternative, support for the Catenary system in the middle,
4) further attention to appropriate procedures for trimming trees,
5) protection of El Palo Alto tree,
6) analyze affects if the California Supreme Court rules to end High Speed Rail,
7) to evaluate fixed location/wayside horns to reduce noise impacts,
8) make grade separation language stronger and not lost within point on,
9) any discussion of grade separation should ensure that the electrification project
would not preclude potential improvements to the corridor, and
10) all opportunities created for additional pedestrian access should emphasize
safety for the public.
PTC: None
HRB: November 8, 2018
ARB: None
Project Location and Design Build Input Request
The Palo Alto segment (Segment 3, work areas 2 and 1) of the PCEP involves real property and
fixtures between milepost (MP) 29.7 and 33.6 (JPB Right-of-Way). Along this corridor there are
four at-grade vehicular crossings, located at: Alma Avenue, Churchill Avenue, East Meadow
Drive, and Charleston Road. In February 2015, the JPB issued the PCEP design-build request for
proposals to engage a design-build contractor; in July 2016, the JPB awarded the contract to
Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. (BBII). JPB/BBII provided Palo Alto staff with plans at “65%
completion” for the OCS pole layouts and system foundation design. The plans are provided to
the HRB in hard copy (and a link to plans and other Caltrain provided documents is noted on
Attachment G). The JPB and BBII request comments on the OCS design within Palo Alto; the
comments or input will be considered and potentially addressed in subsequent design
packages. No City action is to be taken on the project, aside from Council action on the
Comprehensive Agreement between Palo Alto and the JPB that is currently being drafted.
Historic Resources Board Report
2
Packet Pg. 10
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
The staff report for the November 8, 2018 HRB meeting contained excerpts from the Final EIR
Cultural Resources chapter and information about the following historic resources in Palo Alto
within the project area: San Francisquito Bridge, El Palo Alto Tree, Palo Alto Southern Pacific
Depot, University Avenue Underpass, Embarcadero Underpass, and the Greenmeadow
Neighborhood. The below images show JPB ownership from Everett Avenue to Churchill
Avenue, where historic resources cited in the Final EIR are located (except Greenmeadow).
Electrification Project General Description
The project includes installation of facility improvements, including overhead catenary wires,
support poles, traction power facilities, and other appurtenances necessary to convert service
from the existing diesel-locomotive driven trains to Electric Multiple Units (EMUs). EMUs are
self-propelled electric trains that do not have a separate locomotive. EMUs can accelerate and
decelerate at faster rates than diesel-powered trains, even with longer trains. With EMUs,
Caltrain can run longer trains without degrading speeds, thus increasing peak-period capacity.
This will support operations of up to six Caltrain trains per peak hour per direction (an increase
from five trains per peak hour per direction at present). Electrification of the rail line is
scheduled to be operational by 2020 or 2021. The project includes operating 114 trains per day
between San Jose and San Francisco and six trains per day between Gilroy and San Jose.
Overhead Contact System Description
Approximately 130 to 140 single-track miles of Overhead Contact System (OCS) will be installed
for the distribution of electrical power to the new electric rolling stock (trains). The OCS would
be powered from a 25 kilovolt (kV), 60 Hertz (Hz), single-phase, alternating current (AC) traction
power system consisting of the following Traction Power Facilities (TPF): two Traction Power
Substations, one Switching Station and seven Paralleling Stations. The OCS poles are typically
about 180 to 200 feet apart. On curved sections, the span lengths between supports must be
2
Packet Pg. 11
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
reduced. The OCS poles are to be placed approximately nine to 11 feet from the centerline of
the tracks. Associated with the OCS, an electric safety zone to adjacent vegetation is needed.
This electric safety zone distance is approximately 10 feet from the face of the OCS pole.
Note: In Palo Alto, only one TPF is proposed – a Paralleling Station, designed to help boost the
Overhead Contact System voltage and reduce running rail return current by means of an
autotransformer.
Palo Alto-Specific Project Description
The project in Palo Alto includes the following components:
1. OCS poles. Installation of foundations, poles and appurtenances along the 3.9 mile section of
JPB Right-of-Way within the City.
2. Stringing wire for OCS. Installation of OCS wires using different support systems (i.e., two-
track cantilever brackets, side or center cantilever brackets) depending upon the track
segment’s exact configuration and other site-specific requirements and constraints, as
determined by the DB Contractor, and consistent with Mitigation Measure AES-2b to provide
aesthetic treatment for OCS structures. Examples of the various structures are depicted in the
"Project Description" portion of the FEIR (Section 2.3.1). This activity may necessitate
temporary road closures.
3. Paralleling Station. Paralleling Station 5 would be constructed within the JPB ROW south of
Page Mill Road. The location of this facility is shown in Exhibit B as “Paralleling Station 5 (PS-5).”
The JPB will be submitting the Paralleling Station plans in 2019, but comments are requested
now on the location. The JPB notes the paralleling station will be shifting a few hundred feet
north of the shown location.
4. Staging areas. During the Project, JPB and its DB Contractor intend to use staging areas
within the JPB ROW as identified in the FEIR, which are located along the west side of the JPB
ROW both north and south of Alma Street, and between W. Meadow Drive and W. Charleston
Drive along the west side of the JPB ROW.
Pole Types and Colors
The pole types are indicated on OCS Foundation and Pole Layouts plans, OCS Basic Design
Poles and Structures package. None of the poles are proposed within the City’s rights of
way. Proposed pole color recommendations are under consideration. The ARB are invited
to comment on several color options, noted below, for the two train depots in Palo Alto,
and for the Stadium stop (near Town and Country Shopping Center). See also Attachment
C.
2
Packet Pg. 12
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6
Caltrain and City Webpages on Related Caltrain Topics
The staff report for the November 8th HRB meeting included links to Caltrain documents
regarding Caltrains’ future fleet of Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) trains, Caltrain’s
implementation of safety improvements at several crossings, and the sustainability of Caltrain,
as well as links to several newspaper articles.
Final EIR Aesthetics Chapter Policy Document References
The Final EIR Aesthetics chapter cites several (then-relevant) Palo Alto policy documents
including the 1998 Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study.
Comprehensive Plan Policies: Policies cited include L-69 (Preserve scenic qualities of Palo
Alto roads and trails..), and L-79 (Design public infrastructure to meet high quality urban
design standards, look for opportunities to use art and artists in design, and remove or
mitigate elements of existing infrastructure that are unsightly or visually disruptive).
The chapter also cites the 1998 Plan’s Goal N-3 regarding a thriving urban forest.
Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study: The chapter includes discussion of the Palo Alto Rail
Corridor Study (PARCS) vision and its focus on the high speed rail project, noting the
PARCS vision and notes about out how the study area is the historic core of Palo Alto.
The chapter conveys the PARCS’s recommendation the project consider improvements
that “go beyond simple mitigation of impacts on historic and natural resources” and
even “correct past mistakes and restore the resource and its setting to the extent
possible”. The chapter cites PARCS recommendations for (1) landscape improvements
and addition of street trees, and (2) protecting El Palo Alto redwood, San Francisquito
Creek, the Palo Alto Depot and Hostess house building, as well as residential
neighborhoods.
Final EIR Impacts and Overriding Considerations
With EIR Certification, the JPB Board of Directors adopted Overriding Considerations which
allowed the project to move ahead even though there will be ‘significant and unavoidable’
impacts (including impacts to existing trees and cultural resources in Palo Alto):
• Improved Caltrain service and ridership to serve growing regional demand
• Electrification has best performance characteristics of feasible alternatives
• Reduction of air pollution in support of regional air quality goals and to improve local
health conditions along the corridor
• Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in support of state goals (AB 32)
2
Packet Pg. 13
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7
• Reduction of vehicle miles travelled and support for transit oriented development in
support of SB 375 and regional transportation plan goals, and
• Consistent with planning for Downtown Extension/Transbay Transit Center and future
high-speed rail.
Aesthetics Impacts:
The Final EIR:
Notes, “Permanent impacts of the project on visual character” would result from:
(1) introduction of new Traction Power Facilities (TPFs),
(2) OCS poles and wires,
(3) vegetation removal and maintenance for electrical safety along the OCS alignment,
and
(4) overbridge protection structures (OPS; note: no OPS is proposed in Palo Alto).
States that after mitigation, aesthetics impact levels are “significant and unavoidable”
due to tree removal and pruning, and “less than significant” with respect to Traction
Power Facilities, OCS, and OPS.
Describes the mitigations determined to reduce some impacts on aesthetics to “less
than significant” – these are noted in the Discussion section of this report, along with
excerpts of the EIR Aesthetics chapter describing the setting and impacts
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/odniqbbvnv3att9/3.1%20Aesthetics_030415.pdf?dl=0.)
Biological Impacts:
The HRB report provided to the ARB included a paragraph on El Palo Alto (California Landmark
#2 and Palo Alto Heritage Tree #1), not repeated again in this ARB report, and below paragraph:
The City is in conversation with JPB regarding significant removals proposed within the
JPB right of way in Palo Alto. The JPB plans to post tree removal notification prior to
work and has provided Palo Alto with a tree removal plan showing the number of trees
to be removed outside the JPB right of way, and a timeline for removals. Some work
has already recently occurred at the path behind Palo Alto High School – oaks within the
JPB right of way were removed. A small number of oaks and other trees are also
proposed to be removed outside JPB right of way. Staging plans are anticipated to be
submitted prior to Council input.
The Final EIR Biological Resources chapter is viewable here:
http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/FEIR/3.3+Bio+Resources.pd
f and briefly discussed in this report using chapter excerpts. The Final EIR also referenced a
Tree Inventory and Canopy Assessment, viewable here:
http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/FEIR/App+F+Tree+Inventor
y.pdf.
The Final EIR biological resources chapter provides some detail on El Palo Alto:
2
Packet Pg. 14
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8
“A landmark redwood tree, also known as “El Palo Alto,” is identified by the City of Palo Alto as
6 Heritage Tree #1 and is designated as California Historical Landmark No. 2. The tree trunk is
located approximately 26 feet from the Caltrain ROW, with tree branches and foliage located
within 5 feet of the ROW. The tree is estimated to be more than 110 feet high and more than 9
1,000 years old (San Jose Mercury News 2004).”
The Final EIR notes that, for trees other than El Palo Alto in the JPB right of way, the JPB may
replace them inside the JPB right of way at a 1:1 ratio. The Final EIR mitigation measures
require JPB to work with Palo Alto and private property owners to replace any trees located
outside JPB right of way that need removal. The goal of plantings is to screen residences and
park users from the right of way.
Discussion
Pole Design
In addition to a plan set, the JPB staff provided a ‘Pole Schedule’ (Attachment B) reflecting pole
types and foundation sizes to be used. The submitted schedule appears to conflict with the
nomenclature on the plans provided to date (and therefore, notes about poles used are in
reference to the plan notes). JPB staff intends to provide an explanation of design
considerations for the pole design. Considerations for pole designs include (1) Utilities, (2)
Operations and maintenance – outside (double) poles allow a robust system, and (3) Avoiding
significant impacts to vegetation. Spacing between the poles is also a consideration, as is the
foundation design for the poles at the stations.
It appears double poles are proposed in most locations. Single poles in the center of the tracks
are proposed at the following locations (using street intersections and plan sheet numbers):
North of Palo Alto Av, southward until Hawthorne (see plan sheet 12)
Adjacent to the historic Palo Alto Depot until 250 feet south of University, where double
pole installations would resume (plan sheets 13 and 14);
Just south of Churchill intersection (one pole, plan sheet 18);
Approximately 240 feet south of Tennyson intersection (three poles, plan sheet 20);
Attachment E provides descriptions of the three stations in Palo Alto, excerpted from the Final
EIR. The ARB may wish to discuss and provide feedback on the double pole design at the
California Avenue station, and request explanation from Caltrain representative as to why
single poles are not proposed at this depot.
The JPB staff noted that a distance of 21 feet is needed between tracks in order to have a
center, single pole. Palo Alto staff asked JPB staff to consider increasing the center pole use, as
aesthetically superior option. JPB will study whether the tracks are too narrow to use a single
center pole in some locations. This center pole feasibility evaluation will help the JPB to
understand cost and schedule implications. If center poles were considered in each case, but
proved to be technically infeasible, Palo Alto would seek a written explanation to share with the
2
Packet Pg. 15
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9
public. Staff anticipates that, from aesthetics and tree preservation standpoints, a single pole
design in the center of the tracks would be preferable. However, double poles minimize the risk
of failure in case of a ‘knockdown’ so these are preferred to be used, where possible, by the
JPB.
Below left is an image of a centered, single pole. Below middle is an image of double poles –
one on each side of the tracks. Below right is a cantilever structure with a long reach.
Below left images of the ‘long reach cantilever’ show dimensions (30 feet from the cantilever to
the base plate of the foundation for the pole, with another 13’10” to the part of the pole on
which the wire or wires would be attached to support the cantilever at a point 26 feet from the
pole). Below right image is of the portal type of pole (with a horizontal beam stretching across
three tracks.
The plans indicate four series of pole types:
WF = Wide Flange design of different types,
TT = Tapered Tubular (single cantilever pole, or center pole with two cantilevers)
SQ = Square Tube design of different types, and
PW1 = Wide Flange Portal extending over three tracks.
Staff tallied the height and number of each pole type in the project in Palo Alto shown on the
pole schedule and in plans received prior to November 6, 2018 (additional plan sheets showing
last segment may be received after November 6, 2018). The pole heights as shown on the plans
and schedule range from 32 feet up to 45.5 feet:
WF-1 (32’ tall - 58 poles –single cantilever), WF-3 (32’ tall – 3 poles, single cantilever or
center pole with two cantilevers), WF-4A (45.5’ tall - 5 poles, long reach cantilever), WF-
5 (32’ tall - 11 poles, single cantilever), WF-7 (32’ tall - 9 poles, single cantilever)
2
Packet Pg. 16
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10
TT: TT-1 (32’ tall – 20 poles), TT-1A (35’ tall – 4 poles), TT-3A (35’ tall – 9 poles), TT-4 (32’
tall – 10 poles), TT-4A (35’ tall – 6 poles)
SQ series: SQ-1 (45.4’ tall - 2 poles),SQ-3 (32’ tall -12 poles), SQ-8 (45.5’ tall – 3 poles),
SQ-9A (35’ tall – 24 poles), SQ-9B (38’ tall – 4 poles), SQ-11B (38’ tall – 2 poles)
PW-1 (34’ tall; plan sheet 24 indicates four portals are proposed; one next to Park Plaza
development (350 feet north of El Dorado) southward to just south of El Dorado.
The goal is for the ARB to provide feedback on the color selection, with the intent that the poles
can better blend or fade into the background.
Use of Shunt Wires
When there is a crossing wire underground, the project will not need a shunt wire. But there
are cases where the overhead wire would conflict and a shunt wire is needed. For instance,
there are power lines for service to residences stretching over Alma and the railroad tracks. The
City is looking to underground these, but this is a separate project with a separate timeline.
Use of shunt wires is proposed in these locations (by street intersections and sheet numbers):
Two shunt wires are shown above the Homer pedestrian tunnel (plan sheet 15);
Two shunt wires would stretch between the intersection of Encina past Addison to meet
the Stanford Stadum Station’ at Town and Country Center (plan sheet 16);
Over Embarcadero (plan sheet 17)
At Churchill; two poles at the north side connect to a single pole, south side (sheet 18);
From Tennyson south to first of three single poles (plan sheet 20), then from the third
single pole back to the double poles starting up again at Rinconada (sheet 21);
At Washington (plan sheet 22);
At Page Mill Road just south of Colorado (plan sheet 23);
250 feet south of El Dorado to approximately 200 feet north of El Carmelo (sheet 25);
At Loma Verde (sheet 26);
At East Meadow (sheet 29);
At West Charleston (sheet 31);
Just north of San Antonio Road (near match line MT1 on the last plan sheet).
2
Packet Pg. 17
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11
Paralleling Station PS5
The JPB will be returning to Palo Alto in February for feedback on a design for the one
paralleling station (a building), once the location is determined. Three location options are cited
for the “PS5” in Palo Alto; Option 1, Option 1B and Option 2. Option 2 is the preferred option,
and staff understands the Option 2 location is likely to be adjusted northward. The Final EIR
includes images of the locations and mitigation measures requiring screening vegetation and
the use of appropriate color treatment on the station itself.
o Option 1: Location in JPB right of way east side of the tracks, across from the
Greenmeadow Way intersection with Alma Street. Residents would see this site
through gaps in vegetation so as they exit Greenmeadow, the site would be a focal
point.
o Option 1B: Location in JPB right of way east side of the tracks, south of the Ferne
Avenue intersection with Alma Street viewable by residents (as interrupted by masonry
wall and vegetation) and Kingdom Hall visitors. This option is considered a significant
impact, as it would require tree removal and planting of trees both in JPB corridor and in
the Alma sidewalk planting strip.
o Option 2: Location in JPB right of way 1.5 mile northwest of Option 1 location,
southwest of the tracks and southeast of the California Avenue station, along Park
Boulevard. This option notes that tenants of the Park Plaza development (195 Page Mill
Road) would be able to view this site from windows overlooking the tracks. The
mitigation measure notes Park Plaza project tree plantings could provide screening of
the station; however the trees have been installed and may not provide the screening
anticipated in the Final EIR. The measure notes the JPB would need to work with Park
Plaza owner to plant trees or vines on trellises between the station and Park Plaza.
Though the paralleling station design is not before the ARB at this time, the EIR described the
standard paralleling station (a roofed building) design as fairly large, with dimensions 40’ x 80’,
which could be modified to different dimensions, such as 30’ x 105’, to allow more space for
vegetative screening, which could include trees, vines on fences, landscape buffer planting, or
vegetative wall/fence.
Mitigation Measures Addressing Aesthetics Impacts
As noted in the prior report section, the JPB adopted mitigation measures intended to reduce
project impacts on visual character. In Palo Alto, the impacts are from the new paralleling
station, OCS poles and wires, and vegetation removal and maintenance for electrical safety
along the OCS alignment. The JPB Directors determined the level of impact after
implementation of mitigations “significant and unavoidable (tree removal/pruning); less than
significant (in Palo Alto, in reference to the Paralleling Station (a TPF) and the OCS system).
There are four mitigation measures (MM) to address Aesthetics impacts; two measures address
light spillover, another is to minimize construction activity on residential and park areas outside
the JPB corridor ROW (which is not proposed in Palo Alto). The most applicable of the four
2
Packet Pg. 18
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12
aesthetics mitigations for Palo Alto is MM AES-2b, regarding aesthetic treatments for OCS
poles, wires, and TPFs in sensitive visual locations. The JPB Directors determined MM-AES-2b
could mitigate this impact: The PCEP “will substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings during Proposed Project operation.” MM AES-2b is
excerpted below in italics, and in its entirety:
“Measures will include, but are not limited to, the following:
Aesthetic treatments to project features will be implemented to help soften their visual
intrusion upon the landscape, especially in areas of high use. OCS Pole Design
The JPB shall coordinate with local jurisdictions to obtain their input into OCS pole
design relative to station aesthetics.
Aesthetic considerations shall be considered when selecting pole design. Different pole
designs, including round poles, square poles, and multi‐face poles, have different
characteristics. Some individuals find square poles to be aesthetically less desirable due
to their angularity.
In addition, the JPB shall consider options to reduce pole diameter by using thinner
diameter poles that are constructed with thicker walls.
Aesthetic considerations shall be balanced with other considerations including cost
safety, maintenance, and durability.
The JPB shall also evaluate the potential to house OCS wire‐tensioning weights inside
larger diameter poles.
The JPB will also place OCS wires on the track‐side of the poles, where feasible.
Features will be constructed with low sheen and non‐reflective surface materials to
reduce potential for glare. Unpainted metal surfaces will not be permitted.
Traction Power Facilities
The JPB shall coordinate with local jurisdictions regarding color selection and
vegetative screening for aesthetic treatments at sensitive TPF sites for current uses (PS3,
Option 1; PS5, Option 1, Option 1B and 2; PS6, Option 1 and 2; and PS7) or in the event
of future adjacent residential or park/plaza uses (PS4, Options 1 and 2 and SWS Option
1).
Vegetative screening will be provided to visually buffer views of TPFs. Vegetative
screening may be achieved in a variety of ways, depending on availability of space.
Where feasible and necessary, the paralleling station standard design of 40’ X 80’ shall
be modified to allow for more space for vegetative screening (such as 30’ X 105’ for
example). Acceptable methods of vegetative screening that may be used include:
Tree planting
Fencing with creeping vines.
Landscape buffer planting.
Vegetative wall/fence. The options above could be adjacent to the TPF perimeter
and/or could be placed in other locations nearby where they would help to reduce the
visual apparentness of the TPF and/or enhance the visual aesthetics near to the TPF
location. For example, at PS5, Option 1B, tree planting on the east side of Alma Street
in the sidewalk median, if allowed by the City of Palo Alto, could help to obscure the
2
Packet Pg. 19
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13
view of the facility from residences that back onto Alma Street. The JPB shall maintain
all vegetative screening on an on‐going basis on JPB properties. If screening vegetation is
placed outside the JPB ROW, the JPB will coordinate with the local jurisdiction on
maintenance responsibilities
Features will be colored or painted a shade that is two to three shades darker than the
general surrounding area. Light or bright colors will be avoided. Colors will be chosen
from the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Standard
Environmental Colors Chart CC‐001: June 2008. Because color selection will vary by
location, the facility designer shall employ the use of color panels evaluated from key
observation points during common lighting conditions (front light versus backlighting) to
aid in the appropriate color selection. Color selection will be made for the coloring of the
most prevalent season.
All paints used for the color panels and structures will be color matched directly from
the physical color chart, rather than from any digital or color‐reproduced versions of the
color chart. Paints will be of a dull, flat, or satin finish to reduce potential for glare, and
the use of glossy paints for surfaces will be avoided. Appropriate paint type will be
selected for the finished structures to ensure long‐term durability of the painted
surfaces. The appropriate operating agency or organization will maintain the paint color
over time.
TPFs will be managed and maintained for a well‐kept appearance and in a manner that
vandalism and graffiti is abated semi‐annually to maintain the effectiveness and
attractiveness of the visual mitigation prescribed herein.
Light Spillover Mitigation Measures
The two spillover light mitigation measures below were adopted to address:
(1) nighttime construction lighting near residential neighborhoods, and
(2) safety and security lighting near the TPF (in Palo Alto, the paralleling station).
MM AES‐4a: Minimize spillover light during nighttime construction. During nighttime
construction adjacent to residential neighborhoods, the JPB will require the contractor to
direct any artificial lighting onto the worksite and away from any adjacent residential
areas at all times. The construction contractor will notify nearby residences of the
construction schedule, prior to the start of construction, including the time periods for
nighttime construction. A point of contact, including contact information, will be
provided to residents to address concerns associated with construction and nighttime
lighting.
MM AES‐4b: Minimize light spillover at TPFs. The JPB will ensure that all artificial
outdoor lighting associated with traction power facilities will be limited to safety and
security requirements and will be designed to minimize light spill over into adjacent
areas. All lighting is to provide minimum impact on the surrounding environment and
will use downcast, cut‐off type fixtures that are shielded and that direct the light only
towards objects requiring illumination. Lights will be installed at the lowest allowable
2
Packet Pg. 20
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 14
height and cast low‐ angle illumination while minimizing incidental light spill onto
adjacent properties and open spaces. The lowest allowable wattage will be used for all
lighted areas and the amount of nighttime lights needed to light an area will be
minimized to the highest degree possible. Light fixtures will have non‐glare finishes that
will not cause reflective daytime glare. Lighting will be designed for energy efficiency,
use, and have daylight sensors or be timed with an on/off program. Lights will provide
good color rendering with natural light qualities with the minimum intensity feasible for
security, safety, and personnel access. Lighting, including light color rendering and
fixture types, will be designed to aesthetically minimize the profile of the TPFs.
Public Notification, Outreach & Comments
A notice for the ARB meeting was sent to the Daily Post for publication on October 30, 2018.
No additional outreach has been undertaken by City staff. On August 28, 2018, at the Lucie
Stern Community Center, a community meeting was held regarding Caltrain Electrification. The
event advertisement provided this link: http://calmod.org/event/
Attachment F to this report provides links to Caltrain webpages regarding outreach and other
project information.
Public Comments
As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received.
Environmental Review
In 2009, the JPB completed the PCEP Final Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact
Report for the Project. Based upon that document, the Federal Transit Administration issued a
Finding of No Significant Impact in 2009, which completed the federal environmental review for
the Project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
On January 31, 2013, JPB issued a Notice of Preparation of an EIR and, in February, 2014, issued
a Draft EIR for a 60-day comment period ending April 29, 2014. A Final EIR was issued in
December 2014. On January 8, 2015, pursuant to Resolution No. 2015-03, the JPB certified
conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to the extent that it is
applicable to the Project, and certified the Project’s Final EIR. On January 8, 2015, pursuant to
Resolution No. 2015-04, the JPB adopted CEQA findings of fact, a statement of overriding
considerations, and the MMRP. The Final EIR notes: “Permanent visual alterations would
result from the Proposed Project, comprising the introduction of poles and wires, and TPFs.
Additionally, trees and mature vegetation would be removed and pruned. Some trees and
vegetation would not be replaced on-site, resulting in a physical and aesthetic permanent
change in certain locations. As documented in Section 3.1, Aesthetics, these physical changes
would alter views from residential or business areas in various locations along the corridor, but
they would not significantly obscure a scenic view or vista. However, even with mitigation,
some local visual character would be permanently altered.”
2
Packet Pg. 21
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 15
Next Steps
The City Council is scheduled to consider the Comprehensive Agreement on November 26,
2018.
Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 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
Attachments:
Attachment A: September 2019 Rail Committee Report Including Draft Comprehensive
Agreement (PDF)
Attachment B: Pole Schedule (PDF)
Attachment C: Pole Aesthetics (PDF)
Attachment D: Balfour Beatty II Letter (DOCX)
Attachment E: Train Stations in Palo Alto Excerpt from FEIR (DOCX)
Attachment F: Instructions to Linked Plans (DOCX)
Attachment G: Herb Borock Letter to HRB Regarding Caltrain Electrification (PDF)
1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
2
Packet Pg. 22
City of Palo Alto (ID # 9582)
City Council Rail Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/26/2018
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Caltrain Electrification
Title: Proposed Cooperation Agreement with the Peninsula Corridor Joint
Powers Board Regarding Caltrain Electrification Project
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Public Works
Authorization for the City Manager to enter into a Comprehensive Agreement with the
Peninsula Joint Powers Board on the Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Rail Committee recommend that the City Council authorize the City
Manager to enter into a comprehensive agreement with the Peninsula Joint Powers Board on
the Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project.
Background
The Peninsula Joint Powers Board (“JPB”) currently runs commuter rail service (Caltrain) along
the peninsula. The current system utilizes traditional diesel locomotives to run the trains. To
improve efficiency and reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, Caltrain has undertaken the
Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) to electrify the corridor and run Electric
Multiple Units (EMU) for the system. EMUs consist of self-propelled carriages that are powered
by electricity. The electrification includes overhead catenary power lines that supply power to
the EMUs. The JPB certified the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the PCEP on
January 8, 2015.
The JPB has been entering agreements with the different jurisdictions along the corridor to
address particular issues related to implementation of the PCEP. Work on the PCEP began in
July 2017 on the northern segments of the line; Caltrain currently anticipates completing the
project by fiscal year 2020-21.
Discussion
Prior to commencing detailed design specifications for each section of the corridor, Caltrain has
been entering into comprehensive agreements with affected jurisdictions to clarify procedures
2.a
Packet Pg. 23
City of Palo Alto Page 2
and processes for project implementation in order to minimize impacts and disruption during
construction, and ensure effective communication throughout the project.
Although Caltrain has the authority to proceed with the project without entering these
agreements, it desires to work cooperatively with each city to facilitate implementation and
lessen disruption to the cities and public. Staff anticipates that a number of issues will arise
during the detailed design, site preparation, and construction phases of the project. Execution
of a cooperation agreement will facilitate the resolution of issues to the extent possible, by
providing a clear and agreed-upon process for the project to proceed.
To that end, staff has worked with Caltrain to develop the proposed comprehensive agreement
for Palo Alto, attached hereto as Attachment A. Terms of the agreement include:
• Caltrain will cover all City costs for design review, permit work, inspection, and other
related expenses incurred in connection with the project; Caltrain will pay the City’s
standard permit and processing fees;
• A summary of relevant mitigation measures identified in the EIR, including traffic signal
timing modifications, measures to reduce light spillover into residential areas during
nighttime construction, aesthetic measures to minimize visual impacts through design
and vegetative screening, preparation of a Tree Avoidance, Minimization, and
Replacement Plan;
• Provisions related to protection of El Palo Alto, the City’s namesake historic redwood;
• Identification, replacement and procedures regarding potential betterment of any City
improvements (streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, traffic control devices, utilities, etc.);
• Anticipated work hours, construction staging areas, truck routes, and submittal of a
logistics plan;
• Notification requirements, community outreach, and construction complaint-resolution
process;
• Encroachment permit and design review process, including courtesy review by the
Architectural Review Board and Historic Resources Board, and expected timelines for
review;
• Provisions to minimize disruption of City utility service;
• Acknowledgement that the City is actively engage in a planning process for future grade
separations, and a commitment to take an active role in grade separation planning as
funding and local concerns permit; and,
• Dispute resolution process.
While Caltrain is aware of the City’s interest and ongoing planning for grade separations, JPB
staff have indicated that the Comprehensive Agreement should not specifically address grade
separations. As such staff is working with JPB staff on a separate instrument that acknowledges
their cooperation with the City on grade separation planning and mutual interest in ensuring
coordination between the projects.
2.a
Packet Pg. 24
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Resource Impact
The cost of staff time for the City’s review of the PCEP is proposed to be covered by Caltrain as
outlined in the proposed agreement along with all standard permit fees. Pending JPB’s
preparation of a comprehensive list of City Improvement Impacts the City may be responsible
for the costs associated with addressing the impacts for facilities located within the JPB right-of-
way, as outline in Section 8 of the agreement.
Environmental Review
The Joint Powers Board is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) for the PCEP. On January 8, 2015, the JPB certified compliance with CEQA to the extent
it is applicable to the PCEP, certified a final Environmental Impact Report and findings of fact,
adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan (see JPB Resolution Nos. 2015-03 and 2015-04) Entering into this Agreement is
not a project as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it has no potential to result
in a direct or foreseeable physical change in the environment.
Attachments:
• Attachment A: Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Agreement
2.a
Packet Pg. 25
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
1
13718272.3
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
THE PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD
AND CITY OF PALO ALTO
RELATING TO THE PENINSULA CORRIDOR ELECTRIFICATION PROJECT
This Comprehensive Agreement (“Agreement”) between the City of Palo Alto, a California
chartered municipal corporation (“City”) and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, a joint
exercise of powers agency (“JPB”) is entered into as of this _____ day of _______ 201__ (the
“Effective Date”), each of which is referred to herein individually as “Party” and jointly as
“Parties.”
RECITALS
A. City is a duly established chartered municipal corporation organized and existing under
the laws of the State of California.
B. JPB is a joint exercise of powers agency organized and existing under the laws of the
State of California.
C. JPB the owner of the Peninsula Corridor Railroad right-of-way and specifically certain
real property and fixtures located in the City of Palo Alto between milepost (MP) 29.7
and 33.6, (the “JPB Right-of-Way”), and includes the four (4) at-grade vehicular
crossings located at: Alma Avenue, Churchill Avenue, East Meadow Drive, and
Charleston Road.
D. The Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (“Project” or “PCEP”) consists of
converting Caltrain from diesel-hauled to electrically-powered trains for service between
the 4th and King Street Station in San Francisco and the Tamien Station in San Jose.
E. In 2009, the JPB completed a Final Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact
Report (“EA/EIR”) for the Project. Based upon that document, the Federal Transit
Administration issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”) in 2009, which
completed the federal environmental review for the Project in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”).
F. On January 31, 2013, the JPB issued a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental
Impact Report and, in February, 2014, issued a Draft Environmental Impact Report for a
60-day comment period ending on April 29, 2014. A Final Environmental Impact Report
was issued in December 2014.
G. On January 8, 2015, pursuant to Resolution No. 2015-03, the JPB certified conformance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) to the extent that it is applicable
2.a
Packet Pg. 26
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
2
13718272.3
to the Project, and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) for the
Project.
H. On January 8, 2015, pursuant to Resolution No. 2015-04, the JPB adopted CEQA
findings of fact, a statement of overriding considerations, and a mitigation monitoring and
reporting plan (“MMRP”).
I. On February 5, 2015, pursuant to Resolution No. 2015-08 the JPB authorized the
issuance of the PCEP Design Build Request for Proposals to engage a Design-Build
Contractor to construct the Project and on July 7, 2016, the JPB awarded the Design-
Build Contract (“Contract”) to Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. (the “DB Contractor”)
to construct the Project.
J. The City and JPB desire to cooperate to facilitate the design and construction of the
Project. The JPB and the City desire to memorialize such interagency cooperation and
consultation between the Parties in this Agreement.
K. The Parties acknowledge that the Project is funded in part with funds made available by
the Federal Transit Administration. Accordingly, this Agreement and the obligations
imposed on the Parties hereby shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with Federal,
State and local laws and regulations.
L. The locations of certain elements of the Project may require the use of certain City
streets for hauling operations and staging of construction during construction of the
Project.
M. The JPB and the City acknowledge that it will be necessary to develop procedures to
ensure careful and continued cooperation between the Parties and to minimize
disruption and costs to the City during design and construction of the Project, including
the following: (1) procedures to promote cooperation during the design and construction
process; (2) procedures to avoid, or where not possible, to minimize all unnecessary
delays to either the contracting, design or construction process; and (3) procedures for
minimizing disruption and costs imposed on the City; (4) procedures for recovery of the
City’s costs associated with work related to the Project; and (5) procedures for designing
and inspecting the construction, modification, relocation, and replacement, as
necessary, of City Improvements.
N. The Parties recognize and agree that this Agreement may not reasonably anticipate all
aspects of the Project and changes thereto which may occur due to unforeseen
circumstances. Accordingly, the Parties acknowledge their respective obligations to act
reasonably and in good faith and to modify the terms hereof when necessary to
accomplish their mutual goals.
SECTION 1: AFFIRMATION OF RECITALS.
The JPB and the City affirm that the above Recitals are true and correct.
SECTION 2: DEFINITIONS.
The following definitions relate to such terms found in the entire Agreement, including, without
2.a
Packet Pg. 27
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
3
13718272.3
limitation, all Exhibits hereto.
A. “City,” as referred to in the Preamble to this Agreement, means the City of Palo
Alto, its Council Members, officers, employees, agents, consultants and contractors.
B. “City Improvements” means City streets (including curbs, gutters and sidewalks),
traffic control devices (excluding advance signal preemption equipment which is
currently owned and managed by JPB), storm drains, sanitary sewers, water lines,
electric and gas underground utilities, fiber lines, conduit, hydrants, electroliers,
landscaping, irrigation systems, and all other public facilities and appurtenances that
are constructed, operated, utilized or otherwise maintained by the City.
c. “Contract Documents” means the executed Design-Build Contract, Contract
Change Orders and additional documents incorporated by express reference into the
Contract.
D. “Issued for Construction Plans” means final approved design documents, including
drawings and specifications, used by the DB Contractor for the start of construction.
E. “JPB”, as referenced in the Preamble to this Agreement, means the Peninsula
Corridor Joint Powers Board, its employees, agents, consultants, and contractors.
F. “JPB Right-of-Way” or “JPB ROW” has the meaning set forth in Recital C of this
Agreement, a map depicting the JPB ROW is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and
incorporated herein.
G. “Paralleling Station” means a type of traction power facility that helps boost the
Overhead Contact System voltage and reduce running rail return current by means
of an autotransformer.
H. “Project Improvements” means all structures, features and fixtures constructed or
installed for the Project, including all necessary changes to signal, fiber optic facilities
and appurtenances, relocation of all utilities and pipelines of any kind within the
Right-of-Way, grading, drainage, access roadways to the Right-of-Way, preliminary
and construction engineering, and any and/or all other work of every kind and
character necessary to build the Project.
I. “Project”, as referenced in Recital D, means the Peninsula Corridor Electrification
Project described in the FEIR, consisting of converting Caltrain from diesel-hauled to
electrically-powered trains for service between the 4th and King Street Station in San
Francisco and the Tamien Station in San Jose, aspects of which are also described
with additional specificity in Section 4 and the Exhibits attached to this Agreement.
J. “Traction Power Facility” or “TPF” means facilities (traction power substations,
paralleling stations, switching stations) that transform the utility supply voltage for
distribution to trains via the Overhead Contact System.
SECTION 3: PURPOSE OF THE AGREEMENT.
The purpose of this Agreement is to memorialize the Parties’ desire for consultation and
2.a
Packet Pg. 28
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
4
13718272.3
cooperation, designate their respective rights and obligations, and facilitate cooperation
between the JPB and the City in connection with the design and construction of the Project.
SECTION 4: TERM; TERMINATION.
A. Term. The term of this Agreement shall begin on the Effective Date and shall end
six months following recordation of the Notice of Completion for the Project.
B. Termination.
1. Without Cause. A Party may terminate this Agreement with thirty (30) days
prior written notice to the other Party.
2. With Cause. A Party may terminate the Agreement or suspend performance
hereunder by giving sixty (60) days prior written notice thereof to the other
Party, but only in the event of a substantial failure of performance under the
Agreement.
SECTION 5: PROJECT FEATURES AND IMPACTS.
The Project features and impacts set forth below are not intended to constitute a comprehensive
list, but are described in this Agreement to provide a general description of the elements of the
Project. A comprehensive list of Project features and impacts associated with the Project is set
forth in the FEIR.
A. General Project Description.
1. The Project will install facility improvements, including overhead catenary
wires, support poles, traction power facilities, and other appurtenances
necessary to convert service from the existing diesel-locomotive driven trains
to Electric Multiple Units (EMUs). EMUs are self-propelled electric trains that
do not have a separate locomotive. EMUs can accelerate and decelerate at
faster rates than diesel-powered trains, even with longer trains. With EMUs,
Caltrain can run longer trains without degrading speeds, thus increasing
peak-period capacity. This will support operations of up to 6 Caltrain trains
per peak hour per direction (an increase from 5 trains per peak hour per
direction at present). Electrification of the rail line is scheduled to be
operational by 2020/2021. The Project includes operating 114 trains per day
between San Jose and San Francisco and six trains per day between Gilroy
and San Jose.
2. The Project will include the installation of 130 to 140 single-track miles of
Overhead Contact System (“OCS”) for the distribution of electrical power to
the new electric rolling stock. The OCS would be powered from a 25 kilovolt
(kV), 60 Hertz (Hz), single-phase, alternating current (“AC”) traction power
system consisting of the following Traction Power Facilities (“TPF”): two
Traction Power Substations, one Switching Station and seven Paralleling
Stations. The OCS poles are typically about 180 to 200 feet apart. On curved
sections, the span lengths between supports must be reduced. The OCS
poles are placed approximately 9 – 11 feet from the centerline of the tracks.
2.a
Packet Pg. 29
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
5
13718272.3
Associated with the OCS, an electric safety zone to adjacent vegetation is
needed. This electric safety zone distance is approximately 10 feet from the
face of the OCS pole.
B. City-Specific Project Description. Specific to the City, and based on JPB’s
preliminary design, the Project elements that JPB anticipates within the City include:
1. OCS poles. Installation of foundations, poles and appurtenances along the
3.9 mile section of JPB Right-of-Way within the City.
2. Stringing wire for OCS. Installation of OCS wires using different support
systems (i.e., two-track cantilever brackets, side or center cantilever
brackets) depending upon the track segment’s exact configuration and other
site-specific requirements and constraints, as determined by the DB
Contractor, and consistent with Mitigation Measure AES-2b to provide
aesthetic treatment for OCS structures. (Examples of the various structures
are depicted in the "Project Description" portion of the FEIR (Section 2.3.1).
This activity may necessitate temporary road closures.
3. Paralleling Station. Construction of Paralleling Station 5, located within the
JPB ROW south of Page Mill Road. The location of this facility is shown in
Exhibit B as “Paralleling Station 5 (PS-5).”
4. Staging areas. During the Project, JPB and its DB Contractor intend to use
staging areas within the JPB ROW as identified in the FEIR, which are
located along the west side of the JPB ROW both north and south of Alma
Street, and between W. Meadow Drive and W. Charleston Drive along the
west side of the JPB ROW. The specific locations of these staging areas are
shown in Exhibit C. There are no current plans to use areas outside of the
JPB ROW for staging areas. Should the DB Contractor desire to use other
areas within the City of Palo Alto, they will be responsible for acquiring any
required permits from the City.
C. City-Specific Project Impacts. City-specific Project impacts, as identified in the
FEIR, include the following:
1. Intersections. The Project may impact the following intersections in the City:
Alma/Sand Hill Road (#64), Meadow/Alma (#63), Churchill/Alma (#66), and
Charleston/Alma (#68).
2. Historic Resources. The Project may impact the following Historical
Resources in the City:
(a) San Francisquito Bridge
(b) El Palo Alto Tree
(c) Palo Alto Station
(d) University Avenue Underpass
(e) Embarcadero Underpass; and
(f) Greenmeadow Neighborhood
2.a
Packet Pg. 30
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
6
13718272.3
The list of City Specific Impacts as contained in this Subsection 5C is intended for
information only. Nothing in this subsection serves or has the effect of creating any
independent or additional requirements or obligations on the part of the JPB beyond
what is contained in the certified environmental record for the Project.
SECTION 6: GENERAL COMMITMENTS.
A. City Improvements. The JPB and City will cooperate with respect to City
Improvements as set forth in Section 8 of this Agreement.
B. Building Inspection. Paralleling Station. JPB agrees to allow the City to perform:
1. A side-by-side review of design documents for the Paralleling Station (PS-5)
with JPB’s design teams. JPB agrees to include the City in reviews once the
design documents are 65% and again prior to Issued for Construction Plans;
and
2. A final courtesy inspection of its PS-5 facility upon completion. The final
courtesy inspection does not include any punch list items and is for
informational purposes only, as JPB is exempt from local building codes.
C. Working Hours. In order to minimize disruption to the Caltrain passenger service
during project construction as well as maximize protection of people and property,
JPB plans to perform the majority of its Project work outside of the weekday peak
commute hours (Monday through Friday, 7AM to 9:30AM and 4PM to 7:30PM). JPB
acknowledges that this work schedule will cause noise impacts to the neighborhoods
adjacent to the JPB ROW, and along with implementing a Construction Noise
Control Plan, as required by Mitigation Measure NOI-1a, JPB will provide City with a
Logistics Plan, as further described in Paragraph E. below. JPB agrees that the
Construction Noise Control Plan will include a JPB point of contact for noise
complaints, and that JPB will timely respond to noise complaints; the contact person
may be the “lead representative,” as further described in Paragraph I(1) and (2)
below.
D. Staging Areas and Haul Routes. The JPB will provide the City with plan(s)
addressing haul routes along city streets and roadways, and any staging areas or
property owned or controlled by the City for City review and approval, which approval
shall not be unreasonably withheld. Truck haul routes within City streets shall
conform to the Palo Alto Municipal Code, including, without limitation Chapter 10.48,
unless otherwise approved in advance and in writing by the City. JPB will also
collaborate with the City to document existing conditions by video and photographic
record of the proposed and accepted haul routes for comparison at the end of the
project. The JPB shall be responsible for damages to City roadways but only to the
extent and in the event that use of the roadways for this Project creates damages
that exceed ordinary wear and tear of the roadways.
E. Logistics Plan. As an accommodation to the City, JPB agrees to submit only
applicable elements of the City Logistics Plan for City approval prior to the start of
work on the Project. The Logistics Plan with applicable elements only will conform to
the City’s Logistics Plan Preparation Guidelines, available online at:
2.a
Packet Pg. 31
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
7
13718272.3
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2719. In addition, JPB will
provide City with copies of its Project Description [Two page "FAQ's, dated July,
2017], Project Plans, Project Schedule, Tree Avoidance, Mitigation and Replacement
Plan, and its Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. JPB's cooperation in this regard
shall not operate to expand the City's jurisdiction over the JPB beyond that provided
for by applicable law.
F. Emergency Services Access. The JPB and the City will cooperate to reduce
impacts of the Project on local police, fire, and emergency services.
G. Contact Information. During construction of the Project, the JPB shall provide the
City with a list of JPB personnel to be contacted in the event of an emergency on the
Project construction site within the City.
H. Project Security. During construction of the Project, the JPB will take responsibility
for maintaining the security of the JPB construction areas within the City in
consultation with the City’s public safety and emergency departments, as necessary.
I. Community Outreach.
1. For the duration of Project construction, the JPB shall assign a lead
representative to handle Project-related complaints from City residents, City
officials, and/or staff. The JPB shall provide written notice to the City and
shall publicize the telephone number, and E-mail address of the lead
representative.
2. The JPB shall make an initial response to all complaints and inquiries within
24-hours. For emergencies or other urgent matters, the JPB will make initial
contact immediately. Follow-up for complaints and inquiries will be
completed by JPB within 48-hours following initial contact with the
complainant. The JPB shall take all reasonable actions to ensure that its lead
representative is authorized to and does, in fact, ensure that corrective
actions are implemented within a reasonable period of time following the
determination that corrective actions are appropriate.
3. The JPB will provide weekly construction updates via social media, the
Caltrain website and by email. JPB will work with City’s Communication
Department to ensure timely on-line notification to the public of construction
activity.
4. The JPB will provide a 60-day advance notice for construction within the City.
The JPB will provide an initial notice of road and driveway closures 14 days in
advance of the closure and the visual notifications for closures will be posted
72-hours in advance. In addition, JPB shall distribute seven-day and 48-hour
advance notice door hangers to all residences and businesses on all
properties that border on the JPB ROW, as well as on all streets impacted by
the work within the project.
J. Tree Work.
2.a
Packet Pg. 32
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
8
13718272.3
1. Tree Pruning and Tree Removal.
(a) In General. JPB will comply with any City tree pruning and replacement
requirements for tree pruning or removal involving public or private
property outside of the JPB ROW.
(b) Tree Permits. JPB agrees to secure all applicable tree pruning and
removal permits from the City for work located outside of the JPB ROW.
A public tree care permit is required for pruning or removal of any
protected trees on private property.
2. El Palo Alto.
(a) Exceptional caution shall be employed in performing any work near the El
Palo Alto redwood tree located adjacent to the San Francisquito Bridge.
(b) JPB agrees to design the Project in a manner that limits all construction
activities, including off-track construction vehicles, equipment staging,
and material laydown areas, for the Project within a 25 foot clearance
from the outside edge of El Palo Alto’s tree trunk (“25 Foot Zone”).
(c) JPB shall maintain the 25 Foot Zone at all times throughout all phases of
PCEP construction.
(d) No staging of materials or equipment is allowed within the 25 Foot Zone
without exceptional reason and advanced, written approval from the City
Manager or his designee.
(e) Except within the existing footprint, from embankment to embankment, of
the San Francisquito Bridge, JPB shall not place Project elements (e.g.
OCS Poles, including support arms for wires) in the 25 Foot Zone during
construction of the Project or during the Project’s operation. If an
exception to this prohibition is needed for technical reasons, the JPB shall
obtain advance, written approval from the City.
(f) Pruning of El Palo Alto will be compliant with the electrical safety
clearance requirements defined in the California Public Utility
Commissions (CPUC) Safety and Enforcement Division (SED) Resolution
SED-2. All tree trimming will follow pruning specifications including:
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 and international
Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Best Management Practices.
(g) Pruning of El Palo Alto will only be completed by the City’s directed
certified arborist. The City will complete the necessary pruning to comply
with CPUC SED-2 within seven (7) calendar days’ notice from JPB. If the
pruning is not completed by the City within this timeframe, the JPB will
perform the necessary pruning of El Palo Alto. Once the PCEP project
has been implemented, the JPB and the City will enter into a separate
document agreement to memorialize that the City will continue to perform
pruning of El Palo Alto.
2.a
Packet Pg. 33
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
9
13718272.3
K. Permits. The City will cooperate with JPB in identifying all City permits applicable to
the Project. JPB will obtain and pay for any City permit required for construction of
the Project, including, without limitation, Encroachment Permits, Street Work
Permits, and Tree Permits, as applicable. The City shall not unreasonably withhold
approval of the issuance of any such permit.
L. Construction Standards. The JPB is designing and constructing the Project. The
design and construction of the Project shall conform with JPB’s adopted standards,
specifically JPB Standards dated September 30th, 2011 and the Contract documents.
M. Minimize Disruption of City Utility Service. To the maximum extent practicable,
JPB agrees to perform its work in a manner that minimizes disruption to City utility
services. In particular, JPB agrees to work closely with City staff to avoid requests to
re-route or shut down City utility service, particularly electrical service, multiple times,
or to re-route or shut down City utility services during peak utility service hours when
impacts on customers will be most significant.
N. Design Review.
1. Architectural Review Board (“ARB”) Courtesy Review JPB agrees to provide
information regarding the following Project elements to the City for ARB
review and recommendation to the City Planning Director:
(a) OCS Poles, including pole design, color, location, and configuration (e.g.
gull-wing versus standard design);
(b) Proposals for vegetation removal and plans for Project screening ;and
(c) Paralleling Station(s).
2. Historical Resources Board (“HRB”) Courtesy Review. JPB agrees to
provide information to the HRB regarding the final design of any Project
elements or features adjacent to, or with the potential to impact the historical
resources specifically identified in section (5)(C)(2),any other designated
historical resources within the City.
3. Timeframes for ARB and HRB Courtesy Review. JPB agrees to provide the
information described in Sections N.1. and N.2. above when the plans are at
the 65% level. City shall have 45 calendar days from the date the information
is provided by JPB to conduct the ARB and HRB courtesy review.
4. 65 % Level Staff Review. The JPB agrees to do a page-turn design review,
and/or detailed walkthrough with City staff of the Project elements within the
City at the 65% level and the Issued for Construction design level prior to
official submittal of the plans for final approval by City. Project elements for
the City to review and comment on will include those project elements
identified in Section 5(B)) above and/or project elements affecting any City
Improvements. All City comments received by JPB during the 65% review
will be addressed prior to submittal of Issued for Construction Plans to the
2.a
Packet Pg. 34
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
10
13718272.3
City.
5. Extent of City Review of Issued for Construction Plans. Since JPB is exempt
from local planning and building regulation, submittal of information and plans
to the City is for the purposes of a courtesy review only, with the exception of
any required work that alters or replaces City Improvements, in which case
the City shall have 21 business days to review the Issued for Construction
Plans.
O. Grade Separation Planning Considerations; Statement of Understanding.
City is actively engaged in a planning process to consider design, construction, and
funding of future grade separations along the JPB corridor to improve safety and
reduce local traffic congestion; JPB is committed to taking an active role in grade
separation planning as funding and local concerns permit.
SECTION 7: MITIGATION MEASURES.
A. The JPB will require the DB Contractor to perform the work to implement the
mitigation measures outlined in the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Plan
adopted by the JPB on January 8, 2015, including the following:
1. Mitigation Measure Aesthetics-2b. Aesthetic treatments for OCS poles, TPFs
in sensitive visual locations.
(a) The JPB shall coordinate with the City to obtain their input into OCS pole
design relative to station aesthetics.
(b) Vegetative screening will be provided to visually buffer view of the traction
power facility in the City (PS-5 Option 2 in the PCEP FEIR). Acceptable
screening that may be used includes: tree planting, fencing with creeping
vines, landscape buffer planting or vegetative wall fence. The JPB will
maintain the Right-of-Way screening on an on-going basis.
2. Mitigation Measure Aesthetics-4a. Minimize spillover light during nighttime
construction adjacent to residential neighborhoods. The JPB will direct any
artificial lighting onto the worksite and away from adjacent residential areas at
all times.
3. Mitigation Measure Biology-5. A Tree Avoidance, Minimization, and
Replacement Plan will be developed in consultation with a certified arborist
and in consultation with cities, counties, and affected property owners along
the Project. A complete field survey of the entire Project area will be
completed to support the plan development by preparing a tree inventory for
all affected areas.
4. Mitigation Measure Traffic-1a. Implement Construction Road Traffic Control
Plan.
5. Mitigation Measure Traffic-1c. Implement Signal optimization and, if feasible,
2.a
Packet Pg. 35
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
11
13718272.3
roadway geometry improvements will be implemented at impacted
intersections for the 2020 Project condition per FEIR. The feasibility of signal
optimization and/or roadway geometry improvements will be evaluated at a
later date. The impacted intersection with feasible mitigation for the City is:
(a) El Camino Real and Alma Street and Sand Hill Road.
B. Nothing in this section shall otherwise limit JPB’s obligations to implement all
applicable aspects of the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Plan adopted by the
JPB on January 8, 2015 in Palo Alto, or to comply with all applicable federal, state or
local laws, regulations and permit conditions, or to satisfy other JPB obligations
under this Agreement.
SECTION 8: CITY IMPROVEMENTS.
A. Avoidance of Impact on City Improvements. The JPB will make its best efforts to
avoid damage to, interference with operations, maintenance or construction, or
otherwise affecting City Improvements (collectively, “City Improvement Impacts”),
to the extent feasible.
B. Addressing City Improvement Impacts.
1. Identification of City Improvement Impacts. JPB agrees to prepare a
comprehensive list of City Improvement Impacts, if any (“City Improvement
List”), as part of JPB’s final design documents for the Project. JPB will
provide the City Improvement List to the City for City’s review. City and JPB
will mutually agree on a final list of City Improvement Impacts. The City
agrees to cooperate with JPB to identify all City Improvement Impacts.
2. Costs. Subject to existing agreements, JPB will be responsible for the costs
associated with construction, modification, relocation and/or related mitigation
associated with addressing the City Improvement Impacts for facilities located
within City property. City will be responsible for the costs associated with
construction, modification, relocation and/or related mitigation associated with
addressing the City Improvement Impacts for facilities located within the JPB
ROW. Any replacement City Improvements will be of a similar kind and
capacity to the existing City Improvement, subject to applicable federal, state
and local requirements (including existing City codes). If City desires to
increase or upgrade a City Improvement beyond its existing codes, it shall be
responsible for any additional costs for that change.
3. Responsibility for Work to Address City Improvement Impacts.
(a) JPB and City shall mutually agree on whether City or JPB shall be
responsible for the design and construction, modification, relocation
and/or related mitigation to address the City Improvement Impacts.
(b) The Parties shall agree in writing with regards to which Party will be
obligated to perform the work necessary for the new, modified,
replacement City Improvements and/or other mitigation to address the
2.a
Packet Pg. 36
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
12
13718272.3
City Improvement Impacts, and such writing shall be incorporated as
Exhibit D to this Agreement. Such writing shall also establish a protocol
for the review of plans and the inspection of the construction,
modification, relocation and/or related mitigation for the City
Improvement. Any changes to the design, construction, protocols or
other aspect of such obligations must be in writing and approved by both
Parties.
(c) Regardless of which Party performs the design and/or construction, the
work shall conform to City codes, requirements, standards, standard
details and specifications. If no City standards exist for such work, it shall
be designed to applicable Caltrans standard details and specifications
with City approval, or if no Caltrans standard details and specifications
apply, it shall be designed to such standards as JPB shall reasonably
determine to apply, with City approval.
(d) With respect to work related to City Improvements, JPB shall not accept
any work related to City Improvements until the City has had the
opportunity to inspect the work, DB Contractor has made any necessary
corrections requested by City, and City has accepted the work.
(e) Upon acceptance of any Project work related to City Improvements, City
will have the responsibility for any maintenance, repairs, alterations or
future upgrades or replacements.
C. Coordination. During construction of the Project, the City shall provide the JPB with
a list of City personnel to be contacted in the event of an emergency on the Project
construction site within the City.
D. Real Property Rights. At, or shortly following the completion of the Project, the
Parties agree to execute updated real property documents to accurately reflect all
new or relocated or modified City Improvements crossing the JPB ROW in the City at
nominal cost to the City.
E. Costs Associated with Overhead Work. JPB agrees to compensate City for any
costs associated with work City must perform on overhead City infrastructure to the
extent such work is caused by JPB requirements that exceed those set forth in the
California Public Utilities Commission Resolution SED-2, adopted on November 10,
2016.
SECTION 9: CITY COST RECOVERY.
A. Initial Deposit, Payment of Permit Fees. JPB agrees to make an initial deposit of
$25,000 to the City for costs incurred by the City for design review, permit work,
inspection costs and other related expenses the City incurs in connection with the
Project. In addition, JPB agrees to pay the City’s standard permit and processing
fees, as applicable to the Project.
B. Replenishment of Initial Deposit, Additional Funds. The City agrees to notify the
JPB when 75% of the initial deposit has been spent, at which time the JPB and the
2.a
Packet Pg. 37
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
13
13718272.3
City agree to review the Project status, anticipated costs, and remaining budgets to
determine the need for additional deposits or other payments beyond the initial
deposit. Any changes to the deposit amount at this stage shall be agreed upon by
the JPB and the City. JPB acknowledges and agrees that City may, in its sole
discretion, cease to process the Project in the event that JPB fails to comply with its
obligations under this section or elsewhere under the Agreement.
C. Return of Deposit. Upon Project completion, or in the event the Term of this
Agreement expires or the Agreement is otherwise terminated, the City agrees to
return any portion of the deposit that has not been expended or otherwise committed
by the City in connection with the Project to JPB.
D. City Control of Consultants, Contractors. Any consultants, contractors or other
third parties hired by the City under this Agreement shall be directed solely by the
City. JPB shall not direct or control their work or conclusions.
SECTION 10: TRAFFIC MAINTENANCE AND DETOURS.
A. The JPB will assume full responsibility for maintaining in service, or causing to be
maintained in service, all traffic detours during JPB construction of the Project in a
manner satisfactory to the City, subject to and consistent with all applicable
California Department of Transportation requirements. All traffic control, lane
closure, and detour plans shall be submitted to the City for approval prior to
commencement of any phase of construction requiring either traffic control or
detour(s), which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The traffic control,
lane closure, and detour plans shall specify the length of time that portions of City
streets will likely be closed. As many of the at-grade crossings in the City serve
large numbers of school children walking and bicycling to school, the JPB will ensure
that advanced notification of any work at the grade crossings is provided to the
nearby schools and that all required temporary bicycle and pedestrian traffic control
requirements are met during construction.
B. Although certain City streets will, of necessity, be partially closed for some period
during construction of the Project, the JPB will, to the greatest extent practicable,
maintain in service, or cause to be maintained in service, all City streets and related
City Improvements within the limits of the Project area in a manner reasonably
satisfactory to the City. At a minimum, two-way service will be maintained on all City
streets affected by the Project, unless otherwise agreed to by the JPB and the City.
All travel lanes will be maintained, if possible, on Alma Street during peak hours.
Stringing OCS wire may require temporary street closures when work occurs at an
existing at-grade crossing. Specificity about the closures will be included in JPBs
Traffic Control Plan.
C. In its Contract Documents, the JPB will require the DB Contractor to submit plans
showing haul routes, temporary traffic control plans, employee parking areas, and
staging areas to the City for approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably
withheld. The City shall approve or disapprove the plans no later than twenty-one
(21) calendar days following the City’s receipt of such plans.
2.a
Packet Pg. 38
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
14
13718272.3
D. In its Contract Documents, the JPB will, prior to the temporary closure to traffic of all
or part of any street, sidewalk, or other public access, require that its contractor(s)
provide at least fourteen (14) calendar days’ notice of such closure to the City.
Deviation from this fourteen (14) calendar day requirement may be permitted in
emergency situations as determined and agreed upon in advance and in writing by
the JPB and the City.
E. At least seventy two (72) hours prior to the temporary closure to traffic of all or part of
any street, sidewalk, or other public access, the JPB will post notice of such closure.
Such notice of any road closure shall include, at minimum, use of an electronic sign.
The JPB will also provide closure-information fliers to residents, schools, and
businesses within a one hundred (100) foot radius of any such closure.
SECTION 11: EROSION CONTROL PLAN.
The JPB shall provide an erosion control plan to retain sediments on site in accordance with the
JPB’s Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program and Contract Documents. This plan should be
submitted with the Issued for Construction plans. All stockpiled earthwork shall be protected
from wind and water erosion. Dust control shall be undertaken in accordance with the JPB
Contract Documents and the Contract Documents shall provide for dust, erosion and pollution
control seven days a week, 24 hours a day for the duration of construction activities
SECTION 12: INDEMNIFICATION.
A. City’s Indemnity.
1. City shall fully release, indemnify, hold harmless and defend the JPB, as well
as the San Mateo County Transit District, the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority, and the City and County of San Francisco, Transit
Services America, the Union Pacific Railroad Company and/or their
respective officers, directors, employees, contractors and agents (collectively,
“JPB Indemnitees”) from and against all liability, claims, suits, sanctions,
costs or expenses for injuries to or death of any person (including, but not
limited to, the passengers, employees and contractors of City and JPB), and
damage to or loss of property arising out of or resulting from any act or
omission by City, its agents, employees, contractors or subcontractors in the
performance of its obligations under this Agreement.
2. City’s obligation to defend shall include the payment of all reasonable
attorney’s fees and all other costs and expenses of suit, and if any judgment
is rendered against any JPB Indemnitee, City shall, at its expense, satisfy
and discharge the same, so long as said claim has been timely tendered to
the City without prejudice to City’s rights and/or abilities to undertake a
defense of said claim.
B. JPB’s Indemnity.
1. JPB shall fully release, indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City and its
respective Council Members, officers, directors, employees, contractors and
agents (collectively, “City Indemnitees”) from and against all liability, claims,
2.a
Packet Pg. 39
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
15
13718272.3
suits, sanctions, costs or expenses for injuries to or death of any person
(including, but not limited to, passengers, employees and contractors of City
and JPB) and damage to or loss of property arising out of or resulting from
any act or omission by the JPB, its agents, employees, contractors or
subcontractors in performance of its obligations under this Agreement.
2. JPB’s obligation to defend shall include the payment of all reasonable
attorney’s fees and all other costs and expenses of suit, and if any judgment
is rendered against City Indemnitee’s or any one of them, JPB shall, at its
expense, satisfy and discharge the same, so long as said claim has been
timely tendered to the JPB without prejudice to JPB’s rights and/or abilities to
undertake a defense of said claim.
C. Severability. It is the intention of the Parties that should any term of this indemnity
provision be found to be void or unenforceable; the remainder of the provision shall
remain in full force and effect.
D. Survival. This indemnification shall survive termination or expiration of this
Agreement.
SECTION 13: INSURANCE.
The JPB shall include in its Contract Documents a requirement that the City be named an
additional insured on all policies of insurance required of its contractors. JPB and DB Contractor
shall provide a copy of evidence of insurance to City Risk Manager prior to any work under the
Agreement going forward.
SECTION 14: RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES.
Prior to commencement of any formal litigation arising out of this Agreement, the Parties agree
to submit the matters in controversy to a neutral mediator jointly selected by the Parties. The
costs of said mediator shall be borne evenly by the Parties involved in said dispute.
SECTION 15: NOTICES.
The City day-to-day contact person for all matters related to this Agreement will be the City
Manager or his or her designee. The JPB’s day-to-day contact person for all matters related to
this Agreement will be Lin Guan (650-508-7976; guanz@samtrans.com) or his designee.
All notices required hereunder may be given by personal delivery, US Mail, or courier service
(e.g. federal express) transmission. Notices shall be effective upon receipt at the following
addresses.
PCJPB: Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board
1250 San Carlos Avenue
San Carlos, CA 94070
Attn: Executive Director
City: City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
2.a
Packet Pg. 40
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
16
13718272.3
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Attn: City Manager
With copies to: City Clerk
SECTION 16: PARTIES NOT CO-VENTURERS.
Nothing in this Agreement is intended to nor does it establish the Parties as partners, co-
ventures or principal and agent with one another.
SECTION 17: FURTHER ASSURANCES, TIME PERIODS AND RECORDS.
A. Each Party shall execute and deliver to the other all such additional instruments or
documents as may be necessary to carry out this Agreement or to assure and
secure to the other Party the full and complete enjoyment of its rights and privileges
under this Agreement, subject to appropriate approvals of each Party’s governing
body.
B. Should unforeseen circumstances occur, the JPB and the City shall negotiate in
good faith to reach agreement on any amendment(s) that may be necessary to fully
effectuate the Parties’ respective intentions in entering into this Agreement.
C. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 8546.7, the Parties shall be subject
to the examination and audit of the State Auditor, at the request of the JPB or as part
of any audit of the JPB by the State Auditor, for a period of three (3) years after final
payment under this Agreement. The examination and audit shall be confined to
those matters connected with the performance of this Agreement including, but not
limited to, the cost of administering the Agreement.
SECTION 18: NON-LIABILITY OF OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS.
No director, member, official, employee or agent of the City or the JPB shall be personally liable
to any Party to this Agreement or any successor in interest in the event of any default or breach
of this Agreement or for any amount which may become due on any obligation under the terms
of this Agreement.
SECTION 19: HEADING AND TITLES.
Any titles of the Sections of this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only, and
shall be disregard in construing or interpreting any part of its provisions.
SECTION 20: APPLICABLE LAW.
This Agreement shall be interpreted under and pursuant to the laws of the State of California.
The Parties agree that the jurisdiction and venue of any dispute between the Parties to this
Agreement shall be the Superior Court of San Mateo County.
SECTION 21: SEVERABILITY.
If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement is held by a court of competent
2.a
Packet Pg. 41
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
17
13718272.3
jurisdiction to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of the provisions shall continue in
full force and effect unless the rights and obligations of the Parties have been materially altered
or abridged by such invalidation, voiding or unenforceability.
SECTION 22: BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS.
This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the transferees, successors
and assigns of each of the Parties to it, except that there shall be no transfer of any interest by
any of the Parties to this Agreement except pursuant to the terms of the Agreement.
SECTION 23: REMEDIES NOT EXCLUSIVE.
No right or remedy conferred upon or reserved to the JPB or the City under this Agreement is
intended to be exclusive of any other right or remedy, except as expressly stated in this
Agreement, and each and every right and remedy shall be cumulative and in addition to any
other right or remedy given under this Agreement or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity
or by statute, except such rights or remedies as are expressly limited in this Agreement.
SECTION 24: FORCE MAJEURE.
In addition to specific provisions of this Agreement, performance by either Party shall not be
deemed to be in default where delays or defaults are due to war, insurrection, strikes, lockouts,
riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, quarantine restrictions, casualties, acts of God, acts of the
public enemy, epidemic, government restrictions on priorities, freight embargoes, shortage of
labor or materials, unusually inclement weather, lack of transportation, court order, or any other
similar causes beyond the control or without the fault of the Party claiming an extension of time
to perform. An extension of time for any cause will be deemed granted if notice by the Party
claiming such extension is sent to the other Party within thirty (30) days from the
commencement of the cause and such extension is not rejected in writing by the other Party
within thirty (30) days of receipt of the notice. Time of performance under this Agreement may
also be extended by mutual written agreement, signed by both Parties.
SECTION 25: INTEGRATION.
This Agreement represents the full, complete and entire agreement of the Parties with respect
to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes any and all other communications,
representations, proposals, understandings or agreements, whether written or oral, between the
Parties hereto with respect to such subject matter.
SECTION 26: COUNTERPARTS.
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original
but all of which together shall constitute a single Agreement.
SECTION 27: AMENDMENTS.
This Agreement may be amended only in a writing that is executed by the Parties hereto.
SECTION 28: THIRD PARTY RIGHTS.
2.a
Packet Pg. 42
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
18
13718272.3
Nothing herein shall be considered as creating any rights and/or obligations by any of the
Parties to this Agreement to any third parties. Specifically, none of the duties to inspect or
maintain shall in any way be construed as creating or expanding any additional obligations to
any third Party beyond those required and established under the applicable statues, regulations,
ordinances or law.
SECTION 29: SUCCESSORS.
This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the respective successors
and assigns of the Parties hereto.
SECTION 30: WAIVER.
The wavier by either Party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition, or
provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, will not be deemed to
be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law, or of any
subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision,
ordinance or law.
SECTION 31: BONDING.
JPB will require the DB Contractor for this Project to provide performance and payment bonds in
the full amount of the contract and will require a two-year warranty period. The bond shall be
maintained in full force and effect during the entire period that work is performed by the DB
Contractor until such work is accepted by JPB.
SECTION 32: EXHIBITS
The Agreement includes the following Exhibits, which are incorporated into the Agreement as if
fully set forth herein:
A. EXHIBIT A – Depiction of JPB ROW within City
B. EXHIBIT B – Location and Specifications for Paralleling Station 5 (“PS-5”)
C. EXHIBIT C – Location of Staging Areas
D. EXHIBIT D – JPB and City Agreements RE: City Improvements (as developed)
This Agreement is made and entered into as of the Effective Date.
PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS
BOARD
By:
Jim Hartnett
CITY OF PALO ALTO
James Keene
City Manager
2.a
Packet Pg. 43
COMPREHENSIVE AGREEMENT
JPB & CITY OF PALO ALTO
19
13718272.3
General Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
JPB Attorney
By:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Palo Alto City Attorney
By:
2.a
Packet Pg. 44
Pole ID Pole Type
Foundation
Size Offset / Track Stationing Drawing Number
City ROW
(Y/N)Pole in Station Pole
Location
29.5‐06 FD‐36A WF‐4A 10.00'R MT2 1562+65 MT2 W3205 N
29.6‐01 FD‐36A WF‐4A 10.33'R MT2 1563+27 MT2 W3205 N
29.6‐02 FD‐36A WF‐4A 10.33'R MT2 1564+40 MT2 W3205 N
29.6‐03 FD‐36A WF‐4A 10.33'R MT2 1566+10 MT2 W3205 N
29.6‐04 FD‐36A WF‐4A 10.00'R MT2 1567+65 MT2 W3205 N
29.7‐01 FD‐30 WF‐3 12.74'R MT1 1569+17 MT1 W3205 N
29.7‐02 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1570+82 MT1 W3205 N
29.7‐03 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1571+10 MT2 W3205 N
29.7‐04 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1572+52 MT1 W3206 N
29.7‐05 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.33'R MT2 1572+80 MT2 W3206 N
29.8‐01 FD‐36 WF‐5 11.33'L MT1 1574+23 MT1 W3206 N
29.8‐02 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.33'R MT2 1574+51 MT2 W3206 N
29.8‐03 FD‐30 TT‐1 10.33'L MT1 1575+91 MT1 W3206 N
29.8‐04 FD‐36 TT‐4 11.33'R MT2 1576+22 MT2 W3206 N
29.8‐05 FD‐30 TT‐1 10.33'L MT1 1577+72 MT1 W3206 N
29.8‐06 FD‐30 TT‐1 10.33'R MT2 1578+31 MT2 W3206 N
29.8‐D01 DG‐2 ‐ 11.33'L MT1 1579+98 MT1 W3206 N
29.8‐D02 DG‐2 ‐ 11.33'R MT2 1575+97 MT2 W3206 N
29.9‐01 FD‐36 TT‐4 11.00'L MT1 1579+72 MT1 W3206 N
29.9‐02 FD‐30 TT‐1 10.00'R MT2 1580+12 MT2 W3206 N
29.9‐03 FD‐36 TT‐4 18.99'R MT1 1581+91 MT1 W3206 N Palo Alto Station Center
29.9‐04 FD‐30 TT‐1 18.99'L MT1 1583+60 MT1 W3207 N Palo Alto Station Center
29.9‐D01 DG‐2 ‐ 11.00'L MT1 1579+97 MT1 W3206 N
29.9‐D02 DG‐2 ‐ 18.99'R MT1 1582+47 MT2 W3207 N Palo Alto Station Center
30.0‐01 FD‐30 TT‐1 18.49'R MT1 1585+69 MT1 W3207 N Palo Alto Station Center
30.0‐02 FD‐36 TT‐4 10.00'R MT2 1588+10 MT2 W3207 N
30.0‐03 FD‐36 TT‐4 10.00'L MT1 1587+80 MT1 W3207 N
30.0‐D01 DG‐2 ‐ 10.00'L MT1 1587+54 MT1 W3207 N
30.0‐D02 DG‐2 ‐ 10.00'R MT2 1587+84 MT1 W3207 N
30.1‐01 FD‐30 TT‐1 10.33'L MT1 1589+40 MT1 W3207 N
30.1‐02 FD‐30 TT‐1 10.33'R MT2 1589+69 MT2 W3207 N
PALO ALTO ‐ SEGMENT 3 WORK AREA 2
1
65% Submittal - Pole Schedule
2.b
Packet Pg. 45
Pole ID Pole Type
Foundation
Size Offset / Track Stationing Drawing Number
City ROW
(Y/N)Pole in Station Pole
Location
PALO ALTO ‐ SEGMENT 3 WORK AREA 2
30.1‐03 FD‐36 SQ‐3 10.33'L MT1 1591+20 MT1 W3207 N
30.1‐04 FD‐36 SQ‐3 10.33'R MT2 1591+50 MT2 W3207 N
30.1‐05 FD‐36 WF‐5 10.33'L MT1 1592+80 MT1 W3208 N
30.1‐06 FD‐36 WF‐5 10.33'R MT2 1593+11 MT2 W3208 N
30.1‐07 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1594+30 MT1 W3208 N
30.1‐08 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.33'R MT2 1594+62 MT2 W3208 N
30.1‐D01 DG‐2 ‐ 10.33'L MT1 1593+04 MT1 W3208 N
30.1‐D02 DG‐2 ‐ 10.33'R MT2 1593+36 MT2 W3208 N
30.2‐01 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1595+80 MT1 W3208 N
30.2‐02 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1596+12 MT2 W3208 N
30.2‐03 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'L MT1 1597+60 MT1 W3208 N
30.2‐04 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'R MT2 1597+92 MT2 W3208 N
30.2‐05 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.33'L MT1 1599+60 MT1 W3208 N
30.2‐06 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.33'R MT2 1599+92 MT2 W3208 N
30.3‐01 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.33'L MT1 1601+60 MT1 W3208 N
30.3‐02 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1601+92 MT2 W3208 N
30.3‐03 FD‐36A SQ‐1 22.00'L MT1 1603+40 MT1 W3209 N
30.3‐04 FD‐36A TT‐3A 10.33'R MT2 1603+71 MT2 W3209 N
30.3‐D01 DG‐1 ‐ 22.00'L MT1 1603+14 MT1 W3209 N
30.3‐D02 DG‐1 ‐ 10.33'R MT2 1603+46 MT2 W3209 N
30.4‐01 FD‐30 TT‐1A 10.00'L MT1 1605+19 MT1 W3209 N
30.4‐02 FD‐30 TT‐1A 10.00'R MT2 1605+51 MT2 W3209 N
30.4‐03 FD‐36 TT‐4A 10.00'L MT1 1607+19 MT1 W3209 N
30.4‐04 FD‐36 TT‐4A 10.00'R MT2 1607+51 MT2 W3209 N
30.4‐05 FD‐36 TT‐4A 13.50'L MT1 1609+39 MT1 W3209 N Standford Stadium Station Outer
30.4‐06 FD‐36 TT‐4A 13.50'R MT2 1609+71 MT2 W3209 N Standford Stadium Station Outer
30.4‐D01 DG‐1 ‐ 10.00'L MT1 1607+44 MT1 W3209 N
30.4‐D02 DG‐1 ‐ 10.00'R MT2 1607+76 MT2 W3209 N
30.5‐01 FD‐30 TT‐1A 13.50'L MT1 1611+59 MT1 W3209 N Standford Stadium Station Outer
30.5‐02 FD‐30 TT‐1A 13.50'R MT2 1611+91 MT2 W3209 N Standford Stadium Station Outer
30.5‐03 FD‐36A TT‐3A 13.50'L MT1 1613+66 MT1 W3210 N Standford Stadium Station Outer
2
65% Submittal - Pole Schedule
2.b
Packet Pg. 46
Pole ID Pole Type
Foundation
Size Offset / Track Stationing Drawing Number
City ROW
(Y/N)Pole in Station Pole
Location
PALO ALTO ‐ SEGMENT 3 WORK AREA 2
30.5‐04 FD‐36A TT‐3A 13.50'R MT2 1613+97 MT2 W3210 N Standford Stadium Station Outer
30.6‐01 FD‐36 TT‐4A 13.50'L MT1 1615+86 MT1 W3210 N Standford Stadium Station Outer
30.6‐02 FD‐36 TT‐4A 13.50'R MT2 1616+17 MT2 W3210 N Standford Stadium Station Outer
30.6‐03 FD‐30 TT‐1 10.00'L MT1 1618+06 MT1 W3210 N
30.6‐04 FD‐30 TT‐1 10.00'R MT2 1618+37 MT2 W3210 N
30.6‐05 FD‐36 TT‐4 10.00'L MT1 1620+26 MT1 W3210 N
30.6‐06 FD‐36 TT‐4 10.00'R MT2 1620+57 MT2 W3210 N
30.6‐D01 DG‐2 ‐ 10.00'L MT1 1620+01 MT1 W3210 N
30.6‐D02 DG‐2 ‐ 10.00'R MT2 1620+32 MT2 W3210 N
30.7‐01 FD‐36 SQ‐3 10.00'L MT1 1622+06 MT1 W3211 N
30.7‐02 FD‐36 SQ‐3 10.00'R MT2 1622+37 MT2 W3211 N
30.7‐03 FD‐36 SQ‐3 10.00'L MT1 1623+86 MT1 W3211 N
30.7‐04 FD‐36 SQ‐3 10.00'R MT2 1624+17 MT2 W3211 N
30.7‐05 FD‐36 WF‐5 11.00'L MT1 1625+66 MT1 W3211 N
30.7‐06 FD‐36 WF‐5 11.00'R MT2 1625+97 MT2 W3211 N
30.7‐D01 DG‐2 ‐ 11.00'L MT1 1625+91 MT1 W3211 N
30.7‐D02 DG‐2 ‐ 11.00'R MT2 1626+22 MT2 W3211 N
30.8‐01 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1627+86 MT1 W3211 N
30.8‐02 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1628+17 MT2 W3211 N
30.8‐03 FD‐36A SQ‐9B 10.00'L MT1 1630+06 MT1 W3211 N
30.8‐04 FD‐36A SQ‐9B 10.00'R MT2 1630+37 MT2 W3211 N
30.9‐01 FD‐42S SQ‐8 10.00'L MT1 1631+86 MT1 W3211 N
30.9‐02 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1634+06 MT1 W3212 N
30.9‐03 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1634+37 MT2 W3212 N
30.9‐04 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1636+26 MT1 W3212 N
30.9‐05 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1636+57 MT2 W3212 N
31.0‐01 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1638+46 MT1 W3212 N
31.0‐02 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1638+77 MT2 W3212 N
31.0‐03 FD‐42A WF‐7 10.00'L MT1 1640+66 MT1 W3212 N
31.0‐04 FD‐42A WF‐7 10.00'R MT2 1640+97 MT2 W3212 N
31.1‐01 FD‐30 WF‐3 10.00'L MT1 1642+86 MT1 W3213 N
3
65% Submittal - Pole Schedule
2.b
Packet Pg. 47
Pole ID Pole Type
Foundation
Size Offset / Track Stationing Drawing Number
City ROW
(Y/N)Pole in Station Pole
Location
PALO ALTO ‐ SEGMENT 3 WORK AREA 2
31.1‐02 FD‐30 WF‐3 10.00'R MT2 1643+17 MT2 W3213 N
31.1‐03 FD‐42S SQ‐11B 10.00'L MT1 1645+06 MT1 W3213 N
31.1‐04 FD‐42S SQ‐11B 10.00'R MT2 1645+37 MT2 W3213 N
31.1‐05 FD‐42S SQ‐8 10.00'L MT1 1647+26 MT1 W3213 N
31.2‐01 FD‐36A SQ‐1 10.00'L MT1 1649+46 MT1 W3213 N
31.2‐02 FD‐42S SQ‐8 10.00'L MT1 1651+26 MT1 W3213 N
31.3‐01 FD‐36A SQ‐9B 10.00'L MT1 1653+46 MT1 W3214 N
31.3‐02 FD‐36A SQ‐9B 10.00'R MT2 1653+77 MT2 W3214 N
31.3‐03 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1655+66 MT1 W3214 N
31.3‐04 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1655+97 MT2 W3214 N
31.3‐05 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1657+86 MT1 W3214 N
31.3‐06 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1658+17 MT2 W3214 N
31.4‐01 FD‐36 WF‐5 11.00'L MT1 1659+86 MT1 W3214 N
31.4‐02 FD‐36 WF‐5 11.00'R MT2 1660+17 MT2 W3214 N
31.4‐03 FD‐36A TT‐3A 10.00'L MT1 1661+56 MT1 W3214 N
31.4‐04 FD‐36A TT‐3A 10.00'R MT2 1661+97 MT2 W3214 N
31.4‐D01 DG‐2 ‐ 11.00'L MT1 1659+61 MT1 W3214 N
31.4‐D02 DG‐2 ‐ 11.00'R MT2 1659+92 MT2 W3214 N
31.5‐01 FD‐36A TT‐3A 10.00'L MT1 1663+26 MT1 W3215 N
31.5‐02 FD‐36A TT‐3A 10.00'R MT2 1663+77 MT2 W3215 N
31.5‐03 FD‐36 TT‐4 10.00'L MT1 1665+15 MT1 W3215 N
31.5‐04 FD‐36 TT‐4 10.00'R MT2 1665+57 MT2 W3215 N
31.5‐05 FD‐30 TT‐1 13.50'L MT1 1667+19 MT1 W3215 N California Avenue Station Outer
31.5‐06 FD‐30 TT‐1 13.60'R MT2 1667+51 MT2 W3215 N California Avenue Station Outer
31.5‐D01 DG‐2 ‐ 10.00'L MT1 1665+40 MT1 W3215 N
31.5‐D02 DG‐2 ‐ 10.00'R MT2 1665+82 MT2 W3215 N
31.6‐01 FD‐30 TT‐1 13.50'L MT1 1668+79 MT1 W3215 N California Avenue Station Outer
31.6‐02 FD‐30 TT‐1 13.59'R MT2 1669+11 MT2 W3215 N California Avenue Station Outer
31.6‐03 FD‐30 TT‐1 13.50'L MT1 1670+84 MT1 W3215 N California Avenue Station Outer
31.6‐04 FD‐30 TT‐1 13.57'R MT2 1671+16 MT2 W3215 N California Avenue Station Outer
31.6‐05 FD‐30 TT‐1 13.50'L MT1 1673+04 MT1 W3216 N California Avenue Station Outer
4
65% Submittal - Pole Schedule
2.b
Packet Pg. 48
Pole ID Pole Type
Foundation
Size Offset / Track Stationing Drawing Number
City ROW
(Y/N)Pole in Station Pole
Location
PALO ALTO ‐ SEGMENT 3 WORK AREA 2
31.6‐06 FD‐30 TT‐1 13.56'R MT2 1673+36 MT2 W3216 N California Avenue Station Outer
31.7‐01 FD‐30 TT‐1 10.00'L MT1 1675+05 MT1 W3216 N
31.7‐02 FD‐30 TT‐1 10.00'R MT2 1675+36 MT2 W3216 N
31.7‐03 FD‐30 TT‐1 10.00'L MT1 1677+00 MT1 W3216 N
31.7‐04 FD‐30 TT‐4 10.00'R MT2 1677+32 MT2 W3216 N
31.8‐01 FD‐36A TT‐3A 10.00'L MT1 1679+10 MT1 W3216 N
31.8‐02 FD‐36A TT‐3A 10.33'R MT2 1679+47 MT2 W3216 N
31.8‐03 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'L MT1 1681+20 MT1 W3216 N
31.8‐04 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.33'R MT2 1681+51 MT2 W3216 N
31.8‐05 FD‐42A WF‐7 10.00'L MT1 1683+25 MT1 W3217 N
31.8‐06 FD‐42A WF‐7 10.00'R MT2 1683+57 MT2 W3217 N
31.9‐01 FD‐36 NOTE 2 10.00'L MT1 1685+05 MT1 W3217 N
31.9‐02 FD‐36 PW‐1 10.00'R T3208 1685+38 MT2 W3217 N
31.9‐03 FD‐36 NOTE 2 10.00'L MT1 1687+20 MT1 W3217 N
31.9‐04 FD‐36 PW‐1 10.00'R T3208 1687+51 MT2 W3217 N
31.9‐05 FD‐36 NOTE 2 10.00'L MT1 1689+40 MT1 W3217 N
31.9‐06 FD‐36 PW‐1 10.00'R T3208 5+25 T3208 W3217 N
31.9‐D01 DG‐1 ‐ 10.00'L MT1 1687+45 MT1 W3217 N
31.9‐D02 DG‐1 ‐ 10.00'R T3208 1687+76 MT2 W3217 N
32.0‐01 FD‐36 NOTE 2 10.33'L MT1 1691+60 MT1 W3217 N
32.0‐02 FD‐36 PW‐1 26.47'R T3208 1691+91 MT2 W3217 N
32.0‐03 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'L MT1 1693+75 MT1 W3218 N
32.0‐04 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'R T3208 1694+07 MT2 W3218 N
32.1‐01 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'L MT1 1695+85 MT1 W3218 N
32.1‐02 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'R MT2 1696+17 MT2 W3218 N
32.1‐03 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'L MT1 1698+05 MT1 W3218 N
32.1‐04 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'R MT2 1698+37 MT2 W3218 N
32.2‐01 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1700+25 MT1 W3218 N
32.2‐02 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1700+57 MT2 W3218 N
32.2‐03 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1702+45 MT1 W3219 N
32.2‐04 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1702+77 MT2 W3219 N
5
65% Submittal - Pole Schedule
2.b
Packet Pg. 49
Pole ID Pole Type
Foundation
Size Offset / Track Stationing Drawing Number
City ROW
(Y/N)Pole in Station Pole
Location
PALO ALTO ‐ SEGMENT 3 WORK AREA 2
32.2‐05 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 11.00'L MT1 1704+65 MT1 W3219 N
32.2‐06 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 11.00'R MT2 1704+97 MT2 W3219 N
32.2‐D01 DG‐2 ‐ 11.00'L MT1 1704+40 MT1 W3219 N
32.2‐D02 DG‐2 ‐ 11.00'R MT2 1704+72 MT2 W3219 N
32.3‐01 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'L MT1 1706+45 MT1 W3219 N
32.3‐02 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'R MT2 1706+77 MT2 W3219 N
32.3‐03 FD‐36 SQ‐3 10.00'L MT1 1708+25 MT1 W3219 N
32.3‐04 FD‐36 SQ‐3 10.00'R MT2 1708+57 MT2 W3219 N
32.3‐05 FD‐36 WF‐5 11.00'L MT1 1710+05 MT1 W3219 N
32.3‐06 FD‐36 WF‐5 11.00'R MT2 1710+37 MT2 W3219 N
32.3‐D01 DG‐2 ‐ 11.00'L MT1 1710+30 MT1 W3219 N
32.3‐D02 DG‐2 ‐ 11.00'R MT2 1710+62 MT2 W3219 N
32.4‐01 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1712+25 MT1 W3220 N
32.4‐02 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1712+57 MT2 W3220 N
32.4‐03 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1714+45 MT1 W3220 N
32.4‐04 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1714+77 MT2 W3220 N
32.5‐01 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1716+65 MT1 W3220 N
32.5‐02 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.33'R MT2 1716+97 MT2 W3220 N
32.5‐03 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1718+55 MT1 W3220 N
32.5‐04 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.33'R MT2 1718+87 MT2 W3220 N
32.5‐05 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1720+45 MT1 W3220 N
32.5‐06 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1720+77 MT2 W3220 N
32.6‐01 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1722+35 MT1 W3221 N
32.6‐02 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.33'R MT2 1722+67 MT2 W3221 N
32.6‐03 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1724+55 MT1 W3221 N
32.6‐04 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.33'R MT2 1724+87 MT2 W3221 N
32.7‐01 FD‐42A WF‐7 10.00'L MT1 1726+75 MT1 W3221 N
32.7‐02 FD‐42A WF‐7 10.00'R MT2 1727+07 MT2 W3221 N
32.7‐03 FD‐30 WF‐3 10.00'L MT1 1728+55 MT1 W3221 N
32.7‐04 FD‐30 WF‐7 10.00'R MT2 1728+87 MT2 W3221 N
32.7‐05 FD‐42A WF‐7 10.00'L MT1 1730+35 MT1 W3221 N
6
65% Submittal - Pole Schedule
2.b
Packet Pg. 50
Pole ID Pole Type
Foundation
Size Offset / Track Stationing Drawing Number
City ROW
(Y/N)Pole in Station Pole
Location
PALO ALTO ‐ SEGMENT 3 WORK AREA 2
32.7‐06 FD‐42A WF‐7 10.00'R MT2 1730+67 MT2 W3221 N
32.8‐01 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1732+55 MT1 W3222 N
32.8‐02 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1732+87 MT2 W3222 N
32.8‐03 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'L MT1 1734+75 MT1 W3222 N
32.8‐04 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'R MT2 1735+07 MT2 W3222 N
32.8‐05 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'L MT1 1736+55 MT1 W3222 N
32.8‐06 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'R MT2 1736+87 MT2 W3222 N
32.9‐01 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1738+55 MT1 W3222 N
32.9‐02 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1738+87 MT2 W3222 N
32.9‐03 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1740+65 MT1 W3222 N
32.9‐04 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1740+97 MT2 W3222 N
33.0‐01 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1742+75 MT1 W3223 N
33.0‐02 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1743+07 MT2 W3223 N
33.0‐03 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1744+85 MT1 W3223 N
33.0‐04 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1745+17 MT2 W3223 N
33.0‐05 FD‐30 WF‐5 10.00'L MT1 1746+95 MT1 W3223 N
33.0‐06 FD‐30 WF‐5 10.00'R MT2 1747+27 MT2 W3223 N
33.0‐D01 DG‐2 ‐ 10.00'L MT1 1746+70 MT1 W3223 N
33.0‐D02 DG‐2 ‐ 10.00'R MT2 1747+02 MT2 W3223 N
33.1‐01 FD‐36 SQ‐3 10.00'L MT1 1748+75 MT1 W3223 N
33.1‐02 FD‐36 SQ‐3 10.00'R MT2 1749+07 MT2 W3223 N
33.1‐03 FD‐36 SQ‐3 10.00'L MT1 1750+55 MT1 W3223 N
33.1‐04 FD‐36 SQ‐3 10.00'R MT2 1750+87 MT2 W3223 N
33.1‐05 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 11.00'L MT1 1752+35 MT1 W3224 N
33.1‐06 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 11.00'R MT2 1752+67 MT2 W3224 N
33.1‐D01 DG‐2 ‐ 11.00'L MT1 1752+60 MT1 W3224 N
33.1‐D02 DG‐2 ‐ 11.00'R MT2 1752+92 MT2 W3224 N
33.2‐01 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'L MT1 1754+16 MT1 W3224 N
33.2‐02 FD‐36A SQ‐9A 10.00'R MT2 1754+47 MT2 W3224 N
33.2‐03 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1756+36 MT1 W3224 N
33.2‐04 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1756+67 MT2 W3224 N
7
65% Submittal - Pole Schedule
2.b
Packet Pg. 51
Pole ID Pole Type
Foundation
Size Offset / Track Stationing Drawing Number
City ROW
(Y/N)Pole in Station Pole
Location
PALO ALTO ‐ SEGMENT 3 WORK AREA 2
33.3‐01 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1758+56 MT1 W3224 N
33.3‐02 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1758+87 MT2 W3224 N
33.3‐03 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1760+76 MT1 W3224 N
33.3‐04 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1761+07 MT2 W3224 N
33.3‐05 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'L MT1 1762+96 MT1 W3225 N
33.3‐06 FD‐30 WF‐1 10.00'R MT2 1763+27 MT2 W3225 N
8
65% Submittal - Pole Schedule
2.b
Packet Pg. 52
PENINSULA CORRIDOR
ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PALO ALTO
STANFORD STADIUM
AND
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
STATIONS
OCS COLOR POLE OPTIONS
FOR PASSENGER STATION
2.c
Packet Pg. 53
Caltrain Electrification Existing Station furniture and poles color and recommended OCS pole color 7/30/2018
Notes: Option 1 is the visually dominant color; Option 2 is the secondary color; Option 3 is the least dominant color or defaults to FS 14052, the standard color for sensitive areas
location municipality Mile Post existing pole
color
existing
furniture color
existing shelter
color
Option 1 color for
Poles
Option 2 color for
poles
Option 3 color for
poles Notes
17 Palo Alto Palo Alto 30.00‐30.2 grey brown n/a color FS 23522 color FS 36495 color FS 30032 Option 1 to match the color of the structure
(historic RR Sta recomm.), 2 to match poles,
3 to match furniture
18 California Palo Alto 31.80 black black/brown black color FS 27040 color FS 30032 color FS 14052 Option 1 to match poles and shelters
xx Stanford Stadium Palo Alto color FS 14052 color FS 14052 color FS 14052 Assumed Marine Green to match stated
environmentally sensitive standard.
2.c
Packet Pg. 54
PENINSULA CORRIDOR
ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PALO ALTO
STATION
OCS COLOR POLE
OPTIONS FOR PASSENGER
STATION
2.c
Packet Pg. 55
Palo Alto Station
Color Option 1: To match structure - FS 23522 2.c
Packet Pg. 56
Palo Alto Station
Color Option 2: To match poles - FS 36495 2.c
Packet Pg. 57
Palo Alto Station
Color Option 3: To match furniture - FS 30032 2.c
Packet Pg. 58
PENINSULA CORRIDOR
ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM
CITY OF PALO ALTO
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
STATION
OCS COLOR POLE
OPTIONS FOR PASSENGER
STATION
2.c
Packet Pg. 59
California Avenue Station
Color Option 1: To match poles and shelters - FS 27040 2.c
Packet Pg. 60
California Avenue Station
Color Option 2: FS 30032 2.c
Packet Pg. 61
California Avenue Station
Color Option 3: FS 14052 2.c
Packet Pg. 62
PENINSULA CORRIDOR
ELECTRIFICATION PROGRAM
CITY OF PALO ALTO
STANFORD STADIUM
STATION
OCS COLOR POLE
OPTIONS FOR PASSENGER
STATION
2.c
Packet Pg. 63
Stanford Stadium Station
Color Option: Marine Green - FS 14052 2.c
Packet Pg. 64
www.balfourbeattyus.com
November 8, 2018 BBII-PCEPDB-LTR-
BBII Letter #
Mr. / Mrs.
Title
City of Menlo Park
Street address
City, state, zip
Re: Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Design-Build
Contract No. 14-PCJPPB-P-053
Subject: Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) /City of Palo Alto
Selected CDRL 34610 OCS Foundation & Pole Layouts Segment 3 Work
Area 2 & 1 65% Design Submittal for Review
Dear Mr./Mrs. ____;
The Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) Design/Builder, Balfour Beatty
Infrastructure, Inc. (BBII) and Designer, PGH Wong, are developing the OCS Foundation
& Pole Layouts design submittal documents for the Electrification Project. We are
providing the 65% design submittal package for the City’s review. Comments from the
City will be addressed through subsequent design packages as required. Electronic
copies of the following submittals for your team’s review have been sent to you through
the project’s document control system, Aconex.
OCS Foundation & Pole Layouts 65% Submittal Drawings -
Selected OCS Foundation & Pole Layouts Segment 3 Work Area 2 & 1 65%
Design Submittal Drawings for the City of Palo Alto – for review
City Stations Pole Color Recommendations
Pole Schedule
Comment Response Sheet
Conformed Set CDRL 34230 OCS Basic Design Poles and Structures (as of
7/19/18) – for reference only.
2121 S. El Camino Real,
Ste. 1000
San Mateo, CA 94403
www.bbiius.com
2.d
Packet Pg. 65
Page 2 of 3
As per the city agreement, the city is required to review and approve the design within
the city right-of-way. Please note that none of the OCS poles are within the City’s right-of-
way.
Pole types indicated on the plan sheets in the OCS Foundation and Pole Layouts refer to
the typical pole structures shown in the provided OCS Basic Design Poles and Structures
package. Proposed pole color recommendations are also included for Palo Alto,
California Avenue and Stanford Stadium Stations, please provide the City’s selected
color with the comment response form by the response date identified herein.
To ensure review comments are received and addressed thoroughly, please include the
City’s comments in the Review Comment Form, which is attached. As part of the review
process the Design Team will request the agency to concur and confirm resolution to
comments. Please transmit the comments no later than November 12, 2018.We
appreciate the City’s review and attention to this design review package. If you would
like to schedule a design review meeting please contact me at (650) 282-8404 or Marcia
Sagami (650) 282-8419.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if there are any questions.
Sincerely,
Balfour Beatty Infrastructure Inc.
Davie McCulloch
PCEP Project Manager
Enclosure
c: Brent Tietjen – Caltrain
Zhenlin Guan – Caltrain
Joshua Bibb - BBII
Martin Gillman – BBII
Nenad Radmanovic - BBII
Jeffrey Katz, P.E. – PGHW
Arash Monsefan, P.E. – PGHW
Benny Ho, P.E. - PGHW
Marcia Sagami – PGHW
2.d
Packet Pg. 66
Page 3 of 3
Catherine Doyle - PGHW
JPB DocControl
BBII DocControl
2.d
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment E: Palo Alto’s Train Stations Excerpted from Final EIR
Below are excerpts from the Final EIR regarding the three stations in Palo Alto, one of
which is a listed historic resource (Palo Alto Depot).
PCE staff notes: Images and details regarding Cal Ave station are on the following page. The
HRB report for 11-8-18 hearing provided historical images of the Palo Alto Depot.
2.e
Packet Pg. 68
1890s Images of Caltrain Stations in Palo Alto
Below is a 1895 image of the University depot removed before construction of the current
Streamlined Moderne SP Depot. The HRB report includes images of the current, historic station.
Photo courtesy of Guy Miller Archives
The Palo Alto Central mixed use development in the 1980’s included construction of a new
Caltrain station; so the station today is not quite 50 years old. Below is an image from the
1890’s of the California Avenue Depot that was removed.
Cal Av depot viewable in the background. From Guy Miller Archives.
2.e
Packet Pg. 69
Then and Now: Mayfield’s SP Waiting Room to Caltrain Station
Map of Mayfield shows the old depot top left Excerpt of 1981 report noting relocation
1980s image above courtesy of Guy Miller Archives Image of Depot today
2.e
Packet Pg. 70
ATTACHMENT F
Hardcopy plans to HRB Members and Libraries only
Project plans (Design Build Electrification Project) can be reviewed on Palo Alto
Building Eye under the address 95 University Avenue at this location:
https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning
http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/Plans.html
The above link leads to information including construction announcements.
At the time this report was written, there was an announcement about work through
November 2nd to locate underground utilities and prune and remove trees along the project
route, and during the night to locate underground utilities. Work hours were posted as 7 a.m.
to 7 p.m. for daytime work and 7 p.m. to 6 a.m. for nighttime work. A hotline was also
provided: 650-399-9659 or toll-free at 855-463-4373.
The below link is to informative documents and outreach efforts for Palo Alto
https://calmod.org/resources/
Below is a listing of relevant documents found on the link:
2.f
Packet Pg. 71
1
French, Amy
From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, November 07, 2018 6:38 PM
To:Historic Resources Board
Cc:French, Amy
Subject:November 8, 2018, Historic Resources Board Meeting
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
November 7, 2018
Historic Resources Board
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
NOVEMBER 8, 2018, HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING
CALTRAIN AGREEMENT
Dear Historic Resources Board:
At Page 2 of the staff report to the Historic Resources Board for this
agenda item, staff provides a link to the staff report presented to the
City Council Rail Committee, but does not provide a copy of the minutes of
that meeting.
The minutes of the September 26, 2018, Rail Committee meeting appear here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67324
at pages 2-11.
At Page 5 of the staff report to the Historic Resources Board for this
agenda item, staff provides a link to the staff report presented to the
Council that contained a draft letter on the Caltrain Draft Environmental
Impact Report, plus a summary of Council’s comments on that letter, but
does not provide a copy of the actual letter sent to Caltrain.
A copy of that letter appears here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/dr120za6ud2tdsf/Ch_2_Comments_030415.pdf?dl=0,
at pages 147-154 of 787.
The agreement with Caltrain appeared on the September 26, 2018, City
Council Rail Committee agenda a month after the Joint Powers Board started
work in Palo Alto on the Caltrain Electrification Project.
2.g
Packet Pg. 72
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 9417)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/15/2018
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 4256 El Camino Real: New Hotel (1st formal)
Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4256 El Camino Real
(18PLN-00096): Consideration of a Major Architectural Review
for a new 51,300 Square Foot Five-Story Hotel Including 100
Guest Rooms and Below-Grade Parking. Director's Adjustment
Requested for a Reduction in Required On-site Parking (15%)
and Loading Space Dimensions. Environmental Assessment:
Pending. Zone District: CS (Service Commercial). For More
Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at
samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org.
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s):
1. Conduct a public hearing and provide feedback on the project design to staff and
applicant, then continue it to a date uncertain. No formal action is necessary at this
time, as the project will need to be further evaluated by staff prior to the ARB’s formal
recommendation.
Report Summary
The subject application is a request for Major Architectural Review for a new hotel located at
4256 El Camino Real. The new hotel is proposed to be five-stories along the El Camino Real
frontage. The project will be 51,300 square feet with 100 hotel rooms, a restaurant, guest
amenities, and below grade parking (two levels) utilizing parking lifts and valet parking services.
The applicant has requested two Director’s adjustments. The first being a 15 percent reduction
in on-site parking requirements and the second being dimensions of the required on-site
loading area. Staff has performed a full review of the project for Zoning Code compliance, and
found the project to be Code compliant. Additionally, reviewing Staff from other departments
have performed a comprehensive review of the project and found the project to be mostly
Code compliant. The outstanding items to be resolved are minor in nature and will not impact
3
Packet Pg. 74
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
the site plan or building design. This includes the location of EVSE chargers and the location of a
trash compactor, all of which are internal to the building.
The project will need to be found in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and other
policy documents including design requirements such as the context-based design criteria, El
Camino Design Guidelines, and the ARB findings. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) are being prepared by a third-party consultant under the direction of City
Staff and will be circulated for public comment prior to a second hearing of the ARB.
The purpose of this meeting is to provide the applicant with Board member comments on the
overall design and concept of the project, which the applicant may respond to before a
subsequent hearing. Board members may identify aspects of the project that are appropriate or
need to be changed given the neighborhood context and consistent with City policies to meet
the required ARB findings for approval. Community members are also encouraged to provide
comments regarding the project.
Background
Project Information
Owner: Catherine Huang Huang
Architect: Studio T Square
Representative: Mircea Voskerician
Property Information
Address: 4256 El Camino Real
Neighborhood: Palo Alto Orchards
Lot Dimensions & Area: 163.5’ by 147.3’ to 95.2’; 25,960 sf
Housing Inventory Site: Yes; maximum yield of 17 units, realistic yield of 12 units
Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable
Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes, 5 Street Trees; 4 Redwoods; 2 Cedars
Historic Resource(s): Not Applicable
Existing Improvement(s): 3,296 sf; Single Story; Built 1964
Existing Land Use(s): Retail Use (Eating & Drinking Services; Su Hong Restaurant)
Adjacent Land Uses &
Zoning:
North: CS (Residential Multi-Family)
West: CS (Residential Multi-Family)
East: CS(H) (The Sea Steak House & Dinah’s Poolside)
South: CS (General Business Office)
Aerial View of Property:
3
Packet Pg. 75
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans
Zoning Designation: Service Commercial (CS)
Comp. Plan Designation: Service Commercial
Context-Based
Design Criteria: Yes, see discussion below
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): Yes, see discussion below
Proximity to Residential
Uses or Districts (150'): Yes, see discussion below
Located w/in Airport
Influence Area: Not Applicable
3
Packet Pg. 76
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
Prior City Reviews & Action
City Council: None
PTC: None
HRB: None
ARB: Preliminary Review (August 17, 2017 Staff Report)
Preliminary Review (December 21, 2017 Staff Report)
Project Description
The proposed project would demolish the existing the 3,296 sf single story building which is
currently occupied by the Su Hong restaurant to construct a five-story 51,300 square foot (FAR
of 2.0:1) hotel with 100 hotel rooms, a small restaurant, small conference room to serve as an
amenity for guests, and below-grade parking. The new hotel is proposed to have a maximum
height of 50 feet (mechanical equipment and screening are an additional 12 feet) along the El
Camino Real frontage and will taper down to a height of 19 feet 7 inches at the rear portion of
the building. The design also incorporates a driveway that features an oversized porte-cochere
and on-site loading area for deliveries. All on-site parking is located within the two level below-
grade garage. As shown on Sheets A-3.6 and A-3.7, the parking garage will utilize valet parking
for the proposed 85 spaces (51 standard spaces, 28 spaces via 2 level parking lifts; 1 valet
spaces; 4 accessible spaces, and 1 van shuttle space).
The proposed project has a contemporary architectural style and utilizes wood siding, stucco,
finished metal beams in the design. The color palette for the project is dark stained wood
paneling, dark brown, and medium grey shades. The El Camino Real Frontage features wood
paneling on the exterior of the upper floors and decorative seafoam glass at the center of the
porte-cochere and the outdoor dining area. The existing redwoods provide screening between
the project and the adjacent multi-family residential development, while also framing the edges
of the property with tree canopy. The project is designed in an A-symmetric layout where the
northern section of the hotel is half the length of the southern section to help avoid shadows
on the adjacent common open space. The design includes an expansive Japanese themed
landscaping which runs throughout the development, beginning at the lobby and running along
the rear of the property in a C-shape layout. The project’s design also includes a 12-foot wide
sidewalk along the El Camino Real frontage as required by the El Camino Design Guidelines.
3
Packet Pg. 77
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
Discussion
Major Architectural Review applications receive a detailed review from staff for compliance
with Zoning regulations and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and other applicable
policy documents. This information was previously transmitted to the applicant. Changes to the
project resulting from Board comments would require additional review by staff which may
reveal other code or policy concerns not found in this submittal.
Architectural Review – Major (AR): This project would be subject to the criteria
found within PAMC 18.77.070. Architectural Review applications are reviewed by
the Architectural Review Board whose recommendations are then forwarded to the
Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five business days of
the Board’s recommendation. Actions by the Director are appealable to the City
Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. Architectural Review projects are
evaluated against specific findings which must be made in the affirmative to approve
the project. Failure to make any single finding requires a project to be redesigned or
to be denied.
At this point in project development, the ARB is encouraged to provide objective feedback to
the applicant on the submitted plans. The Board may want to consider comments that relate
to:
Transitions in scale to adjacent properties
Pedestrian-orientation and design
Access to the site
Consideration of any applicable policy documents
o El Camino Real Design Guidelines
3
Packet Pg. 78
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6
o Context-Based Design Criteria
Architectural design, theme, cohesiveness, and quality of materials
Preservation of existing native or mature landscaping or features
Analysis1
Neighborhood Setting and Character
The project is located on the southern end of El Camino Real and surrounded by the Palo Alto
Redwoods multi-family residential complex and a commercial office use. The existing
development on-site is a single story (approximately 3,296 sf) restaurant known as Su Hong.
The rear and side of the property are surrounded by large redwood trees that line the lots
between the project site and the adjacent Palo Alto Redwoods complex, in addition to three
medium size street trees along the El Camino Real frontage.
The area is defined by the large width of El Camino Real and the varying densities of the
developments along South El Camino Real. Similarly, the heights and setbacks of the buildings
along this portion of El Camino Real varying from zero setbacks (minimum sidewalk widths of 5
feet) and single-story buildings to seven stories with 200-foot setbacks at the nearby Crowne
Plaza hotel. The project proposed a hotel that is five stories tall with an increased setback over
the existing development to provide a 12-foot sidewalk along the El Camino Real frontage. The
scale and setback appear to fit within the varying character and setting of the area, but staff
would appreciate ARB comments on this topic.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2
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.
3
Packet Pg. 79
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7
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 (Attachment A) 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 Service Commercial, which
provides citywide and regional services. This project is proposing a new hotel use with guest
amenities common to hotels, such as a small restaurant and conference rooms. A detailed
review of the project’s consistency will be provided at the next hearing.
Housing Element
The project site has been identified in the Housing Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan as
a housing inventory site, with this property having a realistic yield of 12 housing units. In
preparation for the latest Housing Element, the City anticipated some housing sites may be
redeveloped for non-housing purposes. Additional housing sites, beyond the City’s regional
housing obligation have been identified in the Housing Element.
El Camino Design Guidelines (ECR 1976 and South ECR 2002)
The project will install new street trees along the El Camino Real Frontage of the site and a new
12 ft wide sidewalk will be provided. The site plan and building design of the project will
provide all the on-site parking below grade and will screen the mechanical equipment from
public view. The project’s trash enclosure is located out of public view. The building's design
provides all elevations with an integrated consistent design throughout, maintaining the overall
architectural theme of the building. The design of the new building is softened with the use of
wood panels that connect the building façade with the existing mature redwoods that surround
the site. The site plan of the project is developed to minimize the impacts to the adjacent multi-
family development by stepping down the building heights from five stories down to two
stories as the building approaches the rear property line. In addition, the buildings’ footprint on
the site plan is oriented away from the adjacent residential developments’ common open space
area by the “C” shaped site plan of the project with the opening of the “C” shaped site plan
facing the common open space area, minimizing the impact to light and air. Also the building
design of the project places smaller windows facing towards the property lines and larger
windows facing to the interior plaza area of the site to minimize privacy impact to the adjacent
residential development while still providing natural light for hotel patrons.
Zoning Compliance
Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with all applicable Codes and found it to be
compliant. The project meets the site development standards for a hotel use within the CS
2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp
3
Packet Pg. 80
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8
zone. The results of this review can be found in Attachment B of this report. The applicant has
requested two Director’s adjustment for required parking and the loading area dimensions.
1. The loading zone proposed is short of the Code required length as such a length would
causes conflicts with the site planning and the hotel operator has confirmed that the
loading demands for the hotel use could be fulfilled by smaller vehicles (SU-30 size). The
requested size reduction is for a 10 ft by 30 ft loading area placed within the porte-cochere.
The required loading zone per Code consists of a 12 ft by 45 ft rectangular area with a
vertical clearance of not less than 15 ft. The proposed reduced sized loading area does not
conflict with vehicle access or circulation to the below-grade garage, as vehicles may pass
the loading area via the second driveway aisle and exceeds the vertical clearance required.
2. The applicant has requested a parking reduction of 15%, for a total reduction of 15 required
parking spaces. A TDM program has been submitted and reviewed by Staff to justify the
requested parking reduction and the valet service would provide additional parking via the
aisle ways of the garage.
Based on a review of the project and supporting documents, Staff supports the applicant’s
reduction requests as they are found to be reasonable and meet the Code requirements for
Director’s adjustments. The reduction in the loading area has been found to be appropriate due
to the size of service vehicles that will support the proposed hotel use and the data for hotel
parking demands. To accomidate the parking reduction, the project will be required to utilize a
parking lift system with two-level parking lifts and would be supported by a valet operator for
hotel patrons and employees. The Municipal Code allows for the use of parking lift system(s)
with the requirements outlined in PAMC Section 18.54.020(4)(G). Non-residential uses shall
provide a minimum of two spaces or 10 percent of the total number of parking spaces
provided, whichever is greater, in a standard non-mechanical configuration. The proposed
project currently provides 57 such spaces, which meets required 10 percent threshold. Staff has
thoroughly reviewed the parking lift systems proposed in this project and has conducted site
visits of installed operational lift systems to determined their effectiveness and compliance with
parking designed standards. The proposed parking lifts have been determined to meet all the
requirements for all applicable codes relating to parking lifts and parking design standards.
Urban Forestry Arborist Report Analysis:
A significant number of redwood trees exist on the property and near the perimeter on
neighboring properties. Excavation required for construction of the below-grade parking
facilities may impact trees both on site and those directly adjacent to the property. There have
been thorough reports from certified arborists to ascertain the severity of potential impacts,
design offsetting treatments, and propose tree protection measures during construction of the
project. Adjustments to the design, combined with offsetting treatments and tree protection
measures, are anticipated to result in impacts that are less than significant and will allow the
trees to recover quickly. Trees on the neighboring properties have been inspected and will
continue to be monitored throughout the construction process monthly and at milestone
events.
3
Packet Pg. 81
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9
Utilities Analysis
The project requires a new transformer to be
installed and said transformer must be
located adjacent to a Public Utilities Easement
on the site. The existing Utilities Easement is
being relocated closer to the property line and
out of the proposed footprint of the hotel (see
diagram). The easement adjustment
documentation has been submitted to City
Staff and will be going to the City Council for
approval. The new easement location process
will be completed prior to approval of the
project.
Environmental Review
The subject project is being assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the
environmental regulations of the City. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
(IS/MND) is being prepared by a third-party consultant for Staff review and public comment.
The following technical information is being prepared and will be included in the IS/MND
released for public comment:
Transportation/Circulation
Noise
Historic and Cultural/Tribal Resources
Air Quality
Arborist Assessment of All Trees on and Directly Adjacent to the Property
Given the importance of the adjacent redwood trees, staff ensured the Arborist Assessment
was completed and sent to HOA representatives prior to this hearing (Attachment F). The
IS/MND and related technical reports will be release for a public comment period prior to a
second ARB hearing and any formal recommendation on 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 Daily Post
on November 2, 2018, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred
on November 5, 2018, which is 11 days in advance of the meeting.
Public Comment/Community Meeting
3
Packet Pg. 82
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10
During the review of this project, one letter was submitted that reflects comments from many
neighbors who live within the adjacent multifamily complex known as the Palo Alto Redwoods.
The adjacent residents are concerned about the project’s impacts on the mature redwood
trees, traffic, noise from construction, privacy, the overall size of the project, and the projected
shadows that would be cast by the project onto their property and common space. The
applicant has been in contact with and held meetings with the Palo Alto Redwoods HOA Board
to gather resident feedback on the proposal. Staff has also met with HOA representatives
numerous time during the review process of this application, answering questions and
responding to comments. Comments from the Palo Alto Redwoods residents can be found
within Attachment G.
On October 22, 2018, the applicant held a community meeting on-site within the existing
restaurant. Planning Staff also was in attendance to listen to the information provided and the
community comments raised during the meeting. The developer led meeting covered several
topics regarding the current design of the project including privacy, shadows, parking, and hotel
operations. Staff addressed community comments regarding process and Code requirements.
Report Author & Contact Information ARB3 Liaison & Contact Information
Samuel Gutierrez, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager
(650) 329-2225 (650) 329-2575
samuel.gutierrexz@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)
Attachment B: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)
Attachment C: ARB Draft Findings (DOCX)
Attachment D: Applicant Project Description (PDF)
Attachment E: Hotel Operations (PDF)
Attachment F: Arborist Assessment (PDF)
Attachment G: Neighborhood Comments (PDF)
Attachment H: Project Plans (DOCX)
3 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
3
Packet Pg. 83
3.a
Packet Pg. 84
ATTACHMENT B
ZONING COMPARISON TABLE
4256 EL Camino Real 18PLN-00096
Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT)
Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards
Regulation Required Existing Proposed
Minimum Site Area, width and
depth
None
0.595 acres (25,960 sf)
0.595 acres (25,960 sf)
Minimum Front Yard
0-10 feet to create an
8-12 foot effective
sidewalk width (1), (2), (8)
12’8” 12 foot sidewalk width
Rear Yard
None 110’-2” 16’-10”
Interior Side Yard
None 31’-3” 10’ (narrowest points)
Street Side Yard None N/A N/A
Min. yard for lot lines abutting
or opposite residential
districts or residential PC
districts
10 feet (2) N/A N/A
Build-to-lines
50% of frontage built
to setback on El
Camino Real
33% of side street built
to setback
Not Known 50%
Max. Site Coverage None
12.69% (3,296 sf) 49.6% (12,801 sf)
Max. Building Height 50 ft or 35 ft within 150
ft. of a residential
district (other than RM-
40 or PC zone) abutting
or located within 50
feet of the site
Not known 50 feet (12 ft
additional height for
mechanical screen)(9)
Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
per Code Section 18.18.060(d)
2.0:1 for hotels
(51,920 sf)
3,296 sf 51,299.8 sf
Daylight Plane for lot lines
abutting one or more
residential zone districts other
than an RM-40 or PC Zone
None (6) N/A N/A
(1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of
any required yard.
(2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required
for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line..
(6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question.
(8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage
(9) Height Exception for roof top equipment to exceed the height limit by 15 ft. PAMC 18.40.090
3.b
Packet Pg. 85
18.16.080 Performance Standards. All development in the CS district shall comply with the performance
criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, including all mixed use development
18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a
commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall
promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design.
Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading)
for Hotel use
Type Required Existing Proposed
Vehicle Parking 1 space per guestroom; plus the
applicable requirement for eating and
drinking, banquet, assembly,
commercial or other as required for
such uses, less up to 75% of the spaces
required for guestrooms, upon approval
by the director based on a parking study
of parking generated by the mix of uses.
Parking Lifts PAMC 18.54.020(b)4
(Minimum of two spaces or 10% of the
total number of parking spaces
provided, whichever is greater, shall be
provided as standard non-mechanical
parking spaces. Accessible spaces shall
not be counted as one of the standard
spaces for this requirement)
46 spaces
85 spaces*; 28
Mechanical lifts, 55
Standard, 1 Shuttle
Parking, 1 Valet, Parking
Reduction of 15% via
Directors Adjustment for
an on-site TDM program.
13 Additional Valet Aisle
Parking
Bicycle Parking 1 space per 10 guestrooms, plus
requirements for accessory uses
(drinking, banquet, assembly,
commercial or other), (100% short-term
required) (10 Required)
Not known 12 spaces;
6 long-term,
6 short-term
Loading Space 1 loading space for 10,000 - 99,999 sf Not known 1 space**, Reduced size
via Director’s adjustment
to minimum size of 10 ft
wide by 30 ft long
(SU-30 truck size)
*18.52.050 Adjustments by the Director - Transportation and Parking Alternatives (up to 20% Reduction) 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.
**18.52.050 Adjustments by the Director - Modification to Off-Street Loading Requirements (Maximum Reduction of one loading
space) The director may modify the quantity or dimensions of off-street loading requirements for non-residential development based
on existing or proposed site conditions; availability of alternative means to address loading and unloading activity; and, upon finding
that: 1) the off-street loading requirement may conflict with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to site design planning,
circulation and access, or urban design principles; and 2) the use of shared on-street loading would not conflict with Comprehensive
Plan goals and policies related to site design planning, circulation and access or urban design principles; maximum reduction in one
loading space.
3.b
Packet Pg. 86
ATTACHMENT C
ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
180 EL Camino Real
18PLN-00096
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 (El Camino Real Design Guidelines).
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.
3.c
Packet Pg. 87
CONTEXT-BASED DESIGN CRITERIA
180 EL Camino Real
18PLN-00096
Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(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. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment
The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and
connectivity through design elements
2. Street Building Facades
Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s),
to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements
3. Massing and Setbacks
Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks
4. Low Density Residential Transitions
Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be
taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties
5. Project Open Space
Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the
site
6. Parking Design
Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or
detract from the pedestrian environment
7. Large Multi-Acre Sites
Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are
consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood
8. Sustainability and Green Building Design
Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be
incorporated into the project
3.c
Packet Pg. 88
October 18, 2018
Planning and Community Environment Department
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Proposed Caterina Hotel
4256 El Camino Real
Subject: Project Description – ARB, Major Project
THE CATERINA HOTEL PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Applying the vision of Palo Alto’s El Camino Real Hotel Area District, the proposed project seeks to replace an existing
restaurant and surface parking lot located at 4256 El Camino Real with a new boutique hotel. Achieving an FAR under 2.0
and site coverage under 50% required by the property’s CS zoning, the Caterina Hotel will take advantage of this
underutilized site to provide a unique and charming environment through use of high end material and complementary
aesthetics to the surrounding redwood grove.
The building program includes 100 guestrooms, double height lobby/lounge, conference rooms, fitness center, staff offices,
a cafe and kitchen. 85 parking spaces are provided together with additional 13 valet aisle parking, total of 98 stalls are
available for valet parking service. The hotel is Type III-A construction above two levels of subterranean Type I-A garage.
Height ranges from 2 to 5 stories within a maximum height of 50’, with exception of mechanical and elevator equipment
that are permitted an additional 15' in height by city ordinance.
PEDESTRIAN & STREET EDGE DESIGN
The project is designed to enhance Palo Alto's El Camino Real Grand Boulevard Vision and to comply to South El Camino
Real Design Guidelines with a welcoming and attractive urban character. A 12’ sidewalk adjacent to street trees/planters
and a covered outdoor lounge connected to an interior café provide a pleasant pedestrian-friendly experience.
The ground floor utilizes transparent double-high storefront and fully foldable glass door to connect activities between El
Camino Real and interior functions, creating a series of semi-public spaces and enhancing the hospitable entry experience.
A two story lobby with an elegantly curved glass façade and grand staircase, serves as a transitional focal point between the
El Camino Real public realm and the tranquil interior courtyard. A flush curb porte-cochere allows the pedestrian activities
to seamlessly spill into the lobby space before transitioning into the private courtyard.
3.d
Packet Pg. 89
BUILDING DESIGN
Challenges of a compact site and proximity of adjacent residential properties encouraged the massing to concentrate
against office parcel and El Camino Real in an “L” shape, providing a strong street frontage presence while minimizing bulk
towards the rear. The building massing steps down gradually to 2 story high toward rear yard, minimizing the visual and
solar impact on the south adjacent redwood trees and neighborhood buildings.
Building elevations are articulated with height variations and plane changes to reduce the impact of massing. The upper
levels facing El Camino contain larger transom windows, glass railings balconies, setback rooflines to provide a lighter
transparent contrast to the wood-colored siding panels. The material composition also provides distinct base, middle, and
top proportions per the South ECR design guidelines.
The project uses rich and substantial building material to express a high-end contemporary aesthetic. Exterior finishes
including wood-colored siding panel, metal column cladding with light channels, aluminum storefront, lap siding, metal
louvers, and smooth plaster finish.
The interior courtyard is lushly landscaped with native plant-life and bookended with the rest of the hotel massing. A
distinct paving material mimicking the flow of streams continues on from the porte-cochere and lobby through the
courtyard, wrapping around seating clusters and planters.
TRANSPORTATION CIRCULATION
A double height porte-cochere provides two distinct entries for drop-off/delivery and guest parking. Clear signage at all
entries and exits will direct vehicles and pedestrians to their correct locations. Only temporary loading or Uber drop-offs are
permitted at 25’ wide porte-cochere to mitigate traffic congestion and facilitate vehicular flow. Guests seeking the garage
will enter through the far entrance directly down to the underground parking where a 24/7 valet service will park or
retrieve their cars. Hotel supplies are schedule to deliver at the basement level during off-peak hours.
Six short term bike racks are provided near the lobby entrance for guests. Six long term bike storage lockers are also
provided towards the north of the courtyard adjacent to the stair for employees.
Only 33% of parking stalls are mechanical lifts, 67% are standard size non-lift parking. City transportation engineer, manager
of planning and project planner visited a CityLifts installation in early 2018 and the feedback we received was positive.
NEIGHBOR INTERFACE
This building is designed to meet the business hotel function while maintaining the privacy of the neighboring residence.
Most of the amenities such as Fitness Room, Conference Rooms, Business Center, and Lobby/Lounge are contained within
the building envelope. Outdoor seating and passageways are carefully connected to the courtyard to avoid disturbance of
neighbors. Non-active function and native plants are proposed along the south and west boulders for the purpose of
landscape buffer. The project also uses wood colored siding with pitched roofs to reflect the texture of the neighboring PAR
community.
Undulating roofline provides a softer edge towards adjacent properties and mechanical devices are located away from the
neighbors and sufficiently screened with dark aluminum louvers. Building massing gradually steps down to 2 stories toward
the south, greatly reduced visual impact to the Palo Alto Redwood community. An open courtyard facing the neighbor’s
amenity area minimizes shadow impact to neighboring buildings and pool. The significantly increased setback, step-down
massing, and limited windows at the rear of the building collectively provide for a gentler interface with the community.
3.d
Packet Pg. 90
NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH
Ownership contacted PAR (Palo Alto Redwoods HOA) before any submission of any plans to the city and discussed our
concept design, after which we adjusted according to feedback. We engaged the HOA starting May 2017, having 2 meetings
with HOA and culminating with an all residents PAR meeting proposed by the hotel ownership on August 10th 2017 just
after our first ARB on 8/3/17. At those meetings the architects and applicant were present and later the landscape architect
was also invited. During preparation for the 2nd pre-ARB hearing on 10/10/17 ownership requested meeting with PAR HOA
and it was turned down. Ownership received an email from PAR with comments very close to the 2nd ARB meeting.
Comments from 1st and 2nd ARB from PAR were consistent and almost identical, pointing out to mostly environmental
issues (trees, traffic) and emphasizing that PAR needed more education on the entitlement process which was provided at
length by the city planning department.
Through 2018 to date PAR received hard copies of every plan updates, communication through the city planner including
updated 3D Animation views of the building. Through 2018 to date PAR comments have been consistent with their 2017
comments, which have mostly been answered and clarified with the conclusion of ISMND report. Publication of all
environmental reports done by city-hired neutral consultants due by the end of the year. PAR has received the latest set of
plans (at every update) the same day of our submissions to the city in order to review properly. Additional hard copies of
plans (11x17) have always been provided to PAR. Ownership is planning to notify all neighbors within 600 ft radius from the
property for a public meeting that will take place on Oct. 22, 2018 prior to ARB hearing.
SUMMARY OF MAJOR URBAN DESIGN AND BUILDING DESIGN ELEMENTS:
1. 12’ sidewalk setback at the entire frontage with public amenities such as open lounge and bar stools.
2. Prominent building façade to hold the street edge and promote Grand Boulevard character.
3. Significant El Camino Real front entry with tall glass storefront, integrated awning, and covered seating area.
4. Flush curb with bollards to enhance accessibility and pedestrian friendly street design.
5. Maximized ground level transparency for visual connectivity to courtyard.
6. Articulated roofline through use of upper level setback, habitable balconies, and angled roofs.
7. Varied building massing and roofline towards the El Camino Real streetscape
8. Accentuated contemporary interpretation of the essential Base-Body-Roof building proportions
9. Stepped down and pulled back bulk of building’s rear massing to respect the privacy of existing residential properties.
ZONING: CS (Service Commercial)
SITE AREA: 25,947 square feet
MATERIALS: wood-colored siding panel, metal column cladding,
aluminum storefront, lap siding, smooth plaster finish, and
glass railings.
Proposed Required
SETBACKS:
Front 4’ 0'-10'
Side 10’ 0’
3.d
Packet Pg. 91
Rear
Sidewalk at ECR
16’
12’
0’
12’
HEIGHT: 50' 50’
BIKE PARKING:
12
10
FAR:
1.98
2.0
Site Coverage: 50% 50%
PARKING: 85 spaces
(15% reduction)
+13 valet aisle spaces
=98 available valet
parking spaces
100 spaces
3.d
Packet Pg. 92
October 18, 2018
Samuel J. Gutierrez
MUP | Associate Planner | P&CE Department
250 Hamilton Ave. 5th Floor, Palo Alto CA 94301
Phone: (650) 329 - 2225
Re: 4256 El Camino Real – Hotel Operation Hours, Delivery Hours, and Staffing Levels
Dear Mr. Gutierrez:
Hospitality Link International, Inc. and Severin Group, LLC, have been engaged by the developer of 4256 El
Camino Real, Palo Alto, California, to provide a summary letter to the City of Palo Alto outlining the anticipated
hotel hours of operation, delivery hours, and staffing levels required at the hotel.
This letter is intended only for use by the City of Palo Alto in connection with the plan review for the
aforementioned proposed hotel development. We have inspected the site and analyzed the hostelry market
conditions in the Palo Alto and greater Silicon Valley market areas and herewith submit our summary letter
pertaining to the proposed hotel’s hours of operation, delivery hours, and staffing levels.
The proposed hotel will be built to the high standards of an upscale boutique hotel and offer services
comparable to the upscale hotels in Palo Alto. The hotel will contain 100 guestrooms, a fitness room, a business
center, a courtyard with a reflecting water feature, valet parking service, two adjoining flexible space rooms
totaling 800 square feet, one small private dining room that can be used for private events, and an intimate
restaurant and bar serving upscale set menu and tapas style casual dining options. The hotel will be boutique in
nature and provide slightly less amenities than a more standard full-service hotel; comparable hotels include the
Westin Palo Alto, the Garden Court Hotel, and Park James in Menlo Park. Assuming this is a non-union hotel, we
are of the opinion that the following hours of operation, delivery hours, and staffing levels are required.
I. Hours of Operation
Reception: 24 hours, 7 days a week. Regular business hours reception crew and a night shift receptionist, usually
1-2 person(s) to revolve in 24 hours.
Restaurant / Café (3 Meals): 6am – 10pm, 7 days a week. Serving upscale set menu and tapas style casual dining
options. Room delivery service will be catered by the many stellar restaurants in Palo Alto upon request.
Bar: 12pm-10pm SU-Th / 12pm-1am F-S. The food and beverage operation will be more beverage-service
oriented with light tapas style dishes.
Outdoor Courtyard: 7:30am-9pm, Sunday -Thursday and 7:30am-10pm Friday - Saturday. Tranquil setting with a
reflecting water feature and seating areas. Exterior courtyard lighting after 10pm would also be reduced to
minimum circulation requirements in efforts to reduce overall general lighting.
3.e
Packet Pg. 93
Fitness Room: 24 hours, 7 days a week. Fitness room with fully equipped state-of-the-art equipment.
Valet Parking: 6am to 10pm. After hour guests will be directed to an open space by the night shift receptionist,
whom will act as valet for late check-in guests.
Business Center: 24 hours, 7 days a week. Open lounge space with several computer workstations.
Market Pantry: 24 hours, 7 days a week. Located in the reception area, guest can purchase snacks and drinks.
Managed by receptionist.
Laundry / Dry-cleaning service: Items delivered to the reception by 9am returned within 24 hours. This would be
our 3rd party service provider.
Business Meeting Rooms: 8am – 8pm. Can request management for extended hours beyond posted operational
hours.
II. Delivery Times
Flexible delivery hours in sync with hotel operational hours are an integral part of a well-run hotel, which in turn
increases staff productivity and guest satisfaction. The delivery and pick-up schedule for linen and terry,
produce, beverages, liquor, and boxes and parcels, as well as waste pick-up must avoid peak check-in and check-
out times and align with house cleaning service and the restaurant operation to ensure a sufficient stock of
supplies is replenished daily.
Linen and terry service drop-off will occur daily in the morning, while pick-up will occur in the afternoon (after
housekeeping completes their cycle) for the soiled linen to be washed and returned the next morning. Food and
beverage related deliveries will occur in the mid-morning through early afternoon, at a time when most guest
will be heading off to their offices or business meetings. Waste pick-up will occur in the early morning before
breakfast service starts. Boxes and parcels are expected to be delivered throughout the day.
This delivery and pick-up schedule for the proposed hotel is better illustrated in the following comprehensive
table showing the weekly frequency of vendor delivery and pick-up schedule. The second table illustrates peak
hours at the hotel.
Porte Cochere Shipping and Receiving M T W TH F S SU
Linen and Terry Delivery 7am - 7:15am 7am - 7:15am 7am - 7:15am 7am - 7:15am 7am - 7:15am 7am - 7:15am 7am - 7:15am
Purchasing Department (F&B) Delivery 11am - 2pm 11am - 2pm 11am - 2pm
Linen and Terry Pick-Up 4pm - 4:15pm 4pm - 4:15pm 4pm - 4:15pm 4pm - 4:15pm 4pm - 4:15pm 4pm - 4:15pm 4pm - 4:15pm
Waste Management Service Pickup 6am - 6:15am 6am - 6:15am 6am - 6:15am 6am - 6:15am 6am - 6:15am 6am - 6:15am 6am - 6:15am
Delivery of Boxes and Parcels 6:30pm - 7pm 6:30pm - 7pm 6:30pm - 7pm 6:30pm - 7pm 6:30pm - 7pm 6:30pm - 7pm
Hotel Operating Schedule
Restaurant - Peak Time (Breakfast)7am-9am 7am-9am 7am-9am 7am-9am 7am-9am 7am-9am 7am-9am
Peak Check-Out times 8am-11am 8am-11am 8am-11am 8am-11am 8am-11am 8am-11am 8am-11am
House Cleaning Service 8am-3pm 8am-3pm 8am-3pm 8am-3pm 8am-3pm 8am-3pm 8am-3pm
Peak Check-In times 4pm-6pm 4pm-6pm 4pm-6pm 4pm-6pm 4pm-6pm 4pm-6pm 4pm-6pm
Restaurant - Peak Time (Afternoon)6pm-9pm 6pm-9pm 6pm-9pm 6pm-9pm 6pm-9pm 6pm-9pm 6pm-9pm
3.e
Packet Pg. 94
III. Parking / Drop-off protocol
In efforts of keeping our entry drive aisle and foyer clear, the hotel will utilize a set five (5) minute waiting period
per car before instructing the driver to move the car below grade to the valet receiving area. If a guest should
take more than 5 minutes to exit the hotel to retrieve their car, they can proceed down the elevator to the
garage level valet stand where their car will be waiting for them.
Guest arrivals are scattered throughout the day; however, we do anticipate a higher volume of cars from either
rentals, or taxi/Uber during the morning and evening hours. Within this time frame, we estimate an
approximate 1-2 minute per car resting period to unload or pick up guests, thereby avoiding any excessive line
of cars that would surpass our entry drive aisle. As a secondary precaution the parking protocol of 5 minutes
would effectively move cars to the lower garage level to maintain our clear ground level foyer.
With regards to our vendor deliveries, the hotel will make every effort possible with its vendors to secure vans
or trucks or the proper scale, that can easily deliver to the garage level directly, avoiding any build up or vehicles
on the foyer landing.
IV. Courtyard use
This Boutique hotel is positioned to be primarily an upscale ‘business’ hotel and will tailor it’s amenities with this
in mind. For this reason, the hotel due to its size of amenities and types of anticipated clientele, will not be
hosting large events or loud festivities in the outdoor courtyard. This space is reserved for guests of the hotel or
clients that have reserved the meeting rooms, thus will have access to the courtyard for leisure purposes.
The hotel will hold set hours of operations in efforts to reduce noise disturbance to the adjacent neighbors.
Hotel staff will also be on site to manage this space to ensure sounds are kept to a comfortable conversational
level, otherwise guests will be asked to move to the bar area to continue their conversations.
V. Staffing Levels and Required Parking
The following section illustrates the staffing levels required to operate an upscale, 100-room boutique hotel in
Palo Alto. The hotel will be relatively small and boutique in nature and will provide less amenities than a more
standard full-service hotel. We assume a non-union staff will operate the hotel; therefore, we are of the opinion
that the following positions in the below schedule will be required to operate this hotel.
Front Office
• 1 Front Office Manager
• 1 Security Manager
• 1 Security Personnel per 8-hour shift. Total 3 People (May have 2 more people to make up for the 7
days to add to payroll or look at a 3rd party security services vendor).
• 2 Receptionist (8-hour shifts) + 1-night shift. Total 5 people + 3 Additional to make up for days off.
Total receptionist payroll count is 8 people.
• 2 Valets (3rd Party)
3.e
Packet Pg. 95
Bell boys are unnecessary given the smaller business-oriented hotels in the area don’t have them. Most business
travelers travel lightly. Valet operation can be outsourced, and the night shift receptionist may act as valet for
late check-ins.
Total: 15 People on payroll (7 people max per shift)
Administration Office
• 1 Finance Person (Accountant)
• 1 Sales Person
• 1 General Manager
• 1 Human Resources Manager
• 1 Housekeeping Manager (Will manage Housekeeping staff or 3rd Party team)
• 1 Head Engineer + 1 Technician
For the GM position, we recommend hiring someone with a strong marketing and/or HR background. Direct
hotel reservations can be handled by the receptionists and sales office.
Total: 7 People on payroll
Housekeeping
Based on an average room count of 15-18 rooms per Housekeeper
• 5 Housekeepers per shift + 1 Overnight Housekeeper
• 2 Public Area Cleaners
This may be a 3rd party vendor, so the company may drop them off to reduce parking requirement.
Total: 7 People (7 max during one 8-hour shift during the day + 1 for overnight)
Restaurant Personnel
• 2 Cooks [Per Shift – (Breakfast & Lunch Shift) / (Dinner Shift)] Total of 3-4 Cooks per day
• 1 Dishwasher shift and 1 evening Bar Back shift
• 1 Bartender
• 2 Servers to cover 53 Covers (Per 8-hour shift) Total 4 Servers per day
No room service offered at this time. This amenity can be catered by the many stellar restaurants in Palo Alto
that will provide room delivery upon request. Also, the F&B operation will be more beverage-service oriented
with light tapas style dishes; therefore, the dinner shift may require only one cook. Assuming the overnight food
consumption is light, then only one dishwasher shift per day will be required.
Total: 10 People on Payroll (5 People max per shift)
3.e
Packet Pg. 96
Landscaping
Landscaping is assumed to be performed by a 3rd party vendor.
Thank you for not smoking
This Hotel will be a smoke free property. It will not allow smoking of any kind on its premises. If guests wish to
smoke they will have to wait till they are off the property completely.
In conclusion, the total employee count is 37 persons; however, not all employees will require parking during
their respective shifts. The total Personnel Per Maximum Shift is 27 persons. This includes the 3rd party people,
so if we remove the Housekeepers and Valets we are down to 17 people per shift that may require parking.
Consider reducing the parking requirement by estimating the percentage of personnel driving vs. taking public
transportation and arranging an employee parking agreement with a nearby parking lot. The Hotel is well
situated to offer our staff and guests many of the public transportation’s great opportunities along El Camino
Real with a bus stop just steps away from the front door, and the close proximity to both California and San
Antonio Road Cal Train.
The hotel is also providing both long term enclosed bike storage facilities as well as temporary open storage
racks. We have finalized and submitted to the City our TDM package, which includes incentives we have
provided to employees to utilize the existing public transportation options, as employee parking at the hotel will
cost a daily rate that may not be as advantageous. An EV charging stall for electric cars will be provided on site,
with additional stalls available to be installed as demand increases.
The hotel plans to operate a shuttle service within a 3-mile radius for guest and staff pick up / drop off to main
public transit stations and corporate offices on fixed time schedules.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this summary letter to the City of Palo Alto on behalf of the
development team. Please let us know if you have any questions.
Attached to this letter you will find the credentials for the contributing Hotel Consultants.
Sincerely,
____________________________
Jaime Law
Director
Hospitality Link International, Inc.
____________________________
Holden Lim
President
Hospitality Link International, Inc.
____________________________
Olivier A. Severin
Principal Owner
Severin Group, LLC
3.e
Packet Pg. 97
3.e
Packet Pg. 98
3.e
Packet Pg. 99
3.e
Packet Pg. 100
4265 El Camino Real Hotel Project
Tree Protection and Preservation Plan
prepared by
City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department
Mr. Samuel Gutierrez
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Via email: Samuel.Gutierrez@CityofPaloAlto.gov
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
October 2018
3.f
Packet Pg. 101
Table of Contents
Tree Protection and Preservation Plan i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Location and Description ........................................................................................1
2 Methodology ..................................................................................................................................4
2.1 Background/Initial Survey ...................................................................................................4
2.2 Follow‐up Survey .................................................................................................................4
2.3 Focused Root Mapping Survey ...........................................................................................5
3 Results and Impacts ........................................................................................................................6
3.1 Follow‐up Survey Results ....................................................................................................6
3.2 Proposed Project Impacts ...................................................................................................6
4 Tree Protection and Preservation Plan ........................................................................................ 12
4.1 Preconstruction Requirements ........................................................................................ 14
4.2 During Construction Requirements ................................................................................. 15
4.3 Maintenance .................................................................................................................... 17
5 References ................................................................................................................................... 18
Tables
Table 1 Overall Condition Rating Criteria .......................................................................................4
Table 2 Tree Inventory .....................................................................................................................7
Table 3 Impacts to Tree Protection Zones ................................................................................... 12
Figures
Figure 1 ‐ Regional Location ...................................................................................................................2
Figure 2 ‐ Project Location ......................................................................................................................3
Figure 3 ‐ Tree Locations ..................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 4 ‐ Tree Protection Zones of Trees to be Protected ................................................................. 11
Figure 5 – Impacts to Tree Protection Zones ....................................................................................... 13
Appendices
Appendix A Project Plans
Appendix B Arborist Report
Appendix C Root Mapping Report
3.f
Packet Pg. 102
Introduction
Tree Protection and Preservation Plan 1
1 Introduction
The City of Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 8 protects specific trees on public or private
property from removal or disfigurement. The City has prepared the Tree Technical Manual (TTM) to
establish procedures and standards for the preservation of trees. Per the PMAC and TTM, a Tree
Protection and Preservation Plan (TPPP) must be prepared for a project with “Regulated Trees”,
which include:
1. Protected Trees: All coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), valley oak (Quercus lobata), and coast
redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) trees,
2. Street Trees: All trees growing within the publicly‐owned street right‐of‐way, and
3. Designated Trees: All trees, when associated with a development project that are
specifically designated by the City of Palo Alto to be saved and protected on a property that
is subject to discretionary review.
This Tree Protection and Preservation Plan was prepared to outline the measures to protect and
preserve trees for the 4265 El Camino Hotel Project. This report also documents the results of a tree
health assessment survey and will serve to update the health and condition of trees assessed and
inventoried in the initial arborist report, completed by Kielty Arborist Services on April 27, 2017. It
also presents the results of a focused root mapping survey conducted in June of 2018.
1.1 Project Location and Description
The project site is located at 4256 El Camino Real in the City of Palo Alto (City), in Santa Clara
County, California. The project site encompasses 0.60 acre on one assessor’s parcel (Assessor’s
Parcel Number 167‐08‐042). The site is located along El Camino Real, approximately 0.25 mile
southeast of the intersection of El Camino Real, Arastradero Road, and West Charleston Road.
Figure 1 shows the regional location of the project site. Figure 2 shows an aerial view of the project
site and immediate surroundings.
The proposed project would involve demolition of the existing restaurant building followed by
construction of a five‐story hotel building. The hotel would include 89 guest rooms, underground
parking with mechanical lifts, and a large exterior courtyard. Amenities would include a fitness
room, business center, restaurant/café, and bar. The total gross size of the project would be 51,491
square feet. The building roof height would be 50 feet, with a mechanical screen extending no more
than 12 feet above the roof. The rear of the building would include an outdoor patio area with a
pedestrian path, seating, a lounge area, and a gathering space with a fire pit for use by hotel guests.
Parking would include 76 parking spaces located in a one‐level subterranean garage, accessible via a
driveway from El Camino Real. Project plans are presented in Appendix A.
3.f
Packet Pg. 103
City of Palo Alto, California
4265 El Camino Real Hotel Project
2
Figure 1 - Regional Location
3.f
Packet Pg. 104
Introduction
Tree Protection and Preservation Plan 3
Figure 2 - Project Location
3.f
Packet Pg. 105
City of Palo Alto, California
4265 El Camino Real Hotel Project
4
2 Methodology
2.1 Background/Initial Survey
An initial arborist survey was conducted for the project site on April 27, 2018 by Kielty Arborist
Services for HXH Property LLC. The survey included an inspection of each tree to determine the
diameter at breast height (dbh; measured at four and one‐half feet above natural grade), the
canopy spread, and height of each tree. The trees were also given a condition rating for form and
vitality. The results of this survey were documented in an arborist report dated April 27, 2017 and
subsequently revised October 9, 2017 and March 12, 2018 (Appendix B).
2.2 Follow-up Survey
To confirm the conditions from the initial arborist report, a follow‐up tree inventory and health
assessment survey was conducted for the project. The follow‐up survey was conducted on June 25,
2018 by Rincon International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist Kyle Weichert (WE‐
12113A). During the survey, all trees located within the project site were evaluated on an individual
basis. The location and dripline of each tree within the project site was recorded using a Trimble
Global Positioning System (GPS) unit with sub‐meter accuracy. The location of trees outside the
project site was recorded using the rangefinder function of the Trimble GPS unit to maximum extent
feasible as well as the locations of any overhanging dripline.
For each tree in the project site, Mr. Weichert gathered the following information: scientific and
common name, evaluation of the physical structure, dbh using an English unit diameter tape or
caliper, updated the estimated tree height and canopy spread of each tree and assessed each tree
for health and condition. The health and condition assessment considered evidence of disease,
insect pests, structure, damage and vigor, with results incorporated into the overall health rating
based on archetype trees of the same species with criteria described in Table 1 (Overall Condition
Rating Criteria), below.
Table 1 Overall Condition Rating Criteria
Rating Structure
Excellent In addition to attributes of a ‘good’ rating, the tree exhibits a well‐developed root flare and a balanced
canopy. Provides shading or wildlife habitat and is aesthetically pleasing.
Good Trunk is well developed with well attached limbs and branches; some flaws exist but are hardly visible.
Good foliage cover and density, annual shoot growth above average. Provides shading or wildlife habitat
and has minor aesthetic flaws.
Fair Flaw in trunk, limb and branch development are minimal and are typical of this species and geographic
region. Minimal visual damage from existing insect or disease, average foliage cover and annual growth.
Poor Limbs or branches are poorly attached or developed. Canopy is not symmetrical. Trunk has lean.
Branches or trunk have physical contact with the ground. May exhibit fire damage, responses to external
encroachment/obstructions or existing insect/disease damage.
Dead Trunk, limbs or branches have extensive visible decay or are broken. Canopy leaves are non‐seasonally
absent or uniformly brown throughout, with no evidence of new growth.
3.f
Packet Pg. 106
Methodology
Tree Protection and Preservation Plan 5
Previously mapped and numbered trees were given an identification number consistent with the
March 2018 arborist report. Some additional ornamental species and additional trees were given a
new unique tree identification number. Per recommendations from the City, the locations of trees
on neighboring sites were estimated, and the measurements from the initial arborist report (Kielty
Arborist Services, 2018) were used to determine the size of the trees on neighboring sites.
2.3 Focused Root Mapping Survey
A focused survey for below‐ground roots was conducted on June 18, 2018 by Arborist OnSite,
Horticultural Consulting, Inc. This survey utilized Ground‐Penetrating Radar (GPR) to determine the
location and depth of below‐ground roots within separate 16 scans. The methodology and results of
this survey are summarized in this report; for a detailed discussion and explanation of root mapping
results see the attached ISA Certified Arborist Report (Arborist OnSite 2018; Appendix C).
3.f
Packet Pg. 107
City of Palo Alto, California
4265 El Camino Real Hotel Project
6
3 Results and Impacts
3.1 Follow-up Survey Results
A total of 48 trees were assessed during the follow‐up arborist survey. Of these, 25 are located
within the project site, five are street trees along El Camino Real, and 18 are located on a
neighboring property. The tree species include:
22 coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens),
10 mulberry (Morus sp.),
6 tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima),
5 London plane (Platanus x acerifolia),
2 deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara),
1 avocado (Persea americana),
1 stonefruit [peach] (Prunus sp.), and
1 podpocarpus (hedge) (Podocarpus sp.)
Generally, the trees in the project site are located within a landscape planter that runs the
perimeter of the existing parking lot. Most of the trees onsite are ornamentals or fruit‐bearing trees.
Two large and prominent deodar cedars are located in a planter near the southern boundary of the
project site. A podocarpus hedge borders the north face of the existing restaurant, and several tree
of heaven individuals are located in a planter along the south face. Neighboring coast redwood trees
overhang the project site along the south, west, and north boundaries.
Four of the coast redwood trees (trees #13, 14, 15, and 16) are located within the project site in the
northwest and southwest corners. The five London plane trees (trees #1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) are City of
Palo Alto street trees located along El Camino Real immediately east of the project site. Coast
redwood trees and street trees are considered Protected by the City of Palo Alto and are subject to
protective measures, outlined in the Section 4 below. Table 2 below provides the updated data
collected for all trees. Figure 3 depicts the locations of the surveyed trees.
The results of the rooting mapping survey are presented in Appendix C.
3.2 Proposed Project Impacts
The proposed project would result in the removal of all trees located in the project site, with
exception of the four protected coast redwood trees (Figure 4). Three London plane trees located
immediately in front and north of the existing restaurant (trees #2, 3, and 4) are proposed for
removal or relocation to an alternate location along the street along the eastern property boundary
or removal entirely to accommodate ingress and egress for the proposed project. One additional
London plane tree is proposed for removal (tree #5). One London plane tree located south of the
project (tree #1) will be retained.
3.f
Packet Pg. 108
Results and Impacts
Tree Protection and Preservation Plan 7
Table 2 Tree Inventory
Tree
#
Species Tree Location Tree
Height
(feet)
Canopy
Spread
(feet)
DBH
(inches)
TPZ (feet;
if
applicable)
Overall
Health
Protected? Project
Impact
Notes
1 London Plane (Platanus x acerifolia) Street 14 10 3 2.5 Fair Yes
2 London Plane (Platanus x acerifolia) Street 35 36 11 Fair Yes Removal
3 London Plane (Platanus x acerifolia) Street 35 32 13.5 Fair Yes Removal
4 London Plane (Platanus x acerifolia) Street 35 40 13.5 Good Yes Removal
5 London Plane (Platanus x acerifolia) Street 30 25 11 Good Yes Removal
6 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 45* 30* 26.7* 22.25 Fair ‐
7 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 35* 20* 14.3* 11.92 Fair ‐
8 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 40* 30* 17.2* 14.33 Fair
9 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 40* 30* 20.2* 16.83 Fair
10 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 40* 25* 22.4* 18.67 Fair
11 Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara) Project Site 40 38 22.5 Fair Removal
12 Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara) Project Site 36 30 19 Fair Removal
13 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Project Site 55 20 23.5 19.58 Fair Yes
14 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Project Site 60 25 24.5 20.42 Fair Yes
15 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Project Site 55 25 30.5 25.42 Fair Yes
16 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Project Site 55 28 29.5 24.58 Fair Yes
17 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 45 20 16.5* 13.75 Fair
18 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 50 23 17.6* 14.67 Fair
19 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 40 15 9.3* 7.75 Fair
20 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 45 18 15.5* 12.92 Fair
21 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 40* 20* 12.1* 10.08 Fair
22 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 40* 20* 9.9* 8.25 Fair
3.f
Packet Pg. 109
City of Palo Alto, California
4265 El Camino Real Hotel Project
8
Tree
#
Species Tree Location Tree
Height
(feet)
Canopy
Spread
(feet)
DBH
(inches)
TPZ (feet;
if
applicable)
Overall
Health
Protected? Project
Impact
Notes
23 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 40* 20* 17.1* 14.25 Fair
24 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 40* 20* 14.1* 11.75 Fair
25 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 40* 20* 15.8* 13.17 Fair
26 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 40* 20* 18.3* 15.25 Fair
27 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 40* 20* 18* 15.00 Fair
28 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 40* 20* 17.6* 14.67 Fair
29 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 38* 18* 15** 12.50 Fair
30 Mulberry (Morus sp.) Project Site 22 18 7 Good Removal
31 Mulberry (Morus sp.) Project Site 25 35 10 Good Removal
32 Tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) Project Site 8 3 1.5 Good Removal
33 Mulberry (Morus sp.) Project Site 12 8 2.5, 2 Good Removal
34 Mulberry (Morus sp.) Project Site 10 6 2.25 Good Removal
35 Mulberry (Morus sp.) Project Site 10 6 2.25 Good Removal
36 Prunus sp. Project Site 10 10 5 Good Removal
37 Avocado (Persea americana) Project Site 14 10 2.5 Fair Removal
38 Mulberry (Morus sp.) Project Site 18 30 7.5 Good Removal
39 Mulberry (Morus sp.) Project Site 28 33 9 Good Removal
40 Mulberry (Morus sp.) Project Site 24 35 7.5 Good Removal
41 Mulberry (Morus sp.) Project Site 13 20 7.5 Fair Removal
42 Mulberry (Morus sp.) Project Site 15 25 8 Good Removal
43 Tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) Project Site 30 10 4 Fair Removal Small spindly sapling under
deodar cedars
44 Tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) Project Site 12 8 1, 1.5 Fair Removal Small spindly sapling along
south face of restaurant
3.f
Packet Pg. 110
Results and Impacts
Tree Protection and Preservation Plan 9
Tree
#
Species Tree Location Tree
Height
(feet)
Canopy
Spread
(feet)
DBH
(inches)
TPZ (feet;
if
applicable)
Overall
Health
Protected? Project
Impact
Notes
45 Tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) Project Site 12 5 2.5
Fair
Removal Small spindly sapling along
south face of restaurant
46 Tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) Project Site 20 15 3, 4, 2,
0.5
Fair Removal Small spindly sapling along
south face of restaurant
47 Tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) Project Site 25 6 3, 3
Fair
Removal Small spindly sapling along
south face of restaurant
48 Podpocarpus (Podocarpus sp.) Project Site 8 12 ‐‐ Fair Removal Hedge along north face of
existing restaurant
* = from initial arborist report (Kielty Arborist Services, rev March 2018); locations estimated
** = estimated
3.f
Packet Pg. 111
City of Palo Alto, California
4265 El Camino Real Hotel Project
10
Figure 3 - Tree Locations
3.f
Packet Pg. 112
Results and Impacts
Tree Protection and Preservation Plan 11
Figure 4 - Tree Protection Zones of Trees to be Protected
3.f
Packet Pg. 113
City of Palo Alto, California
4265 El Camino Real Hotel Project
12
Based on the project plans dated June 26, 2018, three of the four protected coast redwood trees
within the project area (trees #13, 14, and 15) and an additional four protected coast redwood trees
on neighboring properties (trees #6, 17, 18, and 23) would be impacted by the proposed project.
These trees have a portion of their Tree Protection Zones (TPZ; defined as a radius of ten times the
trunk diameter at breast height, measured in feet) within the project Shoring/Disturbed Area
Boundary (Figure 5). The percentage of the TPZ impacted ranges between 0.1 percent and 4.30
percent. Table 3 below summarizes these impacts. Project‐related excavation is not expected to
occur within ten feet of the protected coast redwood trees. As such, structural roots of four inches
or greater are not expected to be impacted.
Table 3 Impacts to Tree Protection Zones
Tree # TPZ Area (ac) Impact Area within TPZ (ac) Percentage of TPZ Impacted
23 0.02 0.0003 2.11%
17 0.01 0.0003 1.98%
18 0.02 0.00002 0.10%
6 0.04 0.0003 0.72%
13 0.03 0.0004 1.42%
14 0.03 0.0013 4.3%
15 0.05 0.0010 2.15%
3.f
Packet Pg. 114
Results and Impacts
Tree Protection and Preservation Plan 13
Figure 5 – Impacts to Tree Protection Zones
3.f
Packet Pg. 115
City of Palo Alto, California
4265 El Camino Real Hotel Project
14
4 Tree Protection and Preservation Plan
This TPPP has been prepared in accordance with the guidelines in the TTM and outlines the
measures and conditions for the proposed project to reduce impacts to protected trees to a less
than significant level. This plan also identifies construction guidelines to be followed through all
phases of construction of the project.
4.1 Preconstruction Requirements
The following measures will be incorporated by the project as required in the TTM.
Site Plan ‐ The trunk locations and driplines of all trees proposed to be preserved have been plotted
on the attached site plan. Project improvement plans will display these locations on the plan. For
protected and street trees, the plans will accurately show the trunk diameter, dripline, and tree
protection zones as detailed in the City’s Tree Technical Manual.
Protective Fencing ‐ Fenced enclosures will be erected around trees to be protected (trees # 13, 14,
15, and 16). Fencing will consist of six‐foot tall, metal chain‐link material supported by metal poles
two‐inches in diameter or greater. The poles will be pounded into the ground to a depth of no less
than two feet and spaced no more than ten feet apart. The fencing will be installed at the boundary
of the TPZ.
Tree fencing will be erected before demolition, grading or construction begins and remain in place
until final inspection of the project permit, except for work specifically required in the approved
plans in which case the project arborist or City Arborist (in the case of street trees) will be consulted.
The protective fencing will include a warning sign prominently displayed on each fence. The sign will
be a minimum of 8.5 x 11‐inches and clearly state: “WARNING ‐ Tree Protection Zone ‐ This fence
will not be removed until completion of project construction.”
Verification of Tree Protection ‐ Prior to commencement of construction, the project arborist or
contractor will verify, in writing, that all preconstruction conditions have been met (tree fencing,
erosion control, pruning, etc.) and are in place.
Preconstruction Meeting ‐ The demolition, grading and underground contractors, construction
superintendent and other pertinent personnel will meet with the project arborist at the site prior to
beginning work to review procedures, tree protection measures and to establish haul routes,
staging areas, contacts, watering, etc.
Areas Outside Protective Fencing ‐ Several neighboring protected coast redwood trees have
canopies/driplines that reach over the project boundary into the project site (trees # 6‐10 and 17‐
28). Prior to construction, any areas under protected trees’ driplines that occur outside the
protective fencing area will be mulched with four to six inches of mulch and covered with plywood
to reduce compaction. Mulch installation will leave the trunk clear to avoid excess moisture at the
trunk. Mulch material will be two‐inch unpainted, untreated wood chip or equivalent. The mulch
may be removed to install landscaping.
3.f
Packet Pg. 116
Tree Protection and Preservation Plan
Tree Protection and Preservation Plan 15
Tree Removal ‐ Protected trees will not be removed by the project, with exception of four London
plane Street Trees. Removal of any trees that extend into the branches or roots of any trees to be
protected will not be conducted by demolition or construction personnel, grading, or other heavy
equipment. An arborist certified to the standard of the City or tree worker will remove the tree
carefully in a manner that causes no damage above or below ground to trees that remain.
Removal of stumps with roots entangled with those of protected trees to remain will have their
roots severed prior to extracting the stump to avoid disturbing roots of retained trees. For all other
stumps, removal will include grinding of stump and roots to a minimum depth of 24 inches. In
sidewalk or small planter areas to be replanted with a new tree, the entire stump will be removed
and the planting pit dug to a depth of 30 inches. If dug below 30 inches, compact the backfill to
prevent settling. Large surface roots three feet from the outside circumference will be removed,
including the spoils and backfilled with City approved topsoil to grade, and the area tamped to settle
the soil.
Suspended Pavement System for Street Trees – A suspended pavement system will be provided for
street trees. Adequate rootable soil volume areas will be provided public trees. The volume of
rootable soil to be provided per public tree will be based on the size of the tree at maturity as
follows:
400 cubic feet of rootable soil volume will be available per small tree,
800 cubic feet per medium‐sized tree and,
1200 cubic feet per large‐sized tree.
4.2 During Construction Requirements
Compaction ‐ To avoid soil compaction, all vehicles will remain on paved surfaces to the maximum
extent feasible and all parking will occur on paved surfaces. Staging will occur on existing pavement.
If vehicles must be operated in non‐paved areas near trees, mulch and plywood would be installed
as detailed above.
Activities Within Tree Protection Zones ‐ No equipment, building materials, refuse, excavated soils,
or poisonous materials will be stored, cleaned, or deposited within a TPZ. Protected trees will not be
used as wench supports, anchorage, or sign posts. Tree roots within the TPZ will not be cut for utility
trenching, foundation digging, placement of curbs and trenches, and other miscellaneous
excavation without prior approval from the City Arborist.
If trenching, excavation, or boring is necessary within a TPZ, the contractor will notify the
Applicant’s project arborist a minimum of 24 hours in advance of the activity in the TPZ. Once
excavation within the TPZ starts, roots that are encountered will be cut to sound wood and
repaired. Roots two inches and greater will remain injury‐free. Any approved excavation, demolition
or extraction of material will be performed with equipment sitting outside the TPZ. All excavation
within the TPZ will be done by hand digging, hydraulic or pneumatic air excavation technology.
Excavation within the TPZ will not occur during hot, dry weather to the maximum extent feasible.
For excavation or trenching for drainage, utilities, irrigation lines, etc., construction will tunnel under
any roots two inches in diameter and greater. Prior to excavation for foundation/footings/walls,
grading or trenching within the TPZ, roots will first be severed cleanly one foot outside the TPZ and
to the depth of the future excavation. The trench will then be hand dug and roots pruned with a
saw, sawzall, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or other approved root pruning equipment.
3.f
Packet Pg. 117
City of Palo Alto, California
4265 El Camino Real Hotel Project
16
Backhoes, steel‐tread tractors, or any heavy vehicles will not be used within the TPZ without prior
approval by the City Arborist. If allowed, a protective root buffer would be established, consisting of
a base course of tree chips spread over the root area to a minimum six‐inch depth, layered by 3/4‐
inch quarry gravel to stabilize, with 3/4‐inch plywood on top. This buffer within the TPZ would be
maintained throughout the entire construction process.
If injurious activity or interference with roots greater than two‐inches will occur within the TPZ,
plans will specify a design of special foundation, footing, walls, concrete slab or pavement designs
subject to City Arborist approval. Discontinuous foundations such as concrete pier and structural
grade beam will maintain natural grade to minimize root loss and allow the tree to use the existing
soil. Basement excavations will be designed outside the TPZ of all protected and designated trees
and will not be harmful to other mature or neighboring property trees.
Injury Mitigation ‐ A mitigation program has not been prepared for the project as drought stress,
dust accumulation, or soil compaction to protected trees is not expected.
Damage ‐ Any inadvertent damage to protected trees will be reported to the Project Arborist and
City within six hours. Any mechanical or chemical injury, as defined in the TTM, to branches, trunk,
or roots over two inches in diameter will be reported in monthly inspection reports (see below). If
injury to a protect tree occurs, the following mitigation and damage control measures will apply, as
required by the TTM.
1. Root injury: If trenches are cut and tree roots 2 inches or larger are encountered, they must
be cleanly cut back to a sound wood lateral root. The end of the root shall be covered with
either a plastic bag and secured with tape or rubber band, or be coated with latex paint. All
exposed root areas within the TPZ shall be backfilled or covered within one hour. Exposed roots
may be kept from drying out by temporarily covering the roots and draping layered burlap or
carpeting over the upper 3‐feet of trench walls. The materials must be kept wet until backfilled
to reduce evaporation from the trench walls.
2. Bark or trunk wounding: Current bark tracing and treatment methods shall be performed by a
qualified tree care specialist within two days.
3. Scaffold branch or leaf canopy injury: Remove broken or torn branches back to an
appropriate branch capable of resuming terminal growth within five days. If leaves are heat‐
scorched from equipment exhaust pipes, consult the project arborist within 6 hours.
Offsetting Root Impacts – If project excavation impacts roots of protected trees, the impacts will be
documented using photographs and measurements with the consultation of the project arborist. If
roots are impacted, offsetting treatments for root loss will be proposed based on the results of a soil
test and may include adjustments to watering, soil nutrients, soil organic content, or other
recommendations.
Inspections ‐ The Project Arborist will conduct regular inspections of the trees within the project site
at least once during the process of rough grading and monthly thereafter until project construction
is complete, as directed in the TTM. After each inspection, the project arborist will submit a report
to the City during the first week of each calendar month. The report will document the condition of
the trees, the condition of the protective measures onsite. If there are any changes to the plans or
protective measures, the Project Arborist will contact the City immediately.
The Project Arborist will also conduct an inspection on an as‐needed basis if any special activity is
planned and approved within the TPZ, or there are abrupt changes in tree health noted by
construction staff.
3.f
Packet Pg. 118
Tree Protection and Preservation Plan
Tree Protection and Preservation Plan 17
Imported Soil ‐ All imported soils will be tested and the results provided to the City for approval
before import. Import soil shall be amended with compost per City standards in place of other soil
amendments. Street trees require an automatic irrigation/bubbler system and may require tree
grates. Tree well openings on El Camino Real frontage willll be 4’ x 8’’ minimum per ECR Master
Plan, Tree Planting Practices Sec.5.4.2.
4.3 Maintenance
Maintenance of all protected trees within the project site will be conducted in general accordance
with the TTM.
Irrigation ‐ Normal irrigation will be maintained on the site at all times. During the warm season
(April through November), additional irrigation may be applied up to twice per month as
recommended by the project arborist. Adjustments to irrigation regime may made by the project
arborist as needed.
3.f
Packet Pg. 119
City of Palo Alto, California
4265 El Camino Real Hotel Project
18
5 References
Arborist OnSite – Horticultural Consulting, Inc. 2018. ISA Certified Arborist Report – Caterina Hotel
4256 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, California. June 25.
City of Palo Alto. Palo Alto Municipal Code. Available online at:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/clk/municode.asp
City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. 2001. Tree Technical
Manual. First Edition. June.
Kielty Arborist Service. 2017. Arborist Letter Report for 4256 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, California.
Revised October 9, 2017, March 12, 2017.
Fite K., Smiley ET. 2008. Best Management Practices (BMP) ‐ Managing Trees During Construction.
International Society of Arboricultural. 2010. Arborist Certification Study Guide.
Matheny and Clark. 1998. Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees
During Land Development.
USDA Forest Service. 1990. Agricultural Handbook 654, Silvics of North America, Vol. 1, Conifers.
3.f
Packet Pg. 120
Appendix A
Project Plans
3.f
Packet Pg. 121
HX
H
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
L
L
C
Th
e
C
a
t
e
r
i
n
a
H
o
t
e
l
42
5
6
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
,
P
a
l
o
A
l
t
o
,
C
A
9
4
3
0
6
Sheet Title:
Scale:
Job No.
Drawn By:
Date:
Sheet No:
17001
06/26/2018
: 304 12th Street, Suite 2A
: Oakland, California 94607
: (510) 451 - 2850
22
2
3
B
a
y
s
h
o
r
e
R
o
a
d
,
S
u
i
t
e
2
0
0
Pa
l
o
A
l
t
o
,
C
A
9
4
3
0
3
THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION
PROPRIETARY TO STUDIO T-SQ, INC. AND IS FURNISHED
IN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF
EVALUATION OR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT OR ITS
CONTENTS MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER
PURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR
DISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN
CONSENT OF STUDIO T-SQ., INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED,
COPYRIGHT 2010.
: Architecture
: Planning
: Urban Design
A-3.0
Floor Plan -
Site Plan
FE
N
C
E
F
E
N
C
E
FENCE
FE
N
C
E
EXISTING FENCE
EXISTING FENCE
TR
E
E
TR
E
E
TR
E
E
TR
E
E
TR
E
E
TR
E
E
TR
E
E
TR
E
E
TR
E
E
TR
E
E
TR
E
E
TR
E
E
TR
E
E
TR
E
E
TR
E
E
TR
E
E
TR
E
E
TR
E
E
TR
E
E
TR
E
E
TR
E
E
TR
E
E
TR
E
E
D/D
UP
KING KING
Transformer
pad
8'4"X8'4"
DOWN TO
GARAGE
LOBBY
BIKE
PARKING
10
'
-
0
"
27
'
-
1
0
"
16'-10"
20
'
-
0
"
54'-9"
1
0
'
-
0
"
10'-0"42'-10"
22% SLOPE 11% SLOPE
24'-6"
152'-10"
15'-2"41'-5"41'-6"
RECEPTION
FRONT
OFFICE
UP
UP
P
Dn
3'-0"
8'-0"
11
'
-
6
"
3'
-
0
"
10
'
-
0
"
TRASH
250 SF
RESTROOM W
RESTROOM M
ELEC.
135 SF
6' ROLL-UP
DOOR
BAR
KITCHEN
211 SF
UP
96 Gal
3 cu.yd.
3 cu.yd.
13'-7"
17'-0"
17'-6"
9'-10"
3'-11"
73'-8"
58'-7"
68
'
-
7
"
31'-9"
41'-7
"
39
'
-
1
1
"
45
'
-
0
"
27
'
-
9
"
21
'
-
6
"
94
'
-
3
"
38
'
-
5
"
27
'
-
1
"
LED FLASHING WARNING SIGN
SUITE
SUITE
SUITE
D/D
CONF. RM
GAS
METER
C
B
A
A
C
B
(TRAFFIC DIRECTION SIGN )
GUEST
CHECK-IN
12'-0"
SIDEWALK TYP.
(N) CURBCUT FOR
TRASH ACCESS
EN
T
E
R
O
N
L
Y
EL
C
A
N
I
M
O
R
E
A
L
6'-8"
14
'
-
5
"
58'-6"
25'-0"
25
'
-
8
"
21
'
-
6
"
12'-0"
5'-9"
17'-8"
12'-0"
SIDEWALK
28
'
-
1
1
"
BLDG
OUTLINE
ABOVE
3'-0"
GUEST CHECK-IN
(TRAFFIC DIRECTION SIGN )
DROP-OFF ONLY
NO
RIGHT TURN
CAR
COMING
CONF. RMCONF. RM
34
'
-
1
1
"
GUEST
ELEV.
SERVICE
ELEV.
HOUSE
KEEPING
B.O.H
KING KINGKINGKING
UPDn
STEEL OPEN
STAIR
12
'
-
0
"
0 10'
N
20' 40'
3.f
Packet Pg. 122
Appendix B
Arborist Report
3.f
Packet Pg. 123
3.f
Packet Pg. 124
3.f
Packet Pg. 125
3.f
Packet Pg. 126
3.f
Packet Pg. 127
3.f
Packet Pg. 128
3.f
Packet Pg. 129
Appendix C
Root Mapping Report
3.f
Packet Pg. 130
.
Arborist OnSite®
Horticultural Consulting, Inc.
www.arboristonsite.com
Robert@arboristonsite.com
ISA Certified Arborist Report
Submitted To:
Rincon Consultants Inc.
449 15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
Project Location:
Caterina Hotel
4256 El Camino Real
Palo Alto, California
Submitted By:
Robert Booty, Registered Member # 487
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
The American Society of Consulting Arborists
ISA Certified Arborist WC-4286
June 25, 2018
3.f
Packet Pg. 131
Limits of Assignment
This assignment is limited to a parking lot, involving the neighboring Redwood trees bordering the proposed
construction on the property. My investigation involves root locating to determine root density in the area
of proposed excavation. Ground penetrating radar can not identify the presence of structural defects in roots
located below ground, such as cracks or girdling roots that can be associated with tree failures. GPR can
evaluate only depth, location and depending on the MHz of the antenna, targeting root size. Because trees
continually change, this evaluation is valid only for the date of this inspection.
Disclaimer
Although studies have shown ground penetrating radar to have a high degree of accuracy1 for below-ground
root identification, these are not photographs but images of predicted root targets or changes in wood
composition as in the case of trunk imaging . Arborist OnSite endeavors to use equipment that generates
useful information to prepare reports that will reflect its best judgment in light of the facts as it knows them.
Assignment
I have been retained by Karly Kaufman who is the Senior Environmental Planner for Rincon Consultants Inc.
A hotel is proposed for construction on this site that involves the excavation for an underground parking
garage. Surrounding the proposed excavation site, on neighboring properties are numerous redwood trees. I
have been requested to use ground penetrating radar to evaluate the root density of these trees at two
different locations within the parking lot. This will be an effort to determine the optimal excavation distance
possibilities for the below-ground garage.
1 Nina Bassuk, “Ground-Penetrating Radar Accurately Locates Tree Roots in Two Soil Media Under Pavement” Arboriculture &
Urban Forestry, International Society of Arboricultural 2011.
June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca.
Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
2
3.f
Packet Pg. 132
Observations
I visited the site June 18, 2018. I observed the redwood trees on the neighboring property. There are many,
some are very large and others smaller, all are appearing to be in good health.
Identifying the Redwood Trees for our root study
Access to the neighboring redwood trees was not possible. A numbered metal tree tag was attached to the
fence at the location each redwood tree. I only tagged the first row of redwoods closest to the fence for this
report. Behind the tagged trees are many other redwood trees whose roots also have invaded the parking lot
along with the ones identified in this report. This can explain the large amount of structural roots found in
this root study.
Conclusions
Using a 400 MHz antenna I set the antenna to penetrate the soil to a depth of 4 feet. The 400 MHz antenna
targets structural roots beginning at 1 inch in diameter and larger. Due to the configuration of the property
line and the obstacles within it, some measurements were taken from the curb and not the fence to
realistically continue to identify the proposed areas of excavation. These changes/areas are clearly marked
on the scan results. The structural root mapping results identified roots to a depth of 44 inches with the
majority being in the 34-38 inch depth range. Smaller absorbing roots are also present but not identified in
this root study, they would be found in the upper 18 inches of the soil profile. As you are reviewing the
structural root data refer to the site map on page 7 as a visual site reference.
June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca.
Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
3
3.f
Packet Pg. 133
Methodology
How does it work?
Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) is an established technology that has been used worldwide for over 30
years. Radar is an object-detection system that uses electromagnetic waves – specifically radio waves – to
identify the range, altitude, direction, or speed of both moving and fixed objects. When an electromagnetic
wave2 emitted from a small surface transmit antenna / receiver encounters a boundary between objects with
different electromagnetic properties, it will reflect, refract, and or diffract from the boundary in a predictable
manner. Radar waves or signals are reflected especially well by materials of considerable electrical
conductivity. The radar signals that are reflected back towards the antenna are the desirable ones that create
the image and make radar work.
Its uses today seem endless. When you look at the weather report, you are looking at a Doppler weather
radar scan; it will tell you where the heaviest amounts of rain will fall in your area. It works like this, the
radar signal, as it passes through the clouds is reflected back to a transmit receiver antenna that measures the
density of the moisture in them and the speed they are traveling. You can then determine approximately
when it will start raining and how much rain will fall in a given area. Radar is used in aviation, automobiles,
law enforcement and locating objects below ground.
#1
2 Daniels, D.J. 1996, Surface-Penetrating Radar. The Institute of Electrical Engineers, ISBN 0-85296-0.
Open Cavity
Start scan
Area not
Scanned
June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca.
Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
4
3.f
Packet Pg. 134
Root Mapping
An Introduction to Below-Ground Tree Root Mapping using
Ground – Penetrating Radar (GPR)
Ground-Penetrating Radar used as a method of mapping tree roots has several of the following
advantages over other methods of root locating,
1. It is capable of scanning the root systems of multiple trees under field conditions in a short time.
2. It is completely non-invasive and does not disturb the soils or damage the trees being examined, and
causes no harm to the environment.
3. Being non-invasive, it allows repeated measurements that reveal long-term root system
development.
4. It allows observation of root distribution beneath hard surfaces (concrete, asphalt, and bricks) roads
and buildings.
Its accuracy is sufficient to resolve structural roots with diameters from less than 1 cm (0.4 in.) to 3
cm (1.2 in.) or more. It can characterize roots at both the individual tree and stand levels, facilitating
correlations with tree and stand level measurements of physiological processes in complex
ecological studies.
This is how the radar looks at the existing roots, as the antenna is moved along the ground every
2/10ths of an inch a radar signal is released into the soil at a predetermined depth.
As this signal encounters a root it is reflected off its moisture and back to a receiver inside the
antenna. This returned signal is displayed as an x in the final report indicating the presence of a root,
the colored x indicates the depth of the root.
Secondly one can observe all roots within a given soil profile depth, on the following pages you will
notice 3 color coded soil profiles depicted. When looking at the virtual trench view of maps keep in
mind that each x marks the presence of a root. These roots are connected to the tree or root flare as
they grow into the soil and then grow out ward in all directions, some have indicated roots that have
no obstructions can travel laterally twice the height of the tree; this is what gives the tree stability.
June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca.
Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
5
3.f
Packet Pg. 135
The use of green markers
During the scan markers are placed on the field computer by the technician. These markers are used to
identify points of interest along the scan line such as in this case, passing of object landmarks such as a
numbered redwood tree. These manually placed markers show up in the final root analysis and can then be
used to compare roots found below ground in relation to the physical tree in this case located above ground.
Virtual Trench View
A way of viewing the root data is as a virtual trench. The following panels represent each of the
sixteen individual radar line scans from the site as if they were the walls of a trench. Think of this as
if you were excavating a deep trench with a back-hoe. As you dig, tree roots will be encountered at
various levels or depths in the soil profile, after you have completed your trench you then are able to
walk down and stand in the bottom.
Looking up at the earthen wall you are able to see the severed tree roots from your trenching
protruding from the soil at the various depths of your trench. As you look at the following individual
16 virtual trench scans each x on the wall represents a severed root. Each colored x represents a
different depth where the root is located.
One advantage of the trench view is that one can look at individual roots within their 3 represented
depth zones and see the actual depth of each individual root.
Green dotted lines are markers physically
placed on the field computer by the
technician during the scanning.
June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca.
Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
6
3.f
Packet Pg. 136
.
Site Map
Not to scale
Building
Shed
Redwood
158
Redwood
159
171
172
160
161
162
177 163 164 165 166 167 168 169
170
Concrete Pad
173 174 179 175 176
178 153 154 155 156 157
42
5
6
E
l
C
a
m
i
n
o
R
e
a
l
Si
d
e
w
a
l
k
Scan #1
Scan #2
Scan #3 Scan #4
Scan #5 Scan #6
Scan #7 Scan #8
Scan #9 Scan #10
Scan #11 Scan #12
Scan #13 Scan #14 Scan #15
Scan #16
Parking lot
Parking lot
June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca.
Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
7
3.f
Packet Pg. 137
.
Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. June 18, 2018
Root Scan #1 Ten feet from the property line.
Passing redwood
#153
Passing redwood
#154
Passing redwood
#155
Passing redwood
#156
Passing redwood
#157
Root Depth in inches
Asphalt thickness
June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca.
Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
8
3.f
Packet Pg. 138
Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. June 18, 2018
Root Scan #2 Twenty feet from the property line.
Passing redwood
#153
Passing redwood
#154
Passing redwood
#155
Passing redwood
#156
Passing redwood
#157
Root Depth in inches
Asphalt thickness
June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca.
Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
9
3.f
Packet Pg. 139
Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. June 18, 2018
Root Scan #3 Ten feet from the parking lot curb.
Asphalt thickness
Passing redwood
#158
Passing redwood
#159
Root Depth in inches
June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca.
Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
10
3.f
Packet Pg. 140
Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. June 18, 2018
Root Scan #4 Twenty feet from parking the lot curb.
Passing redwood
#158
Passing redwood
#159
Asphalt thickness
Root Depth in inches
June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca.
Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
11
3.f
Packet Pg. 141
Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. June 18, 2018
Root Scan #5 Over Concrete Pad Ten feet from the Shed.
Concrete thickness
Passing redwood
#160
Root Depth in inches
June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca.
Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
12
3.f
Packet Pg. 142
Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. June 18, 2018
Root Scan #6 Over Concrete Pad Twenty feet from the Shed.
Passing redwood
#160
Root Depth in inches
Concrete thickness
June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca.
Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
13
3.f
Packet Pg. 143
Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. June 18, 2018
Root Scan #7 Twenty feet from the Shed.
Passing redwood
#161
Passing redwood
#162
Passing mulberry
Tree #177
Passing redwood
#163
Root Depth in inches
Asphalt thickness
June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca.
Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
14
3.f
Packet Pg. 144
Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. June 18, 2018
Root Scan #8 Ten feet from the Shed.
Passing redwood
#161
Passing redwood
#162
Passing mulberry
Tree #177
Passing redwood
#163
Root Depth in inches
Asphalt thickness
June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca.
Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
15
3.f
Packet Pg. 145
Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. June 18, 2018
Root Scan #9 Ten feet from the property line.
Passing redwood
#162
Passing mulberry
Tree #177
Passing redwood
#163
Passing redwood
#164
Passing redwood
#165
Asphalt thickness
Root Depth in inches
June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca.
Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
16
3.f
Packet Pg. 146
Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. June 18, 2018
Root Scan #10 Twenty feet from the property line.
Asphalt thickness
Passing redwood
#162
Passing mulberry
Tree #177
Passing redwood
#163
Passing redwood
#164
Passing redwood
#165
Root Depth in inches
June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca.
Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
17
3.f
Packet Pg. 147
Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. June 18, 2018
Root Scan #11 Ten feet from the property line.
Passing redwood
#166
Passing redwood
#167
Passing redwood
#168
Passing mulberry
Tree #169
Passing redwood
#170
Asphalt thickness
Root Depth in inches
June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca.
Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
18
3.f
Packet Pg. 148
Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. June 18, 2018
Root Scan #12 Twenty feet from the property line.
Passing redwood
#166
Passing redwood
#167
Passing redwood
#168
Passing mulberry
Tree #169
Passing redwood
#170
Asphalt thickness
Root Depth in inches
June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca.
Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
19
3.f
Packet Pg. 149
Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. June 18, 2018
Root Scan #13 Ten feet from the parking lot curb.
Passing redwood
#168
Passing mulberry
Tree #169
Passing redwood
#170
Pa
s
s
i
n
g
r
e
d
w
o
o
d
#1
7
1
Passing redwood
#173
Passing redwood
#172
Passing redwood
#174
Asphalt thickness
Root Depth in inches
June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca.
Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
20
3.f
Packet Pg. 150
Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. June 18, 2018
Root Scan #14 Ten feet from the parking lot curb.
Pa
s
s
i
n
g
r
e
d
w
o
o
d
#1
6
8
Pa
s
s
i
n
g
r
e
d
w
o
o
d
#1
7
3
Pa
s
s
i
n
g
m
u
l
b
e
r
r
y
Tr
e
e
#
1
6
9
Pa
s
s
i
n
g
r
e
d
w
o
o
d
#1
7
0
Pa
s
s
i
n
g
r
e
d
w
o
o
d
#1
7
1
Pa
s
s
i
n
g
r
e
d
w
o
o
d
#1
7
2
Passing redwood
#174
Passing mulberry
Tree #169
Passing redwood
#174
Asphalt thickness
Root Depth in inches
June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca.
Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
21
3.f
Packet Pg. 151
Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. June 18, 2018
Root Scan #15 Ten feet from the property line.
Passing redwood
#173
Passing redwood
#174
Passing mulberry
Tree #179
Passing redwood
#175
Passing redwood
#176
Asphalt thickness
Root Depth in inches
June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca.
Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
22
3.f
Packet Pg. 152
Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. June 18, 2018
Root Scan #16 Twenty feet from the property line.
Asphalt thickness
Passing redwood
#173
Passing redwood
#174
Passing mulberry
Tree #179
Passing redwood
#175
Passing redwood
#176 Root Depth in inches
June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca.
Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
23
3.f
Packet Pg. 153
.
Scan #1
Scan #2
June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca.
Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
24
3.f
Packet Pg. 154
Scan #4
Scan #3 Scan #5
Scan #6
Scan #7
Scan #8
June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca.
Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
25
3.f
Packet Pg. 155
Scan #11 Scan #12
Scan #13
Scan #14
June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca.
Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
26
3.f
Packet Pg. 156
Scan #16 Scan #15
June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca.
Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
27
3.f
Packet Pg. 157
Arborist Disclosure / Performance of Services
1. Disclosure. Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training and experience
to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of the trees and attempt to
reduce the risk of living near trees. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to
the structural failure of a tree.
Since trees are living organisms, conditions are often hidden within the tree and below ground. Arborists
cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specific period of
time. Likewise, remedial treatments cannot be guaranteed. Trees can be managed but they cannot be
controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk and the only way to eliminate all risk
associated with trees is to eliminate all trees.
2. Indemnification from current and future tree failures. Although radar imaging has no known harmful
physical affects on trees the client agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Arborist OnSite Inc. and
TreeRadar inc. harmless from and against any and all claims, liabilities, suite, demands, losses, costs and
expenses, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys’ fees and all legal expenses and fees
incurred through appeal, and all interest thereon, accruing or resulting to any and all persons, firms or
any other legal entities on account of any damages or losses to property or persons, including injuries or
death, or economic losses, arising out of the Services and/or this Agreement, except to the extent that
said damages or losses are caused by Consultant’s gross negligence or willful misconduct. This
indemnity, shall survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement with regard to any claims
arising during, or related to, facts or circumstances that occurred during the term of this Agreement or
any extension thereof.
No warranty, representation or guarantee, express or implied, is intended by this agreement. Consultant
is not responsible for the completion or quality of work that is dependant upon or performed by Client or
third parties not under the direct control of Consultant or for their acts or omissions or for any damages
resulting there from.
3. TreeRadar™ / Arborist OnSite® Disclaimer
1. Use at Customer’s Risk. TreeRadar™ and Arborist OnSite® endeavors to use equipment that
generates useful information and, when provided, to prepare reports that will reflect its best judgment in
light of the facts as it knows them, TreeRadar™ or Arborist OnSite® does not guarantee the outcome of
its efforts or the structural integrity of any tree. Any report prepared by Arborist OnSite® or equipment
and data analysis services provided by TreeRadar™ is used strictly at your sole risk
June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca.
Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
28
3.f
Packet Pg. 158
2. Disclaimer of Warranties. You expressly understand and agree that:
(a) Your use of TreeRadar™ equipment or Arborist OnSite’s® use of ground penetrating radar
technology services, are at your own risk. Such services are provided on an “as is and “as available”
basis. TreeRadar™ and Arborist OnSite® expressly disclaims all warranties of any kind, expressed or
implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular
purpose and non-infringement. TreeRadar™ and Arborist OnSite® make no warranty that the
equipment will be error-free or the data results obtained from the use of this equipment will be reliable.
Neither TreeRadar™ or Arborist OnSite® shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special,
consequential or exemplary damages, including but not limited to damages for goodwill, injury to body
or property, death or other losses even if TreeRadar™ or Arborist OnSite® has been advised of the
possibility of such damages resulting from the use or reliance TreeRadar™ equipment or Arborist
OnSite’s® use of ground penetrating radar technology.
4 General Conditions. Client acknowledges that it has read and agrees to the General Conditions
contained in this document which are incorporated herein and made a part of this Agreement and report
and shall apply to all services performed by Consultant. If this document is attached to another form of
agreement whose terms and conditions conflict with this Agreement the General Conditions contained in
this document shall prevail.
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
1. Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. No responsibility is
assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to the quality of any title.
2. The consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of information provided by
others, information not provided or disclosed.
3. The consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this
consultation/reports unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an
additional fee for services.
4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire report/evaluation.
5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any
purpose by any other than the persons(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent of this
consultant.
6. This report represents the opinion of consultant, and the consultant’s fee is in no way contingent
upon the reporting upon any pre-determined findings.
7. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, photos, ect., in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not
necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys.
8. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable evaluation/diagnostic reporting
techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture.
9. No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. Arborist OnSite® cannot
assume responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full
root collar or root crown inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover
hidden defects or disease involving the root collar and major buttress roots, was not performed,
unless otherwise stated. Arborist OnSite® cannot accept responsibility for any root defects which
could only have been discovered by such an inspection.
June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca.
Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
29
3.f
Packet Pg. 159
CCeerrttiiffiiccaattiioonn ooff PPeerrffoorrmmaannccee
I, Robert Booty, certify:
TThhaatt II hhaavvee ppeerrssoonnaallllyy iinnssppeecctteedd tthhee ttrreeee((ss)) aanndd//oorr tthhee pprrooppeerrttyy rreeffeerrrreedd ttoo iinn tthhiiss rreeppoorrtt,, aanndd
hhaavvee ssttaatteedd mmyy ffiinnddiinnggss aaccccuurraatteellyy.. TThhee eexxtteenntt ooff tthhee eevvaalluuaattiioonn aanndd oorr aapppprraaiissaall iiss ssttaatteedd iinn tthhee aattttaacchheedd
rreeppoorrtt aanndd tthhee tteerrmmss aanndd ccoonnddiittiioonnss;;
That I have no current interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report,
and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved;
That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are my own, and are based on current
scientific procedures and facts;
That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that
favors the cause of the client or any other party, nor upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of
stipulated results, or the occurrence of any subsequent events;
That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared
according to commonly accepted arboricultural practices;
That no one provided significant professional assistance to the consultant, except as indicated
within the report.
II ffuurrtthheerr cceerrttiiffyy tthhaatt II aamm aa RReeggiisstteerreedd MMeemmbbeerr ooff tthhee AAmmeerriiccaann SSoocciieettyy ooff CCoonnssuullttiinngg AArrbboorriissttss,, aanndd II
aamm aann IInntteerrnnaattiioonnaall SSoocciieettyy ooff AArrbboorriiccuullttuurree CCeerrttiiffiieedd AArrbboorriisstt.. II hhaavvee bbeeeenn iinnvvoollvveedd iinn tthhee pprraaccttiiccee ooff
aarrbboorriiccuullttuurree aanndd tthhee ccaarree aanndd ssttuuddyy ooff ttrreeeess ffoorr oovveerr 4499 yyeeaarrss..
Signed:________________________
Date: June 25, 2018
June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca.
Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487
ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
30
3.f
Packet Pg. 160
1
Gutierrez, Samuel
From:Sharlene Carlson <carlsonsharlene@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 30, 2018 5:05 PM
To:Gutierrez, Samuel
Cc:Anne Mason; Julie Baskind; Gerhardt, Jodie
Subject:Re: 4256 El Camino Real Formal Submittal City Staff Comments
Attachments:Submission to PA ARB 120617 - FINAL.pdf
Hello Sam,
Thank you for keeping Palo Alto Redwoods updated on the application for the 4256 El Camino Real project ‐ we really
appreciate your efforts. We have reviewed the project plans and the City’s comments on the plans. At this time, we do
not have extensive additional comments on the project. The concerns we presented in our comments to the
Architectural Review Board dated December 4, 2017 on the project remain. These comments are attached for your
convenience.
We are especially concerned about impacts to the Redwood trees on our property and adverse project impacts on
traffic, safety, and noise. We appreciate the City’s diligence in requesting additional information to support analysis of
these impact areas. We will provide more detailed comments on the CEQA environmental analysis of the project when
it is available. In addition, we are also concerned about impacts related to privacy. As shown in plan sheet A‐4.2 of the
applicant’s submittal showing the eastern elevation, the project design includes large windows that will look directly
onto existing residences to the southeast. It is our hope that the City will consider the issue of homeowner privacy in
your review of the project application.
Please continue to update us as this project progresses, including providing feedback from city departments and any
documents submitted by the developer. It would be great to find a way that we can electronically access the large plans
but also appreciate receiving several paper copies as changes are submitted.
Best regards,
Sharlene
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Sharlene Carlson <carlsonsharlene@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Sam,
Thank you for reaching out. We are still digesting the city input and the overall plans but will provide input as soon as
possible.
3.g
Packet Pg. 161
2
It would really be helpful to get electronic copies of the full plans. Is that possible by zipping the file or possibly setting
up an outside source like drop box to receive them? That would be extremely helpful in sharing with our homeowners.
Thanks,
Sharlene
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Gutierrez, Samuel <Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Hello Sharlene,
I am checking in to see if there are anything I can assist you with in regards to the comments or the submittal in
general.
Regards,
Samuel J. Gutierrez | MUP | Associate Planner | P&CE Department
250 Hamilton Ave. 5th Floor, Palo Alto CA 94301
Phone: (650) 329 ‐ 2225
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!
Online Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code
Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped
Permit Tracking – Public Access
From: Sharlene Carlson [mailto:carlsonsharlene@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2018 7:34 PM
To: Gutierrez, Samuel
Subject: Re: 4256 El Camino Real Formal Submittal City Staff Comments
3.g
Packet Pg. 162
1
c/o PML Management – 655 Mariners Island Blvd., Suite 301 – San Mateo, CA 94404 – (650) 349-9113
Palo Alto
Redwoods
December 4, 2017
City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: 4256 El Camino Real - Preliminary Architectural Review - 17PLN-00233
PAR Comments for Second Study Session, December 22, 2017
Dear Members of the Architectural Review Board,
Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowners Association (PAR) is submitting the following comments for your review for
the second study session scheduled December 22, 2017 regarding the proposed development of the Su Hong
Restaurant property by HXH, LLC. In PAR's written submission dated August 3, 2017 for the initial study
session we raised a number of concerns. In addition we provided public comments at the August 17, 2017
hearing about these issues. Following the meeting, PAR provided a list of remaining concerns to the developer
and had an in-person meeting to go over the developer's revised project design . Although the developer
attempted to address some concerns raised by PAR and by the ARB, the measures incorporated into the revised
project plan are inadequate.
Our remaining concerns include, but are not limited to the following:
Impacts to Redwood trees;
Adverse project impacts on traffic, safety, noise, air quality, etc. minimized and mitigated;
Construction process managed to mitigate noise and construction impact;
Bulk of buildings do not cast shadow upon PAR homes or pool area;
Minimized massing respects privacy of PAR homes, reduces number and size of rear windows;
Consistency with all provisions of zoning code, specifically height;
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan;
Assurance that noise from HVAC and outdoor spaces cannot be heard from PAR homes;
Adequate drainage to avoid runoff or flooding of PAR;
Consideration of converting project to mixed-use or housing.
Given that we have already submitted comments in our previous letter, we will not reiterate each of our
concerns here. Instead we will detail some of our most significant concerns at this time. Any issues not
addressed here remain concerns and our decision not to highlight them at this time does not indicate acceptance
of changes to date. Thank you for carefully considering our request that the proposed development be
significantly scaled back and include neighborhood benefits.
PAR CONCERNS REMAIN
* Density * Traffic Safety
* Height * Parking
* Tree Health * Hotel Saturation
* Light Reduction * Environmental Impact
* Air Flow * Health and Safety
3.g
Packet Pg. 163
2
c/o PML Management – 655 Mariners Island Blvd., Suite 301 – San Mateo, CA 94404 – (650) 349-9113
Tree Health
Redwood trees are one of the oldest living species on the planet. The residents of PAR consider ourselves
caretakers of these valuable assets, which contribute greatly to our quality of life. We are proud to be residents
of the City of Palo Alto, where its moniker is El Palo Alto in honor of Redwood trees.
PAR has well over 117 trees, mostly Redwoods, with a number of them eligible for heritage Northern California
Redwoods status. PAR has utilized the services of Henry Ardalan of City Arborist for almost 20 years to
maintain tree health. Given the proposed 50-foot high building proposed next door, we are concerned for the
health and care of the 28 Redwood trees in the Area B grove and the 4 Redwood trees in our entry area near the
property line that will be directly impacted.
PAR met with the developer's arborist, Kielty Arborist Services, to allow access to our property to measure tree
diameter and distance from the common fence area. In his report, our trees were identified to be in fair or poor
condition, although we have been diligent in taking care of them throughout all water conditions.
PAR then retained the services of a independent arborist, Moki Smith of Smith Tree Specialists, to provide us
with an assessment of the condition of our trees, with the view of determining the potential impact of
construction on the Redwood trees. Mr. Smith's initial report has identified our trees as being in good condition,
showing evidence of consistent and appropriate care, including irrigation. This is the opposite of the assessment
by the developer's arborist. (see Arborist Smith's attached report)
PAR trees located in Area B Grove
In order to acquire a deeper assessment of our trees condition, we expect the city to perform the following tests
to assist with analysis of potential project impacts on PAR trees:
soil tests to determine mechanical and chemical profile of the soil;
water analysis to determine composition of irrigation water; and
live tissue testing to determine nutrient status of the trees.
3.g
Packet Pg. 164
3
c/o PML Management – 655 Mariners Island Blvd., Suite 301 – San Mateo, CA 94404 – (650) 349-9113
PAR has three main areas of concern related to potential impacts on trees:
1. Above ground
Trees provide privacy screening, air quality, and quality of life for the homeowners and benefits to the
overall aesthetics to the community. We are concerned that the amount of sunlight and wind, which is
vital for healthy trees, will be severely compromised with a 50-foot high building.
We consider the so-called shade study, as presented, to be inadequate, and request that the city perform
an independent shade study showing all of the potentially impacted areas, including residential areas,
pool/clubhouse area, and entry area that will be next to the massive 50 foot structure.
Loss of sunlight would ultimately result in loss of lower limb structure in Redwoods, compromising the
privacy screen, with tree growth limited to the very top, if at all. Homeowners would only have tree
trunks outside their windows. The loss of light would leave PAR buildings susceptible to dry rot
resulting in significant costs of repair over time.
2. Below ground
The impact of grading and excavating for a multilevel building so close to the drip line, and encroaching
on the root base and anchorage of the trees, will severely impact the root system of the trees. Redwood
trees have shallow lateral roots and are co-dependent on each other, as their roots are all intertwined.
Trenching and foundation footings must be carefully considered to avoid uprooting and long-term tree
damage. When the root structure is damaged in any significant way, not only does that tree begin to
decline over time, but it also affects the other trees it is connected to.
3. Impact to trees and mitigation Impacts to the trees and the mitigation for those impacts cannot be fully identified until there is a final
plan for development, including an engineer’s grading plans. Only once those exist can an arborist give
an accurate assessment of what mitigation is necessary.
We are not opposed to welcoming a new neighbor, but we ask for the design to be reconsidered to
address our concerns for our Redwood trees and the value they bring to the community as a whole.
With a 50 foot hotel as high as trees, sky views will be blocked and sunlight and airflow reduced.
3.g
Packet Pg. 165
4
c/o PML Management – 655 Mariners Island Blvd., Suite 301 – San Mateo, CA 94404 – (650) 349-9113
Parking and Traffic Safety
The proposed hotel creates several unacceptable traffic and safety problems for our stretch of El Camino and
raises more questions than it answers. Each of these safety concerns is described briefly below.
The proposed porte cochere design will result in backed up traffic onto El Camino. What happens
when multiple residents are bringing their vehicles out of the garage, the carport is full of rideshare
drivers and passengers unloading, and cars are trying to enter the car port from El Camino? What
happens when UPS and FedEx show up at the same time? Where is the garbage truck supposed to park
when another delivery truck is already in the commercial loading area? Traffic will back up onto El
Camino, blocking at least one of the three lanes. This will worsen traffic especially during peak hours.
The proposed entrance is also immediately after the exit to PAR. Vehicles exiting PAR will encounter
queued hotel traffic that is problematic and unsafe.
The proposed location provides insufficient distance for exiting cars to make the turn light.
Drivers who want to head north on El Camino after exiting the hotel will attempt to make it to the left
turn light. There is not enough distance for drivers attempting to cut over to the left turn light at Dinah's
Court, but they are going to attempt it anyway. This creates a safety hazard for passing cars. We already
see this with cars exiting Su Hong, and it will be far worse with hotel traffic.
Experimental puzzle parking technology is unproven. Puzzle parking requires excavating much
deeper than for regular parking, which poses risks to PAR infrastructure. The more moving parts
something has, the more likely it is to fail. If there's a malfunction retrieving one car, it renders the
remaining cars inaccessible. What happens when there's a mechanical malfunction when multiple
owners are retrieving their cars? How does this affect traffic in the car port? Will tiered puzzle parking
work and be a desirable option over time?
Illegal and dangerous parking will occur in front of the hotel, despite no parking zones. There is
currently no proposed location for tour buses to park to unload passengers. As we see frequently at the
Hilton Garden Inn, tour buses and Uber drivers WILL park illegally in front of the hotel despite signage
and red curbs, and despite a similarly designed (and larger) car port there. This blocks visibility for
drivers exiting the hotel as well as drivers passing the hotel. Since the hotel does not have responsibility
for enforcing traffic laws, it has no reason to enforce the no parking zone. This is also a low priority for
law enforcement. We only need to look at Edgewood Plaza, where this is an ongoing problem despite an
established commercial delivery area. It would be naive to pretend that this won't occur at this site as
well. This impact should be evaluated during the environmental review process.
These and other negative impacts related to parking, traffic, and congestion this proposal will exacerbate the
unsafe traffic conditions that already exist on El Camino.
Hotel Saturation / Density in the Neighborhood
Our neighborhood was declared a “hotel corridor” in city plans some time ago, but it has been allowed to
become “all string and no pearls”, as the PA Weekly put it, in part because hotel tax revenues will increase city
coffers. The hotel burden should be more equitably shared throughout the city, particularly given traffic
implications. Our neighborhood needs to be one that neighbors can easily navigate while enjoying amenities,
but instead it is increasingly being defined by massive hotel facades. Our concerns include:
PAR is a diverse multi-family residential neighborhood of 275 people enjoying outdoor walkways
shaded by more than 100 trees, mostly Redwoods, and a number of oases of green spaces. We also have
easy access to public transportation, good schools, work places, and community services. We are
exactly the kind of housing that the new Comprehensive Plan wants to see more of, and that Palo Alto
should protect.
3.g
Packet Pg. 166
5
c/o PML Management – 655 Mariners Island Blvd., Suite 301 – San Mateo, CA 94404 – (650) 349-9113
In 2008 an Economic Resource Associates report commissioned by the City said there were 1,865 hotel
rooms in all of Palo Alto. Now, within walking distance of PAR, there are 19 hotels with 1,595 rooms
on El Camino alone. One of these has already submitted plans to nearly triple from 36 to 97 rooms.
That’s over 1600 rooms in a stretch of less than 2.5 miles, just in the blocks of El Camino Real between
3200 and 4500. If we expand out to within five miles, including the massive Marriotts planned for San
Antonio, there will be thousands of rooms.
This particular dense hotel project, 80+ rooms with three time-share units, and a long stretch of 50’ high
walls, is unsuitable in the neighborhood.
The bulk of the project as proposed remains out of scale with the adjacent neighborhood and would
significantly affect daylight for many of our units (including all 12 BMR units facing the Area B grove).
Despite some glass and landscaping, the building design takes the “defensive walled approach” and at
five stories high for the full facade on El Camino, is another in a series of massive and unwelcoming
buildings being built in South Palo Alto.
We recognize that the property at 4256 El Camino is zoned for commercial services use. We have lived
peaceably with both Denny’s and Su Hong as next-door neighbors over decades. We would welcome a
well-designed commercial enterprise or mixed use housing that serves the community, that is respectful
of its neighbors both in its design and its uses, and that adds to the liveliness and spirit of the
neighborhood rather than detracts from it. This project as proposed does none of these things, and
offers nothing of benefit for those of us who live in South Palo Alto. The project’s design fails to
provide harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses, fails to enhance
conditions in adjacent neighborhood, and fails to include pedestrian-centric amenities.
Environmental Impact
We have environmental concerns that we previously raised but the developer has not adequately addressed,
including:
Health impacts from air, sound and noise pollution, both during and after construction;
Smoke impact - PAR is a non-smoking environment, and the proposed development must designate
specific areas that will not impact PAR, or designate the entire project non-smoking;
Loss of light - developer's shade study included in packet does not adequately address loss of light; an
independent light study should be a requirement;
Safety risks for children riding to school at peak commute times on bikes need to be addressed;
Safety hazards as a result of illegal and dangerous double parking, including vision impairment and
blocked right lane on El Camino need to be addressed;
Loss of privacy - the revised proposal diminishes the privacy of all windows facing the development.
Guests in 27 hotel units will look out directly into the living rooms, bedrooms, and balconies of 18 of
our homes; this is unacceptable;
These are potentially significant impacts that should be thoroughly evaluated through the environmental review
process. We hope the ARB will give serious consideration as to how this project will impact our residents and
the neighborhood.
3.g
Packet Pg. 167
6
c/o PML Management – 655 Mariners Island Blvd., Suite 301 – San Mateo, CA 94404 – (650) 349-9113
Required Findings
Finally, the ARB cannot make the necessary findings to grant the requested approvals. In order for the ARB to
make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the Findings for Architectural Review
as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
As discussed in detail throughout this letter and the PAR letter dated August 3, 2017, the revised plan does NOT
provide harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses, and it does NOT enhance
living conditions in adjacent residential areas. Therefore, the project is inconsistent with required ARB Finding
#2. Until the project is redesigned to reduce the scale and mass of the buildings and to integrate with the
existing neighborhood, the required findings cannot be made.
Summary
PAR is a hidden gem that is similar to the kinds of residential neighborhoods called for in the revised
Comprehensive Plan. The ARB should take definitive steps to protect our unique oasis as a model to be
replicated, not one to be overshadowed and made unsafe for residents and drivers. Unresolved and undesirable
issues remain - many which the ARB previously raised with the developer.
We will appreciate the ARB’s support of our efforts to scale back this development proposal. As mentioned in
August, we invite the Board to visit our complex anytime to understand our perspective and passion for our
homes.
Sincerely,
Board of Directors, Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowners Association
3.g
Packet Pg. 168
Attachment G
Project Plans
Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the
public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th
floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue.
Directions to review Project plans online:
1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects
2. Scroll to find “4256 El Camino Real” and click the address link
3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and
other important information
Direct Link to Project Webpage:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4124&TargetID=319
3.h
Packet Pg. 169
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 9820)
Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 11/15/2018
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 744 San Antonio Road: Subcommittee Review of Lighting
Title: 744 San Antonio Road [15PLN-00314]: Subcommittee Review
of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to
Return With Project Changes Related to Lighting.
Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance
With Section 15061(b)(3) That the Project is not Subject to
CEQA Because the Proposed Revisions Will not Have a
Significant Effect on the Environment. Zoning Districts: CS
(Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the
Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s):
1. Discuss and provide direction or approve project revisions.
Background
On June 12, 2017, the City Council adopted a Record of Land Use Action approving the subject
project. At the Architectural Review Board’s recommendation, a condition was imposed that
required certain project elements return to the ARB subcommittee. One of those conditions
regarding terrace landscaping was addressed with the ARB at a subsequent hearing (November
1, 2018). Below is the outstanding item that was requested to return to the subcommittee and
the applicant’s response to the ARB’s comments:
Architecture Review Condition:
#11 LIGHTING PLANS: The lighting plans shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review
Board subcommittee to ensure lighting and light glare does not spill over to the
residential land uses across the street.
4
Packet Pg. 170
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
Applicant’s Response:
The updated lighting plan and photometrics plan demonstrates that light levels dissipate
at San Antonio Road. Based on these plans, it is anticipated that there will be no light
glare and spill over to the residential neighborhood across San Antonio Road.
A video recording of the Board’s last meeting on this project is available online:
http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-60/
The Board is encouraged to provide direction to staff and the applicant as to whether the
proposed changes are sufficient or requires further refinement.
Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information
Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager
(408) 340-5642 x109 (650) 329-2575
sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Attachment A: April 6, 2017 ARB Minutes (PDF)
Attachment B: Project Plans (DOCX)
1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
4
Packet Pg. 171
City of Palo Alto Page 94
6. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 744-748 San Antonio Avenue
[15PLN-00314]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a
Major Architectural
Review to Allow the Demolition of Two Existing Commercial/Office Buildings at
744
and 748 San Antonio Avenue and Construction of Two, Five-Story Hotels
(Courtyard
by Marriott with 151 rooms and AC by Marriott with 143 rooms). The Site Will
Attachment A:
Excerpt ARB Minutes
April 6, 2017
4.a
Packet Pg. 172
City of Palo Alto Page 95
Include Surface and Two Levels of Basement Parking. Environmental
Assessment: A
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has Been Prepared Pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Public Comment Period for the
DEIR
is From March 27, 2017 to May 10, 2017. Zoning District: CS. For More
Information,
Contact Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us
Mr. Lait: Is he back here?
Chair Lew: Kyu?
Mr. Lait: Yeah, did he leave?
Chair Lew: Kyu left so I need to his recusal for him.
Mr. Lait: Are you going to explain why’s he’s recusing?
Chair Lew: Yeah, and then we have disclosers as well. I should make an
announcement. We have item number six. Is a public hearing on a quasi-judicial matter
for 744 and 748 San Antonio Avenue. Recommendation on applicant’s request for
approval of a major architectural review to allow the demolition of two existing
commercial office buildings at 744 and 748 San Antonio Avenue and construction of
two, five-story hotels which are the Courtyard by Marriott with 151 rooms and AC by
Marriott with 143 rooms. The site will include surface and two levels of basement
parking. Environmental Assessment is a Draft EIR has been prepared pursuant to the
CEQA and the public comment period for the DEIR is from March 27, 2017, to May 10,
2017, and the zone district is CS. We have the Staff report but I think that I should
announce that Vice Chair Kim is recused on this item because he has a working
relationship on another project, not related to this one, with Randy Pop, the project
architect for this item. I think we also have disclosures from other Board Members.
Board Member Baltay: Yes, I did meet with architect Pop in my office last week where
we discussed the project and he outlined what he was where the various merits of it. Of
interest was that he felt that he and the City Council were in agreement with what the
contextual nature of this site was and then that this was very much in context, in his
opinion. That’s – thank you.
Chair Lew: Wynne?
Board Member Furth: I met with architect Randy Pop in his office. I – we went over the
images that are part of the official packet but more slowly and larger setting. We
discussed my previously raised concern about how to minimize the risk of up back-ups
from the hotel driveway into San Antonio travel lanes. He mentioned that there would
be 24/7 valet parking to address that. The shuttle would be unloaded to the rear of the
Palo Alto ARB Minutes - Excerpt
April 6, 2017
4.a
Packet Pg. 173
City of Palo Alto Page 96
properties and there was no event space in the hotels. I’ll just mention that in looking
at the TDM, I don’t think I saw references to all those and I don’t believe that there’s
anything else that is not in the public record that we discussed. (Inaudible)
Chair Lew: Robert? No. I will disclose that I talked to Randy Pop on the phone on March
14th about some other items as well as this particular project and there’s nothing that
we discussed that isn’t in the Staff report or the drawings. Sheldon?
Mr. Ah Sing: Ok, thank you again. I do have a PowerPoint presentation and the
applicant is here with their PowerPoint as well. You got a good introductory there. The
location it’s along San Antonio between Leghorn and Middlefield and it’s right on the
boundary of the City of Mountain View, as well behind. We are here this afternoon,
Staff – while we did provide findings, they’re just the base findings. There’s no
recommendation of approval for instance so just reconsideration to conduct a hearing.
Seek input on the EIR, which is now in circulation. As well as input on the architectural
review itself. I do want to mention that the Draft of the Environmental Impact Report,
there is one unavoidable significant impact to the historic resources on site. There’s no
mitigation to demolish a potential eligible historic structure so just to highlight that. The
project requests for architectural review. There’s also a parking adjustment up to 20%,
that is for the valet parking or parking spaces that are within the drive aisle so they are
not standard parking spaces per code. There where previous meetings for this project.
The preliminary Board meeting in June of 2015. There were concerns at that time
regarding massing compared to the surrounding. Some of the relationship of the
building to the driveway and entries. There was one formal ARB meeting in December
2015. At that time, the applicant did revise the plans to step back the front façade.
They did push the mechanical equipment to the center of the buildings. Generally,
though, the buildings are separated. The brands, the two brandings are separated.
There is also an additional meeting that was specifically for the Environmental Impact
Report. It was a required scoping meeting that was conducted in March of last year and
we hear from the public concerns about traffic, water, esthetics for instance. The site
plan for the project, there’s a 24-foot special set back along San Antonio. The street
trees would remain there but the balance of the site would be raised and that includes
the two different buildings – the two different properties and also the eligible historic
building. The projects include two different branded hotels by Marriott; just different
brands. They are five-stories at about 50-feet. That includes a driveway down the
center. There’s a circular round-a-bout there that would service the lobbies and the
applicant can describe a little bit more about the operations there in regarding the valet
parking. There is some surface parking towards the rear and there’s a ramp that leads
down to a full basement and there’s like a smaller second level for basement parking.
Not a full site level but just a smaller segment. This drawing here demonstrates the
front elevations. They have some perspectives there but it’s a little difficult to tell from
the front of what’s going on but you can see where the applicant has proposed some
erosion of the building to step back from San Antonio. That’s their response to some of
the massing along that street and there’s some articulation along the sides, although
that is still roughly about 10-feet setback but there’s some articulation there. This does
show a little bit more about what’s going on in the cross section of that and especially
Palo Alto ARB Minutes - Excerpt
April 6, 2017
4.a
Packet Pg. 174
City of Palo Alto Page 97
in relation to the residence across the street. You can see that line demonstrates the
height of the greenhouse residences and how that relates to the new buildings where
they do step back from the street from the third-level. There’s approximately about
200—feet difference between the buildings there along San Antonio. I thought this was
maybe one of the other better drawings to show the stepping back. The roof plan, you
can see again, from the different levels of how that occurs at the front. That doesn’t
necessarily occur on the other sides or the rear particularly. Again, I wanted to stress
the side. There is – you are going up five-stories and it kind of just drops down. In
adjacent to the site, you’re going to have existing buildings that are relatively low
intensity at this time. It could go to .4 FAR but they probably wouldn’t be as passive as
this project is because it does allow up to 2.0 FAR. Some of the keys issues there that
we want to highlight and we do in the Staff report, is the architecture, the context
compatibility, the site plan and some of the environmental issues. As I mentioned, that
the surroundings include low-scale commercial residential institutional buildings. These
are all FAR around 0.4 or less, along that stretch. The project again, would include two,
five-story hotels and that’s – on this block, is – would be the tallest structure. San
Antonio road is a wide infrastructure. It’s four lanes and it’s a divide street. This exhibit
does – diagram shows the present FAR along San Antonio. You can see, again it’s
roughly .4 or so. You have some really low ones there because they are gas stations.
There’s not really much – but definitely at 2.0, this would be one of the larger buildings
in the area. I wanted to mention a little bit about the parking. This project provides 294
spaces, 278 of those are in the two-level basement. There are 236 self-park and 58
valet spaces and valet spaces are located in the drive aisles as I mentioned as they are
not standard parking space so therefore they have to apply for the parking adjustment
and the 20% equates to 58 spaces. A transportation monument program has been
proposed for the project. That reduction was not calculated into the traffic study so the
traffic study just shows what the net trips would be on the traffic and it didn’t not count
for the transportation demand management so they wanted to be on the conservative
side there. Moving on to the CEQA. The Environmental Impact Report was required
because of – mainly the cultural resources unavoidable impact. The scoping meeting
was conducted on March 3rd to get comments on what should be studied for the impact
report and that draft impact report was circulated on March 27th and that will be – we’ll
be getting comments on it through May 10th. Again, the potential impacts would be on
air quality, that’s with construction. You have biological resources, again, some of the
same things we had mentioned in the past project. The cultural resources, there’s an
existing building on site that I’ll mention in just a little bit that’s eligible for historic
listing. Then you hazardous and hazardous materials on the ground that there’s
mitigation for so all those can be mitigated except for the cultural resource. Just
speaking to that, the structure was erected in 1961. It was used as a mortuary -- a
funeral home and there was a significant rear addition in 1983 but end despite that,
based on the evaluation, it’s eligible for listing on the California Register due to its age
and also the characteristics of its mid-century modern architecture. Just the timeline on
the EIR and what’s coming up next. Responding to public comments that do come in, to
complete the mitigation monitoring program. We’ll have to come up with statement of
overriding considerations for the unavoidable impact and the then the certification of
the final EIR by the City Council. In conclusion, the project complies with the objective
Palo Alto ARB Minutes - Excerpt
April 6, 2017
4.a
Packet Pg. 175
City of Palo Alto Page 98
developments with the exception of parking. They are asking for that adjustment. The
ARB has identified some issues in the past regarding compatibility and overall massing
in previous meetings and we do believe that many of those concerns have not been
adequately addressed so we are – in the next steps, seeking some direction from the
ARB on this. We want to concluded the circulation period, respond to those comments,
received recommendation from the ARB and then that would be forwarded on to City
Council to decide on the architectural review with the parking adjustment as well as
certification final EIR. Today what we are asking is to review and comment on the draft
EIR and continue the project to a date uncertain for redesign. That concludes my
presentation and I’d be happy to answer any questions you have.
Chair Lew: Why don’t we – are there any questions or we can do the applicant
presentation now? Why don’t we do the applicant presentation and you’ll have 10-
minutes and then we’ll do the public comment period and I do have four speakers for
that. Sure, Wynne.
Board Member Furth: So, I just wanted to ask Staff to explain the CEQA process on this
project a little bit. We’ve been looking at this, at least on an informal basis, for some
time and the scoping session was held March 3rd on the environmental review?
Mr. Ah Sing: Of 2016.
Board Member Furth: Thank you. I was thinking that you were running on a very
compact schedule.
Chair Lew: Ok, so you have 10-minutes.
Mr. [Mont] Williamson: Good afternoon Board, it’s nice to be here. My name is [Mont]
Williamson representing the owner of this development. I just have a couple thoughts
before our team does their presentation. We were here in front of you 16-months ago
and we were in front of the community in a session about 18-months ago so it’s been
that long since we were in front of you all. We’ve been busy this last 16 and 18-months.
I want you guys to know that we listened to what he heard from the community and
we listened to what we heard from you. The two issues we heard where from you folks,
mostly massing. The idea of taking this project that was designed around the perimeter
of the land and putting it more in the center is what we feel we heard. I want to know
that we studied those options and we have some slides to show you the effort we put
into it. More mentally, the slides are simple but we did really work hard to come up with
a successful hotel using just the very center of this land mass. We didn’t think it was
super successful so we went back to our original idea and have a presentation for you
to show what we’ve done to improve. On the community side, traffic is what we heard
the most. We’ve spent the last 16-months with the City on an environmental impact
report that we feel shows the facts on the impact of traffic and we worked hard at that.
We also care about that issue so we’re hoping the whole group can look at those facts
and understand the true impact of traffic. So, we are here hoping to get approval. I do
want you to know that we’re – we want you to understand the efforts we’ve put forth
Palo Alto ARB Minutes - Excerpt
April 6, 2017
4.a
Packet Pg. 176
City of Palo Alto Page 99
and we’re here to listen. If there are some tweaks that we can do to gain that approval
but what we have in front of you is roughly what we think works and we are on a
timeline with Marriott. We have convinced Marriott to stay with us for the last year and
a half, largely because Council went on record about 16-months ago saying they like
the project and they’d like us to push forward. That helps us convince Marriott to stay
with us. We are still on a tight timeline so here’s our team presentation.
Mr. Randy Pop: Alright thank you. Randy Pop, architect. We all know each other so
thank you for sticking around so late today to go through this with us and I’ll try and
move through this very quickly. As everyone says, we’re trying to move forward and we
know what the issues are and we feel we’ve responded to those in a thoughtful way
and I’ll take you through that quickly. In regard to the EIR process, Sheldon did a great
job summarizing that for us but I wanted to just point out that everything other than
the historic aspect of this site, which we hear Council is going resolve through a
statement of overriding concern, produces a less than significant impact. Traffic,
acoustics and even aesthetics that wherein the EIR were resolved. Just very briefly,
right? Here’s our context. This hotel – this site as many of you have said is in the right
place and we’re near demand. We’re going to reduce (inaudible). It’s on Palo Alto land.
Many of you have heard, this generates $3.5 million dollars of (inaudible) a year so a
very valuable project for the City. This is our context – there is goes. Not what today’s
zoning encourages. Over time this area is changing. The JCC, Hausner, it’s near Linkin,
it’s near Google. I would be challenged to bring something like this to the Board today
and so we heard you and we tried to really study what we heard from you. These three
diagrams are really simple little diagrams but there was a lot of work and a bunch of
days spent the sort of studying these things and I’m just trying to bring you along with
us in the process. I apologize because over the course of the time that we were
working on them, we were sort of rotation the diagram and so San Antonio is on the
left and then at the bottom and then on the right so I’m sorry about that. What we are
looking at here is how to shift the mass of the building to the center and if we do that,
we need a fire lane that goes around the outside, there is parking that goes around the
outside. We lose the brand identity because we don’t have the duel brand buildings
anymore; pretty difficult. Even farther from that, there’s just no way to keep the room
count. We’re dropping from 294 down to 220 to 210. I didn’t even show you the option.
It’s just a single bar building in the middle that was down at like 140 and so they are
just no longer economical. It just loses its ability to really be a financially viable project
at that point and beyond that, we really felt that surrounding a building in a sea of
asphalt is not really an appropriate tactic. Based on all of that, we went back to our
earlier concept and thought about how can we really start to adjust and respond within
the framework of what we had and so doing that, looking south, we really wanted to
show you what it looks like. I went out in the street. I took pictures. We had a renderer
insert these pictures into – insert the model into the pictures for us and want you to
really see how things will change and what it will look like. We’ve – as Sheldon has
mentioned, made some changes to this building where the last version you saw kind of
had some eroded corners but still had a five-story mass on El Camino. We’ve pushed all
that back to the middle of the site now and the three-story element that’s on San
Antonio really a response to the pedestrian experience and to the contextual
Palo Alto ARB Minutes - Excerpt
April 6, 2017
4.a
Packet Pg. 177
City of Palo Alto Page 100
compatibility guild lines to the scale of the buildings that are in the vicinity of that and
what is coming in that area. Just moving on, still looking south but this I the pedestrian
perspective and I want to – oh I lost my clock. I don’t know how far I have gone here
in terms of time. My clock turned off.
Chair Lew: 4- minutes.
Mr. Pop: 4-minutes, alright thank you. I’m going quickly so we get through this. In the
for the ground you see (inaudible) and the trucks and the chain link fence and it’s too
close to the street. Then beyond that at 760, you see the concrete box and beyond
that, in the current photo, you see this corrugated metal building and that is something
that we are planning to replace. Frankly, what we are proposing improves on all of this.
It really is just so much better to resolve this 24-foot setback and terrace the building
back and maintain that kind of height that is so consistent with what is across the street
from it. Then looking north, again you can see, I think how successful the terracing is.
Really pulling the mass of the building back and away from the street in a way that we
heard everyone wanted and what we’ve attempt to really resolve. Taking a look at that
in this other direction, Sheldon already took you through this section so I won’t belabor
that but what we did is in order to achieve this changes the types of rooms that are in
the AC. We had some rooms that were two keys and modified that so it’s just one key
so we’re taking mass out there and we’re shifting the mass around to the back and into
the inside to where that green area is. It’s really much easier to see on this upper level.
Sheldon showed you kind of a roof plan of this but just diagrammatically at the top
floor, you can what we are doing is removing the double loaded corridor at the front.
We’re creating some really deep terrace and pulling the building back and all of that
mass is either being removed or shifted around in other ways but we’re staying at that
2.4 or 2.0 FAR. I wanted to just touch on that FAR for a minute. What we heard from
Council recently in their discussion of the Comp. The plan is that they are moving the
FAR. They are moving the FAR to 2.5. They want bigger hotels, they want more of this
and you zone for what you want. Hoping that your incenting people to create it. Then
it’s up to use as architects to craft that on the site in a way that works. Hopefully, I'm
bringing you along in a way that shows you that we’ve gone back, we’ve tried to study
how to compress this more to the middle. I resisted putting a picture of the Luxor Hotel
in the presentation but I think that what we are trying to do here is pretty reasonable
with buildings that have a base, a middle, a top. They’ve got character. The corners are
different from the middles. There’s a lot of articulation here and responding particularly
to Board Member Baltay’s comments. This three-story glass element that opens the
building up and is very inviting. The same thing is happening at the Courtyard. We’ve
got very similar tactics that we’re taking. You can see how just the eroded corner from
the 12/15 hearing has changed now to a much broader building and just – I want to
just touch on materials before my times up. These are some examples of what
Courtyards and ACs look like in other areas. For Silicon Valley and for Palo Alto in
particularly, we know that those need to be elevated. We bring you A+ materials here.
They are beautiful, they are durable, they are crisp. You’ve got the sample board and
we brought some additional material to show you what the metal panel – the thickness
of it. What the character of that Venetian plaster. It’s very smooth and hand applied.
Palo Alto ARB Minutes - Excerpt
April 6, 2017
4.a
Packet Pg. 178
City of Palo Alto Page 101
These are beautiful, durable, crisp material. Really consistent with the brand standards
are but at the same time, elevated in quality. I dropped in really quickly this image of
the shading to show you that there really is very little to no effect, that the building
height is creating around it. The only place that we’re really impacting is a wall that has
no windows. Just in summary here, we’ve spent quite a bit of time studying the site.
We’ve got other information here that I can take you through if you like but I want to
leave it – ah, perfect. I want to leave it with this image and let use have some
discussion about where we are and hopefully come to some resolution. We’re open to
any ideas. Thank you.
Chair Lew: Thank you, Randy. I’m sure we will get back to you with a lot of questions.
Let’s do the public comment period now and so we have Pat [phonetics][Starett] and
then followed by Joan [phonetics][Betzurey], then Joan [Lariby] and Nancy Martin.
Ms. Nancy Martin: First of all, I’m not Pat. I’m Nancy Martin but Pat had to leave and
she gave me her objections to read. They are hand written to bear with me. I’ll have
trouble with her handwriting. Her main concern is traffic and where is the emergency
vehicle problem addressed in the EIR? We know under CEQA, I guess emergency
vehicles are exempted but are they exempted under all codes? Where is this
addressed? Which code exempts this problem? I mean constantly you’re hearing
emergency vehicles going to accidents and problems down on 101 and they use San
Antonio and they use Rengstoff and this is going to cause huge problems – traffic
problems. The left on Leghorn is the – is inadequately addressed. It is a tragedy waiting
to happen. How do the emergency vehicles get around to attend a fire or a medical
issue? Nowhere did I see in the EIR where this problem was addressed. What about
emergency vehicles going to 101 to help with an accident? Please tell me why these
issues have not been researched? How many people are going to use the shuttles? Not
discussed. Numbers from the studies do not override the human element – do not
consider the human element in the area. They count. They are real and are already
there. The tables used in the report are just numbers. It looks like they share this
information and then wave the magic wand and they see how the problem disappears.
A good fairy is a children’s fairy tale and how modern problems disappear. This is Pat.
Thank you.
Chair Lew: Thank you. Joan [Betzurey].
[Ms. Joan Betzurey:] This have been a marathon. I’m here as a concerned homeowner
and I’m at Greenhouse one and I would like to strongly request that the ARB will not
and I repeat will not approve demolishing of the two existing buildings at 744 and 748
San Antonio Road. My reasons for that are as follows. 744 has been designated as a
historic resource per EIR point 3.4.3 and I quote, “744 San Antonio Road demolition
would result in the loss of a California Register eligible structure and mitigation
measures would not reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The project,
therefore, would result in a significant unavoidable impact to historic resources.” Also,
we find that there are realistically major problems and issues that continue to be
associated with this project with Marriott and as a result, approval could be
Palo Alto ARB Minutes - Excerpt
April 6, 2017
4.a
Packet Pg. 179
City of Palo Alto Page 102
questionable so why demolish two perfectly viable buildings? Some of the major on-
going problems and issues are being addressed at today’s meeting. We are submitting
comments to the EIR and as a majority of its conclusions of less than significant impact
is not based on complete or current data or information, which therefore makes those
conclusions questionable. As an example, I would like to refer to the Comprehensive
Plan policies, especially to the aesthetics and visual resources that apply to this project.
That would be L-5 and L-5 states, maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid
land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. With L-5
in mind, I refer Board Members to EIR 3.1.2.2, which has a questionable conclusion,
which is impacts to existing visual character. Comparison pictures are included showing
the existing site compared with the proposed site. I’ve brought here a high tech. copy
of that picture of the comparison. When you look at this, you can’t help but question
how the existing site comprised of single-story commercial buildings with trees, with
open space, is not visually degraded – thank you. Is not visually degraded by the
proposed massive, high-density, unattractive, five-story hotel structures, which are not
compatible with the neighborhood. I again ask the Board to deny permission of the
demolishing of the two buildings. Thank you.
Chair Lew: Great. Thank you and Joan [Lariby].
[Ms. Joan Lariby:] Good afternoon Board Members. It’s nice to see you all again. I’m
Joan [Lariby]. I’m a longtime resident and property owner here in Palo Alto; at 777 San
Antonio Road which is Greenhouse One. I’m opposing the construction of two hotels at
744, 748 and 750 San Antonio Road. This two-acre site should be reserved for housing.
The Comprehensive Plan is stating that in the next several years, we can expect 3,400
more employees – people working here in Palo Alto. These 3,400-people come but not
by themselves. They bring a spouse, the bring a baby and increasingly they are
bringing the grandparents so these families are going to need a place to live and we all
know that Palo Alto has quite a shortfall in available housing. This is a good are for
families where I have lived for the last 34-years and where my daughter graduated
from Gun High School. We have the Mitchell Park library, we have the Mitchell Park
Community Center, we have the YMCA that’s open to everybody, the Jewish Community
Center is open to everybody. We have the San Antonio station for Caltrain just down
the block. The primary land use along San Antonio Road from 101 to Alma Street is
housing. We don’t see it when we drive by because everything is very nicely landscaped
with nice pretty walls. One whole – about three blocks of it is single-family housing.
There are two schools as we know. There’s a daycare center so this is a good place to
live and I would suggest that the 2-acre site could have maybe what, 30-35
townhouses or condos. That’s my primary reason for opposing it. The next reason is
because of reading the EIR. The Environmental Impact Report is incomplete for two
hotels. The soils and water studies were done at least two years ago and they only
studied in one of the parcels, 744. I couldn’t find any data for the 748 and 750 acres;
it’s almost an acre. That’s the site where the Courtyard by Marriot is being planned.
They were done when the planning was only for one underground level of parking.
Now, we have two underground levels of parking but the studies were only done down
for one level of parking so you’ve got to go down another 10 or 12-feet; certainly, more
Palo Alto ARB Minutes - Excerpt
April 6, 2017
4.a
Packet Pg. 180
City of Palo Alto Page 103
than that. The water underneath this site is a major aquifer for Santa Clara County and
in 2015, the engineers in the EIR said that it would take 10-months to dewater this site.
This is under appendix H section 3.3. At that time, the water table was at 7 ½-feet
below grade but they pointed out that during wet years, the water table rises to only 4-
feet below grade and friends, we know we have had a very, very wet winter. Palo Alto
goes 28 ½ inches in the last – since last July 1st. We are expecting a category storm
two to come in and so we know Ben Lomond got 99-inches of rain. That water is
coming down both underground and through the creeks. In conclusion, I would like to
see townhouses there to at least help with some of the housing needs that we have for
new families coming in to work here. It’s zoned for housing and housing would not
need to go down below grade, except for putting in the utilities. It would not need to
go down 20-feet for the excavation, which is going to cause some pretty hardship
lateral taking away – I think the lateral support of the adjoining buildings and for all of
our utilities, which are under San Antonio Road. Again, thank you for your attention and
I would like to again, recommend housing. Yeah! Thank you.
Chair Lew: Thank You and Nancy Martin.
Ms. Nancy Martin: This time it really is me, Nancy Martin. I’ve been a resident at
Greenhouse One since 1976. My comments are going to be a bit scattered as I read
through the EIR. First, one that jumped out at me was cancer exposure for children,
less than significant. Excuse me? If it’s even a little bit significant, it is significant and
there are many schools in the area. There are schools on Middlefield, schools on San
Antonio, schools over off Charleston so to me, that is significant. Hazardous material
contamination. In reading through, it didn’t sound like tests had been thoroughly done
on hazardous material contamination. Why was this not done prior to issuing the EIR?
Many of the issues brought up are cumulatively less than significant – well, not
cumulative. I’m cumulative. Less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated
but if you take all those issues and I went through and tagged off six or seven. Those
added up cumulatively to significant impact. Noise impact, how long? I don’t think the
noise impact studies counted for all the trucks that are going to be coming and going in
San Antonio. I jumped to the section in the EIR of a summary of alternatives; needed
hotel. Excuse me? We have so many new hotels on El Camino, we do not need hotels in
San Antonio. Loss of Hyatt Rickeys. Excuse me, two new hotels went up within yards of
Hyatt Rickeys. This area is designated that it could handle 38-57 housing units. Seems
to me that that should be more of the focus of what Palo Alto is looking at. Taking care
of our own residents, not those that are coming into town. One of the things that I’d
read is that the City Council was saying housing should be built closer to transit. Excuse
me? If the hotels are going to use transit and its close enough for them to be putting it
in their report, it’s close enough for residents to use the transit. Project objectives, I’m
sorry, I only see the project objectives as money, money, money. Money for both the
developers and money for Palo Alto through the hotel tax. They refer to this area as an
under-utilized area. I’m sorry, it’s not underutilized as far as the businesses are
concerned or as far as the residences are concerned. Traffic, you can access the hotel if
you are coming from 101 by going up – coming up San Antonio, making a U-turn and
turning right. Everybody that’s going to be staying in that hotel is not going to be
Palo Alto ARB Minutes - Excerpt
April 6, 2017
4.a
Packet Pg. 181
City of Palo Alto Page 104
working at Google. They go to work in the morning, they are going to drive down San
Antonio, make a U-turn at Leghorn and go to HP or Google up the street or all these
other companies. The traffic impact is going to be horrendous. Sometimes it already
takes me 3-mintues to get out of the driveway at Greenhouse One onto San Antonio if I
am going straight onto Leghorn or turning left. Nowhere do I see anything addressing
as far as the number of employees? Where are the employees going to drive from? We
know they aren’t going to live in Palo Alto. They’re going to be driving in. Where are
they going to be parking? We are very concerned about parking on the street, which is
already a huge problem and the fact that people will sneak into our property to park.
That is a real concern. Where will the valet parking be? I know they’ve said around the
circle but you can’t tell me that those valets aren’t going to sneak out when things are
crowded in there and park on our streets. The number of cars, the traffic is going to
greatly increase the ozone and pollution levels and the trucks are going to just be
horrendous and we’ve only recently redid San Antonio. Trucks are going to make a
mess out of that again. Five-story hotels are incompatible with the one and two-story
buildings in the area. One last point? I think of the Greenhouses as being two-stories.
You cannot see our garage from the street and what are we going to go about
dewatering? Where is that water going to go? Thank you very much. I see nothing
positive and I’m for the 38-57 housing units that could be built there. Thank you.
Chair Lew: Great. Thank you. Thank you for speaking and thank you for being patient
with us for the previous items and the EIR comment period is open and so the Staff will
respond to the EIR comments. Yeah, Jon.
Mr. Lait: Yeah, that’s correct. We’re taking notes and we’ll include those remarked into
the final EIR, draft EIR that comes out and then also, we have an opportunity for the
applicant to have a rebuttal if we’re done with the public testimony.
Chair Lew: Did you want to rebut – you can also – I think we can – you can reserve
time and (inaudible) later too as well. Ok, are there any questions? Wynne.
Board Member Furth: How many feet above sea level is this site?
Female: (Inaudible)
Mr. Pop: I’m not sure exactly what the height level is but -- oh, I’m sorry.
Female: (Inaudible)
Mr. Lait: I’m sorry, Chair. Thank you.
Chair Lew: I’m going to…
Mr. Pop: I was going to – so, I was going to say my recollection and you know, I’d hate
to be held to this but it’s…
Palo Alto ARB Minutes - Excerpt
April 6, 2017
4.a
Packet Pg. 182
City of Palo Alto Page 105
Board Member Furth: Right. That’s alright.
Mr. Pop: …for sure (inaudible) but my recollection is that we’re around 15 or 18-feet,
something like that.
Board Member Furth: Thank you.
Mr. Pop: I think that Nancy…
Female: (Inaudible)
Chair Lew: Excuse me, I – hold on.
Mr. Pop: My recollection is that we’re about somewhere around 15-feet. Something like
that.
Chair Lew: For the members of the public, I think – I’m going to close the public
hearing portion of the – if you have an additional comment, you can send them by
email but also, when you speak out in the – from the audience, it’s not on the
microphone so it’s not getting recorded and it’s not getting put into the transcript. Ok,
Wynne, did you have a follow-up to that?
Board Member Furth: No, thank you. I appreciate being referred to the appropriate
section of the EIR, which I clearly didn’t read as fairly as some people.
Chair Lew: Peter? Robert? Anybody? Questions – this is just questions. I have a
question for Staff. One of the members of the public mentioned about the hotel's room
count and do we have a—has anybody been keeping a tally of the loss and net
increases of hotel rooms across town? Is that maybe PTC? Anyway, I don’t need to
know but I do think that maybe a feature report – I think the Council would be
interested in knowing where we are with hotels rooms because we do have 3 – oh,
Randy. We have three new hotels, right? We have Clement…
Mr. Pop: Again, I’m just…
Chair Lew: …Hilton Gardens Inn…
Mr. Pop: …(inaudible) I’m sorry, I’m sorry to just be doing this from memory but my
recollection that since Hyatt Rickeys closed. With the constructions of all of the hotels
that have been built since then, we’re still about 30 rooms shy of where we were when
Rickeys closed and so this project would then tip us up above that level. I’ll just share
briefly that the studies that we’ve done show that the hotel occupancy rate in Palo Alto
is beyond 98%, which is unusual and challenging.
Chair Lew: Thank you for that. I have another question for Staff. Please correct me if I
am wrong, I think that maybe in previous hearings, we were talking about increasing
Palo Alto ARB Minutes - Excerpt
April 6, 2017
4.a
Packet Pg. 183
City of Palo Alto Page 106
the turning lane – the left turn lanes on San Antonio or am I just – is that just – is that
incorrect or am I mixing up projects? No. Ok, that’s fine. It’s not – I don’t think it’s
critical at the moment.
Mr. Lait: It doesn’t look like we have any recollection…
Chair Lew: I may be mixing it up from -- we have projects on Page Mill Road that – Ok,
thank you for that. Let’s move onto Board Member comments then. Who wants to go
first? Wynne, do you want – thank you.
Board Member Furth: I’ll be the right wing. First of all, thank you to the applicant for
the new presentation and particularly for the visuals. Those are very helpful to me.
Thank you to David Powers and Associates for the really informative cultural resources
information and thank you Sheldon for putting the period drawing of what the – how
the semi-sacred space of the funeral home viewed itself in this context and thank you
of course to the public for your careful study of the project and continued discussion
with us. Most – as I listen to the public discussion, I keep being struck by the fact that
in most cases in regard to most of the issue that is raised, as my great grandmother
would say, I’m not on that Committee. I’m not making the zoning decision. I’m not
making the discussion about whether or not a hotel should go here or housing should
go here. The only thing I get to comment on is given this proposal, does it comply with
the City standards for this place and this use. With respect to CEQA, we could, of
course, comment on the adequacy or inadequacy of its analysis just as any member of
the public can. I keep being struck by the fact that saying that something is not a
significant impact on the environment, does not mean that it won’t be both perceptible
and adverse – have both a perceptible and adverse effect on people living there. An
impact on the environment is different than an impact on us. A significant health impact
surely should be addressed but on our – in some of the other ways, I can see things
that I believe would be adversely affected as well as things that would be positively
effected about this project but I am not convinced they rise to the level of
environmental – adverse environmental impact except the removal of the interesting
mid-century building. I don’t find anything – any fatal flaws in the CEQA document
based on what I know so far. I’d be interested to see what later drafts look like. For
me, there are two areas that I think we can and should address. One of them is high
local traffic flow and traffic flow on the site. The other is what this thing looks like and
on the first, I think it could work with really aggressive management on site, that pulls
vehicles and people and shuttles off the street fast and pulls them deep into the site. I
think that could work almost all the time and that’s probably about as much as we can
require. With respect to aesthetics, one of the things that I didn’t discuss about my
previous time with Mr. Pop was that I did rant at him about – in general, I am
distressed by buildings that come to this town, which does have a specific geography
and light and setting and aesthetic and climate and tradition and give no difference to
any of those things. Now, that’s – I’ve overstating that a bit. We have a wonderful
temperate climate and I think this hotel does provide more access to the outside than
some of its other designs and I also believe and I’ll be interested in hearing from my
colleagues on this, that it’s accurate that when they say that the building materials
Palo Alto ARB Minutes - Excerpt
April 6, 2017
4.a
Packet Pg. 184
City of Palo Alto Page 107
being used at better than those that we frequently see when we drive by similarly
badge or flagged hotels. However, I don’t particularly see things about the design that
say to me, we looked at the tradition. This is south Palo Alto, it had this – it was a post
war – post-World War II phenomenon. It – a lot of plain trees. It backs up to these
gorgeous hills and there where particular kinds of indigenous design and materials that
flourished here. By indigenous, I’m really thinking about post-World War II Blue Skies
architecture and not earlier settings. Instead, it has a great deal to do with the need
and desire of an international corporation to have its product easily identified by those
who it wishes to attract as customers and so that they will both be attracted here and
feel comfortable when they are there. Having said that, subject to hearing from the rest
of you on this topic, I think the site-specific traffic problems that most worry me, which
is that this project blocking the difficult flow of traffic on San Antonio could be
addressed with City required and enforced on-site mitigation. With the 24/7, hot and
cold valet service and the unloading of whatever to the back. I so appreciate that we’re
seeing the TDM proposals now rather than later because, at this point, they are so
integrated into our evaluation of the project, that we need to see that and I think it
needs more work. Not to say onto flippin but with respect to the building itself, I think it
has lots of virtues and I don’t think that – I like the Greenhouse Project. I’m not – I’m
very fond of the JCC as a person who uses it and I like some of its frontages. Some of
them I think is quick beautiful. Some of them are less successful but my – this is Palo
Alto. We are a City masquerading as a suburb. That means that we have lots of
significant vegetation. If we’re going to build five-story buildings, we need 4 ½-story
landscaping. My basic feeling on this, once you do what is possible with respect to
stepping things back, opening them up, using materials that we like, is to plan it out
where that makes sense. I am interested in hearing what my colleagues have to say
about what’s possible with landscaping as oppose to what’s been achieved so far and I
couldn’t figure out where the – couldn’t figure out where the artificial turf goes. It’s one
of the listed materials but I forgot to ask that question. So, those are my comments at
this point.
Chair Lew: Thank you, Wynne. So, you know one of my friends from New York City
come and visit. They always tell me that Palo Alto is a City masquerading as a soap
opera.
Board Member Furth: Well, that too but that’s the people they talk too.
Chair Lew: Ok. Peter.
Board Member Baltay: Thank you. I’m going to focus my comments on two areas of
concern that I’ve struggled quite a bit with and given it an awful lot of thought too.
They have to do with the overall building massing and whether it’s compatible with the
context of the building. Then the question of the parking in the local sense the way
Wynne was discussing it. I distinctly made some strong comments at the last hearing
about this needing to be one building in the middle of the site and I greatly appreciate
the applicant studying that option. It seems coming to the conclusion that it’s just not
viable for this site. I also appreciate them stepping back the front of the building. I find
Palo Alto ARB Minutes - Excerpt
April 6, 2017
4.a
Packet Pg. 185
City of Palo Alto Page 108
that the massing of the building as it’s seen from San Antonio is much improved and I
think acceptable. I spent quite a bit of time last Sunday, really trying to drive up and
down San Antonio and get a sense for what is the context because I -- this is
something that is going to come up quite a bit as the City grows. Especially as we allow
larger hotels into areas zoned otherwise for small buildings. I find myself further up San
Antonio, close to the shopping center up near El Camino and there are some very large
buildings there. I didn’t realize I had gone that far up and it’s been a few months since
I was there. They are quite large…
Chair Lew: They are 84-feet high.
Board Member Baltay: Then I found myself turning at the JCC and that’s also quite a
tall building. Then I was driving up El Camino and there are quite a few large buildings
like this as well and I guess I’ve come to the conclusion that this is contextually
compatible. In a broad sense, what’s on El Camino – on San Antonio is compatible with
the way this is going to look. It’s been a tough, head scratching, really thinking hard
about it because it’s not an easy call to me but in the end, I feel the building is
compatible. I feel that they’ve done quite a bit with the massing to make it step back
and fit into the area and then I can support it. That leaves with the question of the
traffic and rather than going on and on, I support what Wynne said. I think with
aggressive management; the design can work. I’ll leave my comments at that. Thank
you.
Chair Lew: Robert.
Board Member Gooyer: I had the same thing. I mean obviously, the biggest problem
with this is just the sheer size of the building and then I -- we have the same thing. Out
of the blue, my – couple of weeks ago, my wife decided that she wanted to have dinner
at Chief Chu’s, which we hadn’t been to in quite a while. Driving up San Antonio, all of
sudden what use to be the Sears building is now a – I don’t know, six-story, seven-
story straight vertical walls up and it’s like my goodness, this area really is changing. As
you said, it – if you look and see the larger pictures rather than just the one or two-
story buildings immediately adjacent to this building. A lot of the buildings there are
getting to be four or five-story buildings. I mean it’s the same on the peninsula itself. I
mean for years, people who moved into the peninsula in the 60’s and 70’s – let’s face it,
the various Cities, no matter what they are, are no longer bedroom communities. I
mean they are – they’re Cities unto themselves and no longer an adjunct to either San
Jose or San Francisco. Having said that, I was actually very pleased – having kept the
older presentation that you had. When you put the two next to each other as to the
amount of effort you really did do to relate or I should say to tone it down for the
residences across the street. I have to give you credit for that. There are a couple of
minor things that – I think you made the comment that – I guess Peter made the
suggestion about the three-story – sort of the larger entry on the building. I like the
way it works for the AC. For the courtyard, I think it’s just too big. I’d rather see – if
you’re going to do something like that and you want to keep it open, I’d rather see it go
up two stories and then angle back as a glass roof like an atrium type entry if you want
Palo Alto ARB Minutes - Excerpt
April 6, 2017
4.a
Packet Pg. 186
City of Palo Alto Page 109
to do that. Where you still bring the light in but yet again, tone it down as much as you
can do. This is a good example, the one we’re looking at here, that you really have
done a good job at stepping it back and I really do appreciate that. Now it’s a matter of
–I agree with a lot of those areas. You can work with some landscaping up there so
you get the landscaping up higher and it begins to tone the sort of severness of it
down. I think it’s come a long way. The issues as you said, is traffic and the problem is
we don’t really regulate traffic here but the – I agree with my Board Members that a lot
of that is going to depend on the management of the hotels. One advantage is if this
was an enormous group of or if it was a large condominium process, where there are
all kinds of individual owners, then you wouldn’t really worry about who was in charge
of making sure that the parking got taken care of. With a hotel like that, it – there’s sort
of a boss that can regulate these things and actually get it done. For that reason, I
agree that if it’s done properly, there are a lot of hotels that I’ve stayed at in very large
urban environments that do it beautifully. I mean, my god, before you turn around,
your car is gone. I don’t know where it goes but it’s gone. That sort of thing and that
could be done here also. You know, it’s that sort of thing. Other than that, I mean
we’re not making any final decision here but I think it’s a definite improvement and I
haven’t gone into the nits and bolts of exactly – I think maybe this ought to be trimmed
up a little bit or that sort of thing. I think that’s very doable. Other than -- like I said the
lobby, I think needs to be – there are two – the whole idea of being totally separate,
these two almost look like their sort of a kid brother of the other. The only thing is the
one at the Courtyard seems to be bigger and more dominate, which I don’t think it
what you really want over the AC. I think I’ll leave it at that also at this point.
Chair Lew: Ok, thank you for the revisions. I think the stepped massing on San Antonio
is a significant improvement. I think I had a different reaction than the rest of the
Board, maybe. I – how do I want to say this? I don’t think your site is (inaudible) – I
want to say that your building, I think looks larger in the drawings than it actually is.
Like when I look at the frontage, 280-feet, that’s similar to the Hilton Garden Inn on El
Camino, which is maybe 300-feet. 280-feet is about the same size as the Mayfield
housing on El Camino, which is 50-feet high. When I look on your elevations, the
building looks – for whatever reason, however you’ve designed it, to me, it looks huge.
It looks like the projects on San Antonio Road in Mountain View, which are way taller;
84-feet high. Your project is nowhere near that big but when I look at the drawings, it
looks that way and I so think that there’s something is amiss and I don’t know – I can’t
put my finger on it exactly. I have – I save all the drawing for all the hotels that come
by and I’m going to hold you to the same standard and I think you’re close but there’s
–I think that there are little things that are missing. I would say for example, on the
Homewood Suite, the cornice is like 4-feet deep, the windows are recessed. Not all of
them but are recessed 12-inches. Sunshades are probably like 3-feet deep. There’s a lot
of quality materials like there’s brick, there’s a lot of variation in the color and I think
that on these four or five-story buildings, you actually do need to use all of those tricks
that architects do to make it work. Actually, I should back up for a second. Also on the
Hilton – on the Homewood Suite, there are balconies, there are deep recesses in the
modulation and in the massing and I think some of those are missing. I think you’ve got
–I mean you started it. Some of it’s there but I’m finding it a little bit chaotic and my
Palo Alto ARB Minutes - Excerpt
April 6, 2017
4.a
Packet Pg. 187
City of Palo Alto Page 110
take on it was that you need one more revision to sort of tie it all together. If I can give
you an example, if looking on some of your elevations, you’ll have one thing in the first,
something different on the second floor, something different on the third floor. I think
it’s making it kind of chaotic.
Mr. Pop: I’m going to just bring it up so you can be specific for us.
Chair Lew: Yeah, so let’s say for example…
Mr. Pop: Do you want the front elevation? Is that what you’re looking for?
Chair Lew: Try – actually, you can do it on this or what about the (inaudible). I think
you have some 3-D and I’ll get…
Mr. Pop: Start with the Courtyard?
Chair Lew: Yeah, so why don’t we do – yeah, the Marriot (inaudible). I would say for
example – well, just – let me – in general, the Marriot Court Yard Hotel, I think the
beige color scheme with the wood. I think that you’ve made design linkages to the
(inaudible) company next door. It’s the same pallet. It has a wood-textured concrete
thing so I think you’re making design linkages there. I would say also with regard to
landscaping, you’ve made designs linkages. Say the olive trees, the New Zealand Flax,
some of the [Raphael Lepus], you’ve taken some of the plant pallets from the
Greenhouse and brought it over to this site so there are linkages. Here on the Court
Yard, like if I just look on the [Axon] here, the – right at the corner. You have one thing
on the first floor, you have something different on the second, something different on
the third floor, stepping on the fourth and yet more stepping on the fifth floor. Does it
really need to be chaotic? Can it be simplified? That’s just one example, I think there
are others if you go in – on the interior Courtyard side. On landscaping, I’m a little
troubled that the basement garage extends beyond the footprint of the building.
Particularly on the sides – side property lines. It seems to me like your only – you’re
proposing shrubs or maybe Italian Cypress there because you only have 5 or 6-feet to
plant.
Mr. Pop: You mind if we (inaudible)(crosstalk)
Chair Lew: Sure, and why don’t we – we have Gary Layman the Landscape Architect
here. I think – Gary, thank you. I don’t think we have the exact plant proposed for the
–no, you do. Excellent.
Mr. Gary Layman: We do. Along the side elevations, we wanted to get something that
was very fast growing; evergreens. So maybe give us some good scale there. Create
some layering. We have a sort of semi-transparent wood fence right on the property
line and the step back behind that we have the Italian buckthorn shrubs, which are
coming up vertically against the building edges there. We’ve chosen that because that’s
one of the fastest growing, drought tolerant, you know really resilient plant materials
Palo Alto ARB Minutes - Excerpt
April 6, 2017
4.a
Packet Pg. 188
City of Palo Alto Page 111
who can really thrive in that kind of environment. So, we’re expecting that hedge -- it’s
unbelievably fast growing, to be in the realm of 20-feet after about 5-years. So, it’s a
very impactful shrub planting there and it would work well within that 5-foot zone. We
are taking advantage of those areas where we have the garage slab (inaudible) of the
building wall and on many of those areas, we have out stormwater treatments. So, we
have flow through planters that occur there so we have shrub planting in those zone in
addition to the hedge planting along the property line.
Chair Lew: Then for the – is it you're saying it’s Indian Buck Thorn and then have you
factored in that there’s basement waterproofing – Italian buck – Italian? The basement
waterproofing. I mean that would typically take a foot out of the soil areas so I think –
where you have – what is it? We have 5-feet now or 6-feet?
Mr. Layman: Yeah, we tried to illustrate that there in the sections and the
waterproofing and the dewatering and such would be right up against the building wall.
It actually would be a fairly narrow profile so we have a generous amount of soil to be
able to sustain the planting in those areas.
Chair Lew: Then how do you get access for maintenance there? I mean you’ve got a
raised planter and the Italian Buckthorn and you’re planting. I mean it seems like a
challenge – I mean, it seems challenging to me to maintain that in the narrowest
locations.
Mr. Layman: It is a narrow location but there is enough room to be able to access those
areas. It’s a – part of what we were trying to do as well was not to make those areas
inviting for those – other than for those people who are going to be doing maintenance
but there’s enough room there to be able to survive those areas.
Chair Lew: Then are you aware that we have the new finding for native plants and
providing – or plants – or non-native plants that provide beneficial habitat in…
Mr. Layman: That’s right and we’ve included a lot of native plants, as well as
Mediterranean, adapted plants as a part of the plant palette. As you said, these are –
we tried to borrow from the adjacent sights to help continue that context.
Chair Lew: Thank you, Gary.
Mr. Layman: Thank you.
Chair Lew: Yes, Wynne.
Board Member Furth: Alex or my colleagues, I would be interested in – what Alex’s had
to say about the Court Yard has – if this project resonates for me, that is somehow sits
in the site better and ties in better than the AC portion and maybe it’s that cold gray
white and when I particularly look at the corner – looking at 3.0, if you look at the right
Palo Alto ARB Minutes - Excerpt
April 6, 2017
4.a
Packet Pg. 189
City of Palo Alto Page 112
most corner on the second row, that all – that whole frontage – it’s hard for me to read
an elevation but it doesn’t…
Board Member Gooyer: I think part of it…
Board Member Furth: …work.
Board Member Gooyer: … is that I think the AC is more formal – I think they want to
press a higher end.
Board Member Furth: I’m fine with formality. Apparently in Europe – another piece of
information I picked up that I forgot to disclose. They use more white. I wouldn’t mind
more white but this cold gray black…
Chair Lew: And there’s green too.
Board Member Furth: It doesn’t – for me, when I look at this, it seems harder to
assimilate into the setting and when I’m thinking about how – I must say, we should
remember that sun microsystems use to be down the road. I mean we use to have
significant height but people were use to low-rise residential vibe. Sorry, atmosphere,
there and I think when we evoked San Antonio at El Camino, we probably terrified
people. That as much – as nice as it might be to go to a three-story Safeway, this is not
what they want to live in or near so I’m still trying to figure out – I don’t think this is
the destruction of a great view. I think it could be a creation of an attractive view.
There’s nothing inherently awful about a nicely scaled, welcoming hotel where I can
walk in and get a drink but I don’t – I would like your thoughts on could – is there a
manageable way to make the AC section work better from the street?
Chair Lew: I have a question? Yeah?
Board Member Gooyer: I have a question and I’m – it was just brought to my attention
and we just talked about this. We were talking about the – and I made the totally
incorrect statement about a three-story entry space that I said about sloping it. When
in reality, if you look at that and it’s real deceiving. They are just rooms above those
two and the reality of it, that means there’s just going to be curtains that are drawn in
front of that and that’s going to destroy the whole look of the, I think entry.
Mr. Pop: May I respond?
Board Member Gooyer: Sure.
Mr. Pop: Yeah, thank you. So, you’re correcting correcting. Those are – at the lower
level its lobby space and common space that’s downstairs. At the upper level, it
translates to rooms – to guest rooms.
Palo Alto ARB Minutes - Excerpt
April 6, 2017
4.a
Packet Pg. 190
City of Palo Alto Page 113
Board Member Gooyer: I mean it’s a three-story space basically but the top two stories
are rooms.
Mr. Pop: Three stories of glass but the top two stories are rooms, that’s correct. You
know, I would draw your attention to the Hilton Garden Inn that was just built on El
Camino Real. I live near that and I drive by it all the time. That’s got some tall glass –
you know, Alex mentioned a couple other hotels and the Homewood Suites is one that
I’m intimately familiar with because I designed that one but the Garden Inn has this
similar type of glass, where it’s multi-stories. At night, you notice that the shades are
pulled because you can see into the building but during the day, you really don’t. It just
looks…
Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible)
Mr. Pop: …you’re moving past it. The glass is pretty successful but you know, this is
what’s interesting about architecture.
Board Member Gooyer: The classical example is the Four Season (East Palo Alto). At
night when you drive by, you’re looking basically in the hallway. The first time that
happened it’s like what the heck is that and it turns out it’s the hallway and it destroys
the whole look of it, to me. Here, it’s got this perceived grand entry and to me, the
thing that kills it and I’ve seen it done in other or I’ve seen it happen in other hotels.
It’s main not so much even the designer, who maybe had a vision of some sort but the
reality sets in and like you said, in the day time the curtains are all closed or open or all
this and it just destroys the whole concept of entry.
Mr. Pop: I understand.
Board Member Gooyer: If that’s the case, for the Court Yard, maybe just treat it as part
of the hotel and then do something of an (inaudible) or whatever. Something that just
says this is the entry and you showed the other various Courtyards that you have.
Almost all of them have a Porticulshare and it’s that sort of thing or something at least
just to say that -- well, that isn’t actually the main entry but still, it’s perceived to be or
then just change that so that it doesn’t look like an entry.
Mr. Pop: I’d just take your comments in concert with the comments that Chair Lew
described in terms of variety and the differentiation that’s happening in the building. To
tell you clearly, what we were trying to do is break down the massing.
Board Member Gooyer: (Crosstalk)(inaudible)
Mr. Pop: (Crosstalk)(inaudible)
Board Member Gooyer: … what’s next to it and extend it over. I wasn’t thinking that.
Mr. Pop: I’m comfortable doing something like that. These other hotels – particularly,
the Court Yards that you’re seeing.
Palo Alto ARB Minutes - Excerpt
April 6, 2017
4.a
Packet Pg. 191
City of Palo Alto Page 114
Board Member Gooyer: Right.
Mr. Pop: Unfortunately, we have a 24-foot setback, that’s a special
(inaudible)(crosstalk)
Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible)(crosstalk) Like I said, I’m not even worried so much
about the…
Mr. Pop: We can’t put a cornice, (inaudible)(crosstalk)
Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible)(Crosstalk)
Mr. Pop: Nothing can extend into that and so that’s the struggle with – 24-foot setback
is…
Board Member Gooyer: Oh, I understand.
Mr. Pop: …really difficult zoning issue.
Board Member Gooyer: Anyway, I just thought I’d – (inaudible) and I realized
(inaudible). Oh well, ok.
Mr. Pop: I appreciate that though, thank you.
Chair Lew: Can we go back to Wynne’s comment about the pallet the AC hotels. You’re
proposing (inaudible) colored stucco, not painted.
Mr. Pop: Yeah, I wanted to make sure that you had (inaudible)(crosstalk)
Chair Lew: (Inaudible) we haven’t reviewed – I saw the sample board but I just wanted
to mention to you – so, I haven’t seen it. I’d like to see it. The buildings that I’ve
worked on at Stanford and Stanford generally uses (inaudible)colors stucco. It’s much
richer and has suddenly far more than a painted stucco or…
Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible)
Chair Lew: … I know – well, it cracks.
Board Member Gooyer: No, not even that but when it rains (inaudible)(crosstalk)
Chair Lew: The color looks darker. Yes.
Board Member Gooyer: The only way to do stucco is integral ocolor and then paint it.
Board Member Baltay: No.
Palo Alto ARB Minutes - Excerpt
April 6, 2017
4.a
Packet Pg. 192
City of Palo Alto Page 115
Board Member Gooyer: I’m serious. I’ve done that for years. That way it (inaudible).
Mr. Pop: So, Mont has just a comment for you about this but I just want to make sure
that you understand what you are seeing in there because there’s a bunch of different
materials. We have a sample board that reflective of most of the materials and the
colors that we’re doing. Then we brought some individual pieces that are floating along
with that, which are indicative of the character and the quality of the materials. We
have a physical sample of the plaster that we’re talking about. This hand troweled
venetian finish that’s an integral color finish. That’s it and then we also have a piece of
the metal that would be painted in the colors that you see on the board that Wynne has
now. The reason why we brought that metal along is to show you sort of the…
Chair Lew: This is not the color. This is (inaudible)
Mr. Pop: That’s not the color, that’s the thickness and the weight and the durability of
that material. We wanted to bring the actual physical samples of what we’re using so
that you could really see that because they really are A+ materials. I think Mont has
something he wants to share.
Mr. Williamson: Just a comment on plaster. So, this is near and dear to our heart. We’re
a hotel here that’s across the country and in general, we don’t like plaster. We don’t do
–I wouldn’t consider this plaster. This concept of a Venetian plaster, it is – there are a
lot of labor in the steel troweling and it closes all the little capillary breaks in the
concrete. It doesn’t look like a typical plaster that soaks the water in. It is a different
effect so it’s almost like stone. I want to make sure we’re communicating. It’s applied
like plaster and then there’s a ton of labor, like they do in Europe, to close all those
pores and make it very high polished.
Board Member Furth: What’s the material that the (inaudible) go is stuck on?
Board Member Gooyer: Stuck on?
Board Member Furth: It says AC hotels…
Board Member Gooyer: That could be the metal.
Board Member Furth: … what’s the material (inaudible)(crosstalk) What’s that?
Chair Lew: It’s P8.
Mr. Pop: That’s the Venetian plaster.
Chair Lew: P8.
Board Member Furth: It’s the lighter color?
Palo Alto ARB Minutes - Excerpt
April 6, 2017
4.a
Packet Pg. 193
City of Palo Alto Page 116
Mr. Pop: When you think of that – you know what I’d like for you to be able to visualize
when you look at that is it’s essentially like having stone panels on the building. That’s
almost how it’s going to appear when you see it.
Board Member Furth: There are two different colors of that?
Chair Lew: P8 is the darker color.
Mr. Pop: There are two different colors of the plaster finish.
Board Member Furth: In the drawing it looks like the lighter color, right?
Chair Lew: Yeah but it’s labeled P8.
Board Member Furth: Ok, so I’m having trouble…
Chair Lew: If you go to sheet A4.0, P8 is the darker color and P7 is the lighter color.
Board Member Furth: Does that match what we’re seeing?
Mr. Pop: I just want to make perfectly clear to all four of you. This is the kind of stuff
that we are happy to adjust and temper and come to some terms with whether it’s in
this process or if you wanted it to come back to the subcommittee and just deal with
tweaks to the color. We would be – we’re very flexible about that. There’s a certain
brand recognition that I have spoken about in the past but Mont has told me that
there’s a lot of flexibility about this. We can adjust here if we need to but Board
Member Lew’s comments --Chair Lew comments about the Courtyard being on the side
that’s on – to respond to 760 and the character of that. I’ll say this and maybe it gets
me in trouble but my expectation is that the Cross Roads World Market that’s on the
other side is a very underutilized parcel. I’m expecting that that’s something we’ll in a
few years or maybe a little bit longer than that, be a parcel that is renewed and that we
would see something a little more contemporary over there. The idea is about
indigenous architectural and this was something that we talked alto about when we
were building the JCC. Should we build what’s old? Should we try and reflect that? You
know, that becomes a little Disney Land. It’s not really architecture in the same way.
What we want to do is we want to build for 2017 and something that’s appropriate for
now and his reflective of the history maybe in some way but really looks forward. That’s
how I tend to approach that and so, you know everyone has their opinions about
architecture and that’s what’s fun about it but that’s where we are.
Board Member Furth: (Inaudible) To defend my own honor esthetically, I would never
be asking you to build Soto whatever. I ask you to acknowledge where you’re building.
Mr. Lait: So, Chair…
Mr. Pop: Understood.
Palo Alto ARB Minutes - Excerpt
April 6, 2017
4.a
Packet Pg. 194
City of Palo Alto Page 117
Chair Lew: Yes, Staff?
Mr. Lait…just in the effort of…
Chair Lew: Yes, it’s 3:15.
Mr. Lait: … moving us along. We have one more item after this in our record breaking
ARB meeting. We do have to come back with some findings. It did sound like – I don’t
want to speak for the Board but it did sound like this was moving toward yes and if –
we do need to come back with some findings, we can do that. It sounds like there are
some very specific things that maybe need to be fine-tuned when we come back and if
we can articulate those, we can get this scheduled back for the Board within probably
the month or so.
Chair Lew: You would like comments on the draft findings?
Board Member Furth: Can I request one more thing and then I’ll shut up?
Chair Lew: Yes.
Board Member Furth: (Inaudible) If would be very helpful for me to see the drawings
we sometimes get, which show – for example, sheet A -3.0 with the plants. I know you
gave it to use with no landscaping so we can see the building. It’s very helpful for me
and I think also for the City Council to see those elevations with 5 or 10 or 20-year
landscaping in front of it.
Mr. Lait: That’s the kind of thing I think we should get in a motion as far as what you
want to see coming back.
Board Member Baltay: I’d like to throw one more thing out there I guess. Randy, I’m
looking at this and I’m really bothered by this three-story glass element on the front. As
I really studied these plans, it’s really wrong that you would put that out there and say
that’s a three-story space. That’s what I asked for and it’s not. It’s a bunch of rooms
above it. There’s no change in the building itself that justifies that. Looking now at the
facade for the AC building, I think it – you need one more pass at the just organization
of the massing. You’ve done a fine job getting it back in a big sense to me, our
concerns about contextuality but you just can’t have a three-story wall of glass and it is
two hotel rooms above it. I mean the people in there aren’t going to be happy. The
people outside aren’t going to be happy. It’s going to look different all the time. There’s
no door underneath it. You’re just trying to sort of appease one comment without really
taking it to heart as a designer and designing it differently, which is what I asked. I’d
rather – I think you need to go back around once more and maybe get rid of it if it’s not
working. You don’t want to put the door there. You can’t afford the three-story space.
Well, don’t try to trick me and show me something at first (inaudible) looks like that.
That said, I think Wynne’s comments about the pallet of materials also on the AC
Palo Alto ARB Minutes - Excerpt
April 6, 2017
4.a
Packet Pg. 195
City of Palo Alto Page 118
building. I think you could make it a warmer, softer gray. Try to get the grays to be
more compatible with the warmer (inaudible) (crosstalk)…
Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible)
Board Member Baltay: …after so I can move that – if – are we ready – are we looking
for a motion Alex or do you want to do that?
Board Member Gooyer: If that’s the case, I’d like to see the same thing occur on the
three-story space at the….
Board Member Baltay: Oh, absolutely. Yeah, on both of them. Yeah, I mean as much
as I’d love to see a three-story glass lobby. If that’s not going to happen, don’t just put
the glass there without everything else. That’s just not going to work and because
you’ve done that, now I’m afraid you’re back to the drawing board to figure it out so it
really does work. I don’t support approving it now. I think you are in for another round
but the basic idea works. I’m ok continuing this – shall I make that motion Alex?
Chair Lew: Right, I think the Staff recommendation is to continue it to a date uncertain.
Board Member Gooyer: Uncertain or certain?
Chair Lew: Well, the Staff recommendation that – the thing that I have says uncertain.
Mr. Lait: Right so that’s the Staff recommendation. Based on the Board’s dialog it does
seem like there’s some discreet – I’m hearing it’s not there yet but there are some
discreet things that need to be addressed that, I think the applicant could probably do
within the next couple of weeks and we can schedule this to a date certain, to come
back in a month’s time.
Board Member Gooyer: Would you be happier with a date certain?
Mr. Pop: Yeah, I was just going to say that I really appreciate how specific everyone
has been today. It’s very helpful to hear the precise comments the way you have
delivered them. 5/18 would be an easy option for us.
Board Member Gooyer: I don’t know. We did the last one at 5/18, can they…
Mr. Lait: Yeah, we’re looking at the schedule now to see what’s on there but…
Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah (inaudible)
Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible) use to long days.
Mr. Lait: Yeah, let’s not make a habit of this
Palo Alto ARB Minutes - Excerpt
April 6, 2017
4.a
Packet Pg. 196
City of Palo Alto Page 119
Mr. Pop: Don’t want to beat you up but we’re anxious to come back to you and we can
certainly turn this around thoughtfully but quickly.
Board Member Baltay: I will not be present at the meeting on the 18th. If that’s
combined with Kyu being recused, then that’s not a good idea.
Board Member Gooyer: Ok. That’s true. That’s right because you’re stuck with four
people rather than…
Chair Lew: Peter, you had sent out an email on the dates that you are going to be
absent and then I think Robert, you had mentioned that you’re going to be absent?
Board Member Gooyer: (Inaudible)
Chair Lew: Ok, so you’re not…
Mr. Pop: 6/1?
Chair Lew: Is it 6/2? I’m just looking at the schedule.
Mr. Pop: Oh, do I have the date wrong? 6/1 I think.
Chair Lew: OK, I think our schedule is off.
Female: (Inaudible)
Chair Lew: No, I think we’ve closed the public hearing but you can – please do continue
to send – you can send emails to Sheldon and we can keep the communication open.
Female: (Inaudible)
Chair Lew: I have to say the – we can’t – everything that you say now is not being
recorded as part of the hearing.
Female: (Inaudible)
Chair Lew: Actually, it does need to be recorded.
Mr. Lait: We just need a motion from the Board as to whether you want to continue it
to – what is it June?
Ms. Gerhardt: 6/1.
Mr. Lait: June 1st and then with a discreet list of things that need to be addressed upon
its return. Alternatively, you could push it to the 18th but you’re going to have three
members.
Palo Alto ARB Minutes - Excerpt
April 6, 2017
4.a
Packet Pg. 197
City of Palo Alto Page 120
Board Member Gooyer: To a date certain.
MOTION
Board Member Baltay: Ok, I’ll move that we continue this project to a date certain of
June 1st with a request that they revise the design. The massing of the three-story
façade of both buildings to not have a three-story wall of glass and perhaps slight
better articulate the overall integration of the forms.
Board Member Gooyer: Different – a warmer…
Board Member Baltay: Then secondly, to go for a warmer pallet on the AC building. The
grays are fine but a warmer tone instead of grays.
Board Member Gooyer: And a better landscaping to show what it would look like with
mature…
Board Member Baltay: The third one is about the landscaping. Is it the landscaping
itself or the presentation of the landscaping?
Board Member Furth: What I would like to be able to do is see it but my goal is to have
landscaping that is significant with regard to this building. We pushed up the
landscaping…
Board Member Gooyer: As Gary was saying, what is it going to look like in 5-years?
Board Member Furth: And what I am saying is that I want it to be up there. We had
Mercedes get taller trees…
Board Member Gooyer: Right.
Board Member Furth: …. because it’s a taller building. I want tall trees.
Board Member Baltay: So, the third condition is then to get a more detailed landscaping
plan with larger, taller trees per Board Member Furth’s comment and then present it on
the plan’s set…
Board Member Gooyer: Nice to show what it would look like.
Board Member Baltay: …to really show what it would look like. Did I cover it? That’s the
motion then.
Board Member Furth: (Inaudible)
Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second that.
Palo Alto ARB Minutes - Excerpt
April 6, 2017
4.a
Packet Pg. 198
City of Palo Alto Page 121
Mr. Lait: I don’t know if – Chair, you had your comments about the recesses and the
canopies and so forth. The depth – adding some depth to the façade wall.
Board Member Furth: They eyelashes on the upper stories.
Board Member Baltay: That’s what I meant by that first comment about…
Chair Lew: I think that’s…
Board Member Baltay: … improving the articulation of massing.
Chair Lew: …in the articulation of forms and there are built to requirements and
building code requirements for cornices and projections with regard to the property line.
I mean – I think that’s stuff that Randy has to work out so I think we’ll just leave it at
articulating forms. Ok, so we have a motion by Board Member Baltay and seconded by
Board Member Gooyer. All in favor? Opposed? None and we have Vice Chair Kim
abstained.
MOTION PASSED 4-0 WITH VICE CHAIR KIM ABSTAINED.
Chair Lew: Ok. It’s 4 – it’s almost 4:30 and this is a record.
7.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2555 Park Boulevard [17PLN-
00064]:
Palo Alto ARB Minutes - Excerpt
April 6, 2017
4.a
Packet Pg. 199
Attachment B
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: bit.ly/PApendingprojects
2. Scroll down to find “744 San Antonio Road” and click the address link
3. 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=4394&TargetID=319
4.b
Packet Pg. 200
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 9797)
Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 11/15/2018
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 3945 El Camino Real: Subcommittee Review of Revisions
Title: 3945 El Camino Real [16PLN-00374]: Second Subcommittee
Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned
to Return With Project Changes Related to 1) Designated
Guest Parking Spaces, 2) Details for Several Material Choices,
3) Location and Design of at Least two Benches, and 4)
Alternative Colors/Stains for the Siding. Environmental
Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with Section
15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning Districts: CS/RM-30. For
More Information Contact Project Planner Graham Owen at
graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s):
1. Discuss and provide direction or approve project revisions.
Background
On June 26, 2018, the Director of Planning and Community Environment approved the subject
project. At the Board’s recommendation, a condition was imposed that required certain project
elements return to the ARB subcommittee. The project was reviewed by the ARB
Subcommittee on October 4, 2018, at which time, the Subcommittee requested additional
information.
Architecture Review Condition:
a. Revised plans to include the proposed designated guest registration space layout option “C”
in the project plans.
5
Packet Pg. 201
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
Determination:
The Subcommittee determined the guest spaces were sufficient as shown on Sheet A02.00
at the October 4th meeting.
Architecture Review Condition:
b. Detail of the proposed material choices for the Trespa siding (i.e. dimensions, spacing, color,
etc.), stone veneer wall edge detail, roof soffit material choice(s) detail, roof eave detail (along
El Camino Real), detail of the trash enclosure eave, detail of entry corner post at the street-
facing entry (i.e. material transition) and design.
Applicant’s Response:
The Subcommittee requested additional details. Specifically, a detail that shows the metal
trim at the corner of the tespa material, details that show the thickness of the stone wall
and how the aluminium trim edge would be applied, details of the roof thickness and
further soffit details.
Architecture Review Condition:
c. Location and design of additional (minimum two) bench seating to be located adjacent to
public right-of-way.
Determination:
The Subcommittee determined the proposed benches were sufficient provided the bench
closest to the sidewalk has back support.
Architecture Review Condition:
d. Alternative color shades or stain for PT2 and WD2 to better match the proposed Ipe or
Trespa siding.
Applicant’s Response:
In response to the Subcommittee’s request for additional colors choices, the applicant will
bring a color and materials board to the meeting.
A video recording of the Board’s June 26, 2018 hearing on this project is available online:
http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-2-3-2-2-2-2/. The Board is encouraged
to provide direction to staff and the applicant as to whether the proposed changes are
sufficient or requires further refinement.
5
Packet Pg. 202
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
Report Author & ARB1 Liaison
Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager
(650) 329-2575
jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Attachment A: Location Map (JPG)
Attachment B: Approval Letter with Conditions (PDF)
Attachment C: June 7, 2018 ARB Minutes Excerpt (DOCX)
Attachment D: Applicant Description of Revisions (PDF)
Attachment E: Project Plans (DOCX)
1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
5
Packet Pg. 203
5.a
Packet Pg. 204
June 12, 2018
Shawn Alexander
Axis GFA
1000 Brannan Street, Suite 404
San Francisco, CA 94103
Subject: 3945 El Camino Real (16PLN-00374) – Major Architectural Review
Hello:
On June 7, 2018, the Architectural Review Board recommended approval of the application referenced
above and as described below. The Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director)
approved the project on June 12, 2018. The approval will become effective 14 days from the postmark
date of this letter, unless an appeal is filed in accordance with Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
The approval was based on the findings in Attachment A, and is subject to the conditions of approval in
Attachment B for the project. The project is described as follows:
3945 El Camino Real [16PLN-00374]: Request by Shawn Alexander, on behalf of Rajen Shah, for Major
Architectural Review of a comprehensive exterior remodel of an existing hotel, located in the Service
Commercial (CS) and Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence zoning district (RM-30). Exempt from
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Section 15301. Zone
Districts: CS/RM-30.
Unless an appeal is filed, this project approval shall be effective for two years from June 26, 2018, within
which time construction of the project shall have commenced. Application for extension of this
entitlement may be made prior to the expiration date. The time period for a project may be extended
once for an additional year by the Director of Planning. In the event the building permit is not issued for
the project within the time limits specified above, the Architectural Review approval shall expire and be
of no further force or effect.
Should you have any questions regarding this ARB action, please do not hesitate to contact the Project
Planner, Phillip Brennan, by email at phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org or by phone at (650) 329-2493.
Sincerely,
Amy French
Chief Planning Official
Attachments: A: Findings for Architectural Review Approval
B: Conditions of Approval
5.b
Packet Pg. 205
16PLN-00374
Page 1 of 9
ATTACHMENT A
ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
3945 El Camino Real
16PLN-00374
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
Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for
the site is Multiple Family and Service Commercial.
The project continues the Service Commercial
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 proposed remodel of the existing hotel either
adheres to or increases compliance with the
applicable design guidelines, development
standards, and performance and context-based
criteria established for development in the CS
zoning district.
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 life, meet
citywide needs and embrace the principles of
sustainability.
The project scope includes widening a section of
sidewalk along the subject site’s frontage bordering
El Camino Real to 12 feet, which enhances the
pedestrian environment and encourages active
transportation options along this service
commercial corridor.
Policy L-2.2: Enhance connections between
commercial and mixed use centers and the
surrounding residential neighborhoods by
promoting walkable and bikeable connections and
5.b
Packet Pg. 206
16PLN-00374
Page 2 of 9
a diverse range of retail and services that caters to
the daily needs of residents.
Policy L-2.11: Encourage new development and
redevelopment to incorporate greenery and
natural features such as green rooftops, pocket
parks, plazas and rain gardens.
The project increases the amount of landscaping on
the site providing new greenery along the frontage
and interior landscaping to include six new trees
located in existing planter and parking islands.
Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create
coherent development patterns and enhance city
streets and public spaces.
The proposed remodel replaces the existing roofline
with a shed style roof that has its highest point
away from the street, providing a more pedestrian-
scaled frontage along El Camino Real. Additionally,
the front-entry opens facing the sidewalk and is
notched back to provide additional visual clearance
for pedestrians and guests exiting the site’s parking
lot.
Policy L-6.6: Design buildings to compliment
streets and public spaces; to promote personal
safety, public health and well-being; and to
enhance a sense of community safety.
Transportation Element
Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that
encourage and promote walking and bicycling. The project as proposed provides more (9 bike
racks) bicycle parking than required (one short-
term space per 10 guestrooms; 67 room = 7 bike
racks) as required per municipal code. The
provision of these facilities implicitly promotes
active modes of transportation for hotel workers
that may utilize bicycles to travel to work,
shopping, or services.
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.
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 forwards a coherent contemporary design
and enhances the existing streetscape and includes amenities such as an outdoor seating area intended
to serve as an inviting gathering area for hotel guests. The proposed shed style roof above the main
5.b
Packet Pg. 207
16PLN-00374
Page 3 of 9
lobby slopes upward from the street toward the lot’s interior which serves to visually reduce the scale
and mass of the remodeled hotel from El Camino Real. The proposed design compliments the similarly
styled school building (Keys School) adjacent to the site. The proposed scope of work does not
negatively impact 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.
The project is consistent with Finding #3 because:
The finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project proposes a compatible contemporary
architectural design that utilizes clean and simple building lines and forms. The exterior material and
color palette includes a mixture of modern and rustic materials such as standing metal seamed roofs,
corrugated metal accents, Prodema cladding, painted wood rafter tails, aluminum louver treatments,
and a combination of warm earth tone and neutral colors on painted cement plaster. Taken as a whole,
the proposed remodel project will benefit the surrounding area aesthetic.
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 the project includes functional design aspects
intended to enhance the pedestrian environment, increase safety, and allow convenient access to on-
site facilities. The project provides a widened section of sidewalk to continue the existing 12 foot wide
segment of sidewalk in front of Keys School, creating a friendly environment for those walking in the
area. The proposed remodel includes a street facing lobby entrance that is jogged back to provide both a
covered entry, as well as to increase visibility of pedestrians and sightlines for drivers exiting the hotel
driveway. The proposed new covered trash enclosure has been increased in size to accommodate the
current level of service and allow easy access for waste recovery crews.
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 the proposed landscape design integrates into the
building design and site’s functions. Six new 24 inch box trees will be planted in new and existing planter
areas on the site to break up sightlines and provide shading along the expanse of the parking lot. Smaller
landscape improvements to include native and adapted drought tolerant species along the site’s
frontage, buffers between the ground floor guest rooms and parking area, and the courtyard. The
extensive row of mature dense shrubs along the south side yard property line will be maintained to
provide screening for hotel guests and students at the adjacent school.
5.b
Packet Pg. 208
16PLN-00374
Page 4 of 9
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.
5.b
Packet Pg. 209
16PLN-00374
Page 5 of 9
ATTACHMENT B
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
3945 El Camino Real
16PLN-00374
________________________________________________________________________
PLANNING DIVISION
1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans
entitled, "ASCEND PALO ALTO_3945 El Camino Real,” stamped as received by the City on May 1,
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 ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of
approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit.
4. ARB Subcommittee: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall return to the ARB
subcommittee for approval of the following items, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and
Community Environment:
a. Revised plans to include the proposed designated guest registration space layout option
“C” in the project plans
b. Detail of the proposed material choices for the Trespa siding (i.e. dimensions, spacing,
color, etc.), stone veneer wall edge detail, roof soffit material choice(s) detail, roof eave
detail (along El Camino Real), detail of the trash enclosure eave, detail of entry corner
post at the street-facing entry (i.e. material transition) and design.
c. Location and design of additional (minimum two) bench seating to be located adjacent
to public right-of-way.
d. Alternative color shades or stain for PT2 and WD2 to better match the proposed Ipe or
Trespa siding.
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. GUEST REGISTRATION PARKING. The approved plan will utilize Option C for the layout of the
dedicated guest registration parking spaces. These dedicated spaces will be located in parking
5.b
Packet Pg. 210
16PLN-00374
Page 6 of 9
space #1 and #32, as shown on Sheet A02.00 of the approved plans; each of the accessible spaces
will be relocated one space over to the right.
7. 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.
8. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the
City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against
any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the
applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project,
including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in
defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with
attorneys of its own choice.
9. 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.
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
In addition to the peak parking demand reduction strategies outlined in the approved Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) plan dated March 29, 2018. The following standards and procedures
apply:
10. Required measures identified in the TDM plan shall remain in full force for the life of the project
unless altered by the Director of Planning and Community Environment.
11. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the Director two years after building occupancy and again
every year thereafter; see PAMC 18.52.050(d)(2). Prior to conducting required monitoring activities,
the applicant shall engage a qualified third party professional and submit a draft scope of work to
the Chief Transportation Official for approval. The draft report shall then be submitted to the Chief
Transportation Official for review, and if necessary, revision.
12. If, based on the results of the ongoing monitoring program, peak parking demand exceeds 60
parking stalls, the Director of Planning and Community Environment may require implementation of
the alternative parking plan described in the TDM plan, changes to the TDM program to meeting
parking demand targets, or impose administrative penalties if identified deficiencies are not
addressed within six months (PAMC 18.52.050 (d)(4)).
PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING
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.
5.b
Packet Pg. 211
16PLN-00374
Page 7 of 9
13. EASEMENT: Indicate all existing easements on lot.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.”
17. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and/or 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.
18. 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
19. 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.
PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION
Strictly comply with all recommendations contained in the tree protection report. There is a duty for the
project applicant/developer to protect neighboring trees.
20. 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.b
Packet Pg. 212
16PLN-00374
Page 8 of 9
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. TREE PLANTING. The applicant shall notify the Urban Forestry Section (650.496.5953) 24-48 hours
prior to installation of any new trees on site for the purpose of inspection and ensuring compliance
with tree planting standard detail #604 or approved alternate.
25. 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.
5.b
Packet Pg. 213
City of Palo Alto Page 1
2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3945 El Camino Real [16PLN-00374]: Request
for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow an Exterior Remodel of an
Existing Two-Story Hotel Building at 3945 El Camino Real. Environmental
Assessment: The Project is Exempt from CEQA per Guideline Section 15301 (Existing
Facilities). Zoning District: Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence District (RM-
30) and Service Commercial (CS). For more information, contact the project planner
Phillip Brennan at phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org
Chair Furth: Item 2 is a public hearing. It's quasi-judicial, so we should disclose any extramural
conversations. Thirty-nine forty-five El Camino Real. I will let planner Phillip Brennan describe the project.
Phillip Brennan, Project Planner: Good morning to Chair Furth and members of the Board. A quick
reminder that this is the second review of this project. This was originally heard back in April of this year.
At that time, the Board provided specific feedback to the applicant and the applicant has responded to
that. I just want to briefly go over how the applicant, the responses to those comments and guidance.
The Board provided direction, requesting that the applicant reduce the total number of materials and
enhance the street-facing side of the building. They mentioned the need to increase the street presence
of the lobby; increase seating options for pedestrians; utilize alternative tree species; and explore
dedicated guest registration parking space alternatives. In response to that feedback, the applicant has
reduced the number of material choices and enhanced the quality, utilizing higher-grade finishes,
including Ipe siding carried through from the main building and lobby to the patio area, and Trespa
panels. There is a materials board being passed around. Just this morning, though, the owner of the
property brought an alternative sample for the Ipe siding. It's also a Trespa-type tile that has a wood
finish. According to the owner, this is a much more higher-grade material, more expensive material, and
that's their preference. The Board may want to consider that alternative. The design team has increased
the glazing along the second story lobby that's facing southbound El Camino to better signify the entry
and lobby area of the hotel. They are also proposing a metal awning to identify the front entrance into
the lobby. A new bench has been placed at the front entry of the lobby. Also, a new change that you may
not see in your hard copy plans but was included in a recent updated digital submittal, the applicant is
proposing a new bench to be placed under that entry, which is an ideal place. There is a loading space
area directly in front of the lobby on El Camino, and this is most likely going to be the ideal place where
shared-ride services and taxi services are going to be dropping off and picking up. I'm suggesting that
the bench faces towards the southbound traffic so they can see the vehicles coming. As of right now, the
applicant is proposing a stationary cement platform bench, but we'll leave it up to the Board to decide
that detail. New native tree species have been proposed. One Pacific madrone is to be utilized, is to be
the feature tree in the outdoor patio. Two Catalina Ironwood trees are to be located in the large stairwell
planters, and three California Sycamore trees in each of the parking island planters. At the last hearing, a
few of the board members expressed a desire to explore dedicated guest registration parking areas, and
the applicant has proposed three alternatives. They just included a third option recently that's not
included in their plans that I'll go over now. This first option, Option A, utilizes two existing parking
spaces as guest registration spaces. Those will be marked with a placard identifying it as a guest
registration space. It's located near the patio and directly adjacent to the lobby entrance. Option B is this
tandem parking orientation that places the guest registration spaces closer to the lobby. I did want to
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
EXCERPT MINUTES: June 7, 2018
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 AM
5.c
Packet Pg. 214
City of Palo Alto Page 2
bring up the fact that I did go over this with our fire department staff member, and he did confirm that
fire needs a 25-foot drive aisle for this type of parking lot orientation, which features 90-degree parking
spaces. This would be problematic in providing that. I think it's also an issue that the lobby is on the left
side of the lot, so you have the potential of cars coming southbound on El Camino, cutting across the
drive aisle to park there, or having to turn around and do a three-point turn to park in those spaces and
utilize that space. Option C moves the ADA parking next to the stairwell, over. This makes a lot of sense
because the two ADA ground-floor units are directly located in front of those spaces. We placed the guest
registration space closer to the lobby, and one of the guest registration spaces are located directly across
the lot. I did want to bring up again that just recently - six or seven months ago - a loading space,
approximately 30 feet long, a white loading space, has been provided on site, and that's directly located
in front of the main entry into the building. Again, this will likely be the ideal location for drop-off and
pick-up for shared ride services and taxis on El Camino. I also did some field reconnaissance to look at
some comparable hotels in the area to the Comfort Inn that were recently remodeled. My findings found
that hotels such as Zen and Creekside Inn have provided no dedicated guest parking spaces. The Nest
Hotel, which is just around the corner from the Comfort Inn, does have dedicated guest registration
spaces, as you can see in the picture on the left. That's in front of the patio, and from my understanding,
The Nest is actually the hotel that a lot of the design aspects have been modeled after for this hotel. It's
staff's opinion that to require the applicant to move the lobby structure or reduce the structure to
accommodate some guest parking spaces is a bit cumbersome to the applicant. They have no desire to
reduce the lobby size. This was initially proposed as an exterior remodel. We've already asked them to
provide a notched-out front entry to accommodate the entry of the hotel facing out to El Camino, and it's
been expressed to me that to reduce the lobby to accommodate another guest parking space is a deal-
breaker for them. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed exterior remodel of the hotel based on
findings, and as subject to conditions of approval. I'll leave it at that. If you have any questions, I'll be
happy to answer those.
Chair Furth: Are there any questions of staff? Hearing none, would the applicant care to make a
presentation? You have 10 minutes to do so, if you do.
Shawn Alexander: Good morning.
Chair Furth: Good morning. If you could spell your name for the record.
Mr. Alexander: Yes. I am Shawn Alexander. (Spells name.) I'm with AXIS/GFA Architects, and I am the
architect for the project. Thanks for having us here this morning. Phillip, thank you very much for your
presentation. I think you captured the essence of our design and what we've done to respond to the
ARB. We are very happy to work with the ARB to get a design that you guys are happy with, that's fitting
for the community, and is something that our client, can be proud of. In regards to your questions at our
last meeting back in April, you asked us to take a look at making the entry more prominent, possibly
making a two-story lobby space more visible, add more glass. We've done that. We've added a canopy
over the entryway to make the entry more prominent. We've added bench seating for guests to wait for
Uber/Lyft ride services, and we've located that underneath so it has some degree of weather protection.
We've worked very close with planning staff to come up with design responses that meet the intent of
your comments from the last presentation. We've simplified materials. It's a building we're very proud of,
and we hope that you are happy with our design responses to your comments. I'm here to answer any of
your questions.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Admirably concise. Does anybody have questions of the applicant?
Board Member Thompson: Yes.
Chair Furth: Board Member Thompson.
Board Member Thompson: I was wondering if you could go through your elevation and denote exactly
where all the materials are going.
5.c
Packet Pg. 215
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Mr. Alexander: Sure. You've got the materials board, but we had originally proposed in your drawing
package that all of the brown colored materials on the lobby building and on the trash enclosure would
be an Ipe material. You have the sample there. Phillip had mentioned to you that the owner is actually
willing to upgrade that material to a Trespa product. It's a much more expensive material. And in the
upper portion of the building, we originally presented it as cement plaster. We've upgraded that material
to a Trespa, again, a much more...Yes, the white material. You have the white Trespa and the sort of
warm, mahogany-colored Trespa on the bottom that work together.
Board Member Thompson: Where does Wood 2 go?
Mr. Alexander: I'm sorry...?
Board Member Thompson: It's also in the key for your elevations, but I couldn't find it on the building.
Mr. Alexander: Forgive me, I'm not really sure where that was intended. My apologies.
Board Member Thompson: Are you saying it doesn't exist in the project?
Mr. Alexander: I don't believe it exists anymore in the project.
Ms. Gerhardt: Board Member Thompson, what page are you on? Is it 9.3?
Board Member Thompson: Yeah, if you look at...
Mr. Alexander: Unless it's on the fence in the back of the property.
Mr. Brennan: It's actually identified here. If you go to A09.03, if you look at the lobby patio elevation, the
bottom elevation, you'll see "WD2."
Board Member Thompson: Okay, so is that structure...
Mr. Brennan: I'll let the architect...
Board Member Thompson: ...for the roof?
Mr. Brennan: It looks like the underside of the roof.
Mr. Alexander: Oh, I'm sorry.
Mr. Brennan: Sure.
Mr. Alexander: Yeah, my apologies. That would be the stained roof material and the stained beams.
Vice Chair Baltay: Is that...? Well, I don't know if you're going to be able to answer. It looks like it's a
piece of redwood here. Is that correct? And this is fine vertical grain clear redwood?
Mr. Alexander: Yeah, you know, I'm not sure if it's going to be redwood. The hope is that it would be.
The intent is to try to get the coloration to match closely to the color of the Ipe, but it's up in an eve, it's
in shadows, it's not as prominent. You wouldn't build it from Ipe because you've got structural beams up
there. The exposed wood there would essentially be tongue and groove decking material.
Board Member Thompson: And is the intent of the paint color PT2 to match the Ipe color?
Mr. Alexander: You're referring to the color on the cement plaster columns and facia? Yeah. Our intent is
to try to get as close to the Trespa color or the Ipe color.
5.c
Packet Pg. 216
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Vice Chair Baltay: And the stacked stone here - ST1? Forgive me, I'm just having a hard time seeing the
numbers on the elevation. They're small.
Mr. Alexander: Yeah. The intent of the stacked stone at this point was to put it on, if you look at page
903...
Vice Chair Baltay: Yes.
Mr. Alexander: ...you can see next to the lobby entry that's back underneath the circulation, there's a
solid wall.
Vice Chair Baltay: I'm sorry, I...
Mr. Alexander: To the left of the stair, and to the right of the lobby glass. Back underneath the circulation
from the deck above.
Vice Chair Baltay: These multiple colors of various tan on that piece of wall there is the stone?
Mr. Alexander: That's correct.
Vice Chair Baltay: Are there any other renderings of what that would look like from the edges, or
anything like that?
Mr. Alexander: I don't have any other renderings. Sorry.
Vice Chair Baltay: How do you end the wall when it sort of stops? You have a corner at 90 degrees. How
is that treated?
Mr. Alexander: We're going to trim the edge of the stone with some Ipe wood. That was our intent.
Vice Chair Baltay: Is there a design detail of that?
Mr. Alexander: I don't have a design detail for that, sir.
Vice Chair Baltay: How about for the Trespa siding you're proposing? Is this the proper dimension of the
board? Are they long tiles to look like boards, or are they...?
Mr. Alexander: No, they're actually solid boards, sir.
Vice Chair Baltay: What are the dimensions and what are the details, again, of the edges.
Mr. Alexander: My apologies.
Vice Chair Baltay: It's okay. It's clear that we have a little bit of thinking to do on the details and the
finishes, still. Thank you.
Board Member Thompson: Okay, so the Ipe grain, there's sort of long, sort of linear slats. Are you saying
the Trespa would be like that, as well?
Mr. Alexander: The Trespa grain, the intent is that the grain would run horizontal, just like the wood
grain would be if it were Ipe.
Board Member Thompson: Sort of the same spacing, otherwise?
5.c
Packet Pg. 217
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Mr. Alexander: My understanding is the owner wants to do the linear strips of Trespa as opposed to a
larger solid panel.
Board Member Thompson: I see. Okay.
Chair Furth: Any other questions of the applicant or staff?
Vice Chair Baltay: Phillip, can I come back for a second to that third option on the parking arrangement?
Is there a drawing of that or something, aside from the slide you showed us?
Mr. Brennan: No, that's the only drawing I have for that.
Vice Chair Baltay: That's nothing that we can see except for the slide you showed us?
Chair Furth: Want to put it up again?
Mr. Brennan: Sure.
Chair Furth: Essentially, you moved over to the left.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, we did move some parking spaces over, so that's something that we would likely want
to bring back to subcommittee, if that's the option. Or, you could leave that to staff to make that detail
happen in the plan set, as well.
[Short pause]
Chair Furth: You moved the disability access spaces over, away from the lobby, and put the registration
space next to the lobby.
Mr. Alexander: That's correct.
Chair Furth: Just slide them down.
[Short pause.]
Chair Furth: Thank you.
Vice Chair Baltay: I guess, to the Chair. I would like to comment that all of us spent some time going to
the site, thinking about this, looking at it, and we respect that you want to come up with a last-minute
change that improves it, and it seems like it does. But it really disrespects our efforts by not letting us
have that drawing and have it a little bit ahead of time. When I was out at the site, it would have really
been nice to think about this option, as well. And yet, here we are, at the very last minute, being shown
a slide, and nothing else. It's difficult. Thank you.
Mr. Alexander: Member Baltay, I understand your concern there, and it's my apology that we weren't
able to provide that drawing to you beforehand. It was an option that was thought up at a last minute.
And worthy of showing the Board.
Chair Furth: All right. Okay. You may sit down, if you would like.
Mr. Alexander: Thank you.
Chair Furth: Alex, would you like to start?
5.c
Packet Pg. 218
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Board Member Lew: I think the project is looking very handsome. I can recommend approval of the
project today. I think there are a couple things that need to be followed up. One is the drawing is too
light and really needs to be darker for the final, the microfilming and records. Two, I like the aesthetics of
the building a lot. It seems to me that you should have some details to give an indication that they're all
well-resolved, and I think Peter Baltay mentioned something like the stone and wood details. I was
thinking about that when I was looking through the set. Not every detail, not construction-level details,
just an indication of quality. On the guest parking, I don't have a strong preference. My take on the
parking is I think similar to staff's position. Most motels during the day, there's very little occupancy of
the spots, so it's not an issue. I do think it is an issue late at night. Somebody checking in late often will
find there aren't very many spaces, but I think that's part of the territory. I often check into motels really
late when I'm on a road trip. Usually if you park in the aisle, sometimes I'll do that, it's not an issue
because there isn't that much traffic at that time of day. And then, I also expect the motel to be full if I'm
checking in really late. It seems to me either A or C is fine with me. It seems like your Option C may
interrupt some of the landscaping that you have between the parking and the building, but I think that's
pretty minor. On the findings, I think on Finding #2 on page 11 of the packet, I think I might add - for
staff - I think I might add that the aesthetics of the project complement the contemporary aesthetic of
the Keys School next door. You know, the contemporary design of the shed roof, fairly modern eve
details, and what-not. That's all I have. I think the design is really great. I really applaud the architect
and the owners for doing this project. I think it looks nice. We have a lot of other motels in the
neighborhood who have done really nice things on the inside but haven't touched the outside that much.
And I like that you've actually tried to make it, tried to integrate the interior and exterior together. Thank
you for that.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Robert?
Board Member Gooyer: Okay. I like the advance on the outside. I think it's helped quite a bit. I'm still not
a fan of the whole entry, the way that works. I just think it's a really weak entry. It's hard to find. As far
as the parking, I think Option 1 and Option 3, they are viable, but I think you're going to have a hard
time finding those spaces. Option 2, I don't think is even a starter. I mean, I don't know why you threw
that in. That's probably illegal the way it is, or doesn't meet code, and that was just useless. The one
thing I would recommend that I thought would be a more viable one is to take your spaces - I think it's
27, 28 and 29 - that are 90-degree parking, turn those into two 60-degree parking spaces. So, you lose
one, but that way you've got a readily-accessible, right when you pull in, you see the two parking spaces
that are unique, which makes them unique to the entry, rather than just being one of the masses.
Because once you have a half-dozen cars parked in there, nobody is going to go, "Oh, those two standing
over there are for people registering." And, yes, it does lose a parking space, but I think in the long run,
it's a better solution to that. At this point, like I said, it's a big step forward. I like the material uses here
better than you had before, but I’m still on the fence at this point.
Chair Furth: Osma.
Board Member Thompson: Hi. Yeah, I would agree with Board Member Gooyer that this has come a nice
ways since last time. Looking at the materials, aesthetically, I think the Ipe, I think has a nicer presence
than the Trespa. So, if you're thinking about that, that would be my preference. At the same time, I think
the other two items that you've picked for Wood 2 and PT 2 don't match the Ipe just yet in terms of their
shade. While the design intent is that you'd like to match it, it doesn't seem that way at the moment. I
would encourage maybe finding a shade that matches your sample a bit closer. Also, in the findings,
Finding #3 in the packet still talks about corrugated metal accents and aluminum...Yeah, there's sort of
bold material choices in there. That would probably need to be updated. I do think it's come a long way,
it's true. The entry, I'm sort of struggling with. I think in the way that you've rendered it, it's sort of hard
to see exactly what's happening in terms of the change in plane. It does seem like a compressed entry.
Yeah, I think the bench that you've shown with the option, with the landscaping behind it, seems to
create more of a presence, potentially, but I'd be open to discussing that more with the Board. I could
come close. I could come close to recommending, but I think these material choices are really important,
so maybe looking at it again in subcommittee, or something. I'd be open to that.
5.c
Packet Pg. 219
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Chair Furth: Thank you. Peter.
Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, thank you very much, and thank you for your studies on the parking options. I
know I was the one who was pushing hard to get something close to the lobby, and I do admit, it doesn’t
work, what's shown. Option C, I think, is preferable. I share the comments and sentiments of my
colleagues, especially Alex. I think the building looks very good. It's a big improvement in design and it
will be a handsome addition on El Camino. I applaud you for making the effort to improve the exterior of
your building. It's really good for the City to have that. That said, I'm finding the detailing and some of
the questions we've been asking are just not satisfactorily resolved. I'm going to suggest that we put this
to a subcommittee to review some of the details and final material selections. I think it's a
straightforward matter to make the appropriate selections, but, I'm sorry, it's just not here right now.
There's just too many questions about how it is proposed. For example, if you're using Ipe siding, which
we've done on many projects, you might say it's a tongue-and-groove board where you're just looking for
a plainer surface with horizontal lines where the grooves are. If you're Trespa, it's typically set off a little
bit. The material expands slightly. And then, you see the edge of it, where it's clearly not wood. It's a
very different material even though the grain does match, and you have to treat it that way. It takes
some architectural effort. They're not just a like-for-like substitution. You have to design that material
differently to work, and I don't think any of us are seeing that resolution here. I'm open to either
material, personally, although I do caution you that Ipe is very difficult to maintain. Within a year, every
year, it will need to be refinished. It's such a dense wood. It's not typically used for this application for
that reason. It's also not inexpensive. I'm going to propose to my colleagues, though, that...Actually,
first, there's two design elements that are more than materials that I find troublesome. One of them, if
you look at Sheet A12.02, the upper right-hand corner perspective, this is the corner post of the new
entry where you have glass all around the corner. I understand that you want a structural column there.
I find it really awkward to have the two materials just sort of, the wood stopping half way up, and then
the white Trespa there. On a small, narrow member like that, I would like to think there's another way to
detail how that transition is made, or indeed, if you don't just have the white post come all the way
down. Or, maybe you have a different post, a round column painted a different color. Some design effort,
because here, it just doesn't quite work, in my opinion. We'll see if my colleagues agree, but again, that
upper-right perspective on A12.02, where that column is. The second thing I've compared is, on Sheet
A00.07, the trash enclosure roof eve is treated differently than it was in a previous submittal, in that it
doesn't really have much of an overhang. Whereas, the previous submittal had a slightly larger overhang,
which I found much more appealing. I'd like to see that resolved. I'll pass this down to my colleagues so
they can see the previous submittal. Those are the two very small design issues that you might just think
through once more. Then, I was going to suggest that we ask for, just to be precise, details of the Ipe
and Trespa siding, details of how the stone veneer is applied, details of the trash enclosure roof, details
of the soffit, the piece outside the front door. You're showing a very attractive metal finish, top-and-
bottom thing, and that would look very nice if it's properly detailed that way. So, some resolution on that.
I suppose a detail of the overall roof eve. Alex is correct that you want to be really responding to the
building next door. It's all about the details. It's not hard to do, but draw it out, put it there so the
contractors build it that way, and the staff has something. And, lastly, this entry corner post. That's some
of my comments. Thank you.
Chair Furth: Thank you. I'm prepared to vote to approve this and make the findings. I thank you all for
your...I thank Alex and Osma for their comments on the finding changes that we should have. I like the
bench under the eve, but I don't think you should eliminate the bench along the sidewalk. The south El
Camino guidelines talk about seating for the public, as well as the users, tenants, occupants of this
building. I'd like at least one of those benches - and I think it's up to the applicant which one - to have
arms so that people who don't stand up easily can get up out of the bench. I think a back is probably not
quite as important, but these should be benches that people with varying degrees of strength can use.
And I feel strongly that there should be two of them. This is a pedestrian loading zone, is that right?
That's been established on the street?
Mr. Brennan: Correct.
5.c
Packet Pg. 220
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Chair Furth: Those are interesting. I didn't know they existed. That would certainly be helpful here. I'm
so pleased that you're planning to redo this building in this style. I think it will look much better, much
more attractive as a place to be. I, too, check into a lot of motels sort of late. I really like having a
dedicated parking space by the office, so I strongly favor Option C. I don't care if there's one or two, but
I think it needs to have one. I propose that we recommend approval with a referral to subcommittee to
deal with the design details that you all have mentioned. That's my point of view on this. Basically, thank
you very much. This is going to be a much more attractive building on the street, and I trust that it will
be good for business, too. Would anybody care to make a motion?
MOTION
Vice Chair Baltay: I'm gearing up to do that, if that's okay. I move that we recommend approval of this
project to the director, with Option C for the parking. And then, we would like to see it come back to
subcommittee, specifically to see details of the Ipe and Trespa siding. That's the material and
configuration. Details of the stone veneer. That's the configuration on the sides. Details of the trash
enclosure eve. Details of the soffits at the entry area. Details of the roof eve at the top of the building on
El Camino. Details of the entry corner post, I'm calling it. And, lastly, details of benches, showing a
minimum of two benches outside.
Chair Furth: Is there a second.
Board Member Thompson: I can...
Board Member Lew: I will second.
Board Member Thompson: Yeah, go ahead.
Chair Furth: Osma, would you care to be recognized?
Board Member Thompson: Could I add to that list, I guess this would be a friendly amendment?
Ms. Gerhardt: Can we make the second, first, and then do a friendly amendment?
Board Member Thompson: Yeah.
Chair Furth: I think we have a second from Board Member Lew.
Board Member Lew: I seconded, and I will entertain an amendment.
Board Member Thompson: To add alternate shades for PT 2 and Wood 2 stain to better match either the
Trespa or the Ipe.
Vice Chair Baltay: Absolutely.
Board Member Lew: I would accept that.
Chair Furth: Okay, the friendly amendment is accepted. Anything else before we vote?
Board Member Thompson: I also want to add a comment. Is it too soon? To add a comment, just on the
entry post item?
Chair Furth: Go ahead.
Board Member Thompson: Yeah, I agree with Board Member Baltay that that entry post could use some
more design refinement in terms of how it's detailed.
5.c
Packet Pg. 221
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Chair Furth: All those in favor say aye? Opposed, none.
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0.
Chair Furth: Who would like to serve on the subcommittee? Don't all wake up at once.
Vice Chair Baltay: I would.
Board Member Thompson: I would.
Chair Furth: All right. This will be your subcommittee, Board Members Thompson and Baltay.
Congratulations on getting through another step in the Palo Alto process. We look forward to seeing your
project built. Thank you. We will take a five-minute break while you set up for the next item.
5.c
Packet Pg. 222
5.d
Packet Pg. 223
Attachment E
Environmental Documents
Hardcopies of the project plans are provided to ARB Members. These documents are available
to the public online, as described below, or 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: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning
2. Search for “3945 El Camino Real” and open record by clicking on the green dot
3. Review record details on the right side and click the “more details” option
4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments”
5. Open the attachment named “Subcommittee Plans”
5.e
Packet Pg. 224
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 9770)
Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 11/15/2018
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 3223 Hanover Street: Subcommittee for Landscaping and
Bicycle Path Improvements
Title: 3223 Hanover Street: Subcommittee Review of Building 1
(16PLN-00190) and Building 2 (17PLN-00255) Landscaping and
Bicycle Path Improvement Plans in Accordance with Respective
Conditions of Approval.
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s):
1. Discuss and provide direction or approve project revisions.
Background
The Director of Planning and Community Environment approved a project (16PLN-00190) to
construct at 115,000 square foot office/R&D building on the subject site on March 22, 2018. At
the Board’s recommendation, a condition was imposed that required the landscape plan for the
rear of the site to return to the ARB subcommittee. An application for a second, 67,200 square
foot office/R&D building (17PLN-00255) on the subject site was filed subsequently, which was
approved the Director on September 11, 2018. At the Board’s recommendation, a condition
was imposed for the second building that required the Bol Park Bicycle Path improvements
proffered with the application to return to the ARB subcommittee.
A video recording and meeting minutes of the Board’s last meetings on these projects are
available online:
Building 1 (16PLN-00190):
Video: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-58/
Meeting Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56819
Building 2 (17PLN-00255):
Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYdbNwp7uPg
6
Packet Pg. 225
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
Meeting Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67602
Below are the items that were requested to return to the subcommittee and the applicant’s
response to the ARB’s comments:
Building 1 (16PLN-00190) - Architecture Review Condition:
ARB SUBCOMMITTEE. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall return to the
ARB subcommittee for approval of the following items, to the satisfaction of the Director of
Planning and Community Environment:
LANDSCAPING PLAN. The landscaping plan shall be reviewed to ensure the efficacy of
the planting material, retaining wall, and earthen berms along the rear property line to
screen headlights (i.e. light source) from view of the neighboring properties.
Applicant’s Response:
The plans submitted for subcommittee review show substantial tree protection along
the rear of the site. Additional trees and shrubs to be planted in this area include Live
Oaks, Evergreen Mountain Lilacs, with lower ground covers such as deer grass and
purple top verbena. The grading plan outside of the delineated tree protection area
shows an earthen berm, as well as a retaining wall at the end of the drive aisle to
prevent vehicle headlight glare.
Building 2 (17PLN-00255) - Architecture Review Condition:
ARB SUBCOMMITTEE. The approved plans include landscaping and lighting improvements to the
portion of the Bol Park Bicycle Path along the northern lease line of the site. Prior to the
issuance of building permits, the applicant shall return to the ARB subcommittee for review of
the final Bol Park Bicycle Path Improvement plans. The improvement plans shall be in
substantial compliance with the project plans dated September 6, 2018, and subject to an
Improvement Agreement received by the City on July 3, 2018 with the adjacent lease holder for
improvements in their lease area. The applicant shall coordinate the landscaping and lighting
improvements with the Barron Park Association’s Bol Park Pathway Committee, adjacent
neighbors, and City’s Office of Transportation. Final improvement plans shall be subject to
approval of the Director of Planning and Community Environment.
Applicant’s Response:
The plans submitted for subcommittee review show grading, landscaping, and section
drawings describing an on-site path spur intersecting with the Bol Park Bicycle Path near
the northeast corner of the project site. The Bol Park Bicycle Path curves at a 90-degree
angle at the proposed intersection, which merges at a near perpendicular to the apex of
the curve. The previously proposed “trailhead” seating area at the spur intersection has
been removed, while the trailhead features at the Hanover Street and Bike Path
intersection have been retained. The project plans show a collection of low shrubs at
6
Packet Pg. 226
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
the intersection, including dwarf karo and sunset manzanita, and a hedge of Evergreen
Mountain Lilac along the Path, all of which are also shown in the plant palette and
schedule. The plans show a series of bollards on the spur-side of the intersection that
are intended announce the intersection.
Discussion
Staff has visited the project site to better understand the tree line at the rear of the site, and
has found that existing vegetation is substantial. With the proposed tree protection fencing, as
well as the combination of berms, hedges, and retaining walls to shield headlights, staff
believes that the proposed screening strategy will function as intended.
Staff has received communications regarding the bicycle path intersection from a few neighbors
that live in Barron Park. Some comments support the proposed spur location, while others
support a different intersection point located further from the adjacent homes, and others
prefer that no spur path be permitted at all. Concerns raised include perceived safety issues
related to the intersection, as well as concerns about increased foot and bicycle traffic near the
back yards of the adjacent homes. The Planning and Transportation Divisions have reviewed the
plans and not foresee safety issues stemming from the proposed location as the grade change
along the spur is slight (5 feet elevation change, 6% slope), and the intersection geometry
would require a slow speed in order for a cyclist to successfully navigate. Staff does not
recommend the proposed bollards, but would instead recommend posted and painted signage
to alert cyclists to the approaching intersection that is consistent with the Caltrans Highway
Design Manual standards for Class I Bicycle Paths.
The Board is encouraged to provide direction to staff and the applicant as to whether the
proposed changes are sufficient or requires further refinement.
Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information
Graham Owen, AICP, Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager
(650) 329-3223 (650) 329-2575
graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Attachment A: Project Plans (DOCX)
1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
6
Packet Pg. 227
Attachment A
Project Plans
Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Subcommittee 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: bit.ly/PApendingprojects
2. Scroll down to find “3223 Hanover Street” and click the address link
3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the ARB subcommittee
project plans and other important information
Direct Link to Project Webpage:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3522
6.a
Packet Pg. 228