Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2018-12-06 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: December 6, 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 / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3128 El Camino Real [17PLN-00462]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Minor Architectural Review to Allow the Remodel of an Existing McDonalds Restaurant. Scope of Work Includes: Remodel of Exterior Facade, Landscaping, Signage, and Outdoor Seating. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15301a (Existing Facilities) Zoning District: CS (Commercial Service). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Adam Petersen at apetersen@m-group.us 3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3705 El Camino Real [18PLN-00136]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request of a Major Architectural Review to Allow for the Demolition of two Existing Retail Buildings and Construction of a 100% Affordable Housing Project. The Project Consists of a Four Story Building Containing 59 Residential Units, Two Levels of Garage Parking, and Associated Site Improvements. The Applicant Also Requests a Zone Change to Apply the Affordable Housing Combining District Regulations to the Site, and a Design Enhancement _______________________ 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. Exception to Allow for Garage and Ground Level Encroachments into a Required Rear and Street Side Yards. Zoning District: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15194 (Affordable Housing). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at Graham.Owen@CityofPaloAlto.org. 4.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4115 El Camino Real (17PLN-00280): Recommendation on a Major Architectural Review for a Proposed Three-Story, 16,725 Square Foot Mixed-Use Development Comprised of Ground Floor Retail, Second Floor Office and Residential, Third Floor Residential (Seven Residential Units in Total) and Below-Grade Parking. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is Being Circulated for Public Comment Between November 30, 2018 and January 2, 2018. Zoning District: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. 5.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. Crown Castle/Verizon Cluster 2, University South Multiple Addresses [17PLN-00433 File Uses 250 Hamilton Avenue Address]: Request by Sure Site (on behalf of Crown Castle to Lease to Verizon) for Seven Small Cell Node Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permits in the Public Right of Way, Including Six Streetlight Nodes and One New Streetlight Node. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study is Being Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning of Node Locations is Public Facilities, Adjacent to These Zones: Public Facilities (275 Forest); Commercial Downtown CD-C (P): 345 Forest; Residential Transition (SOFA) RT-35: 248 Homer, 190 Channing; DHS (SOFA) - 385 Homer, 905 Waverley (formerly 400 Channing), 845 Ramona. For further background information, please refer to the City’s website under the project file number 17PLN- 00433). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Rebecca Atkinson at Rebecca.atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org. 6.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. Crown Castle/Verizon Cluster 3, Downtown North Multiple Addresses [17PLN-00450 File Uses 250 Hamilton Address]: Request by Sure Site (on behalf of Crown Castle to Lease to Verizon) for Six Small Cell Node Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permits Poles in the Public Right of Way on Six (6) Wood Utility Poles. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study is Being Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning of Node Locations is Public Facilities, Adjacent to These Zones: RM-30 (205 Everett/251 Emerson, 243 Hawthorne and 258 Waverley); RM-D (NP) 482 Everett and 301 Bryant; RM-15 (201 High). For further background information, please refer to the City’s _______________________ 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. website under the project file number 17PLN-00450). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Rebecca Atkinson at Rebecca.atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org. 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 7.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 4, 2018. 8.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 18, 2018. Subcommittee Items Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment Discussion of Architecture Award winners _______________________ 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 # 9633) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 12/6/2018 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. 5 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. 6 2018 Schedule Architectural Review Board Meeting Schedule & Assignments Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/5/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 1/18/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/1/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/15/2018 /17 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Baltay 3/1/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/15/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/5/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/19/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/3/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/17/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/7/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/21/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 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 9/20/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/4/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/18/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/1/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/15/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/6/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/20/2018 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2018 Subcommittee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair on the day of the hearing January February March April May June 1/18 Baltay/Lew 5/3 Furth/Lew July August September October November December 9/6 Lew/Gooyer 10/4 & 10/18 Thompson/ Baltay 11/15 Furth/Lew 1.a Packet Pg. 7 Architectural Review Board 2018 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics December 20 2321 Wellesley: Two New Units & Zone Change to RMD(NP) 3200 El Camino Real: New Hotel (2nd Formal) Vinculums/Verizon: Cluster 2 (1st Formal) 1700 Embarcadero Rd Mercedes / Audi (2nd Formal) 695 Arastradero: New Mortuary Building at Alta Mesa Cemetery 1.b Packet Pg. 8 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9839) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/6/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3128 El Camino Real: Minor Board Level Review of Exterior Modifications (2nd Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3128 El Camino Real [17PLN-00462]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Minor Architectural Review to Allow the Remodel of an Existing McDonalds Restaurant. Scope of Work Includes: Remodel of Exterior Facade, Landscaping, Signage, and Outdoor Seating. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15301a (Existing Facilities) Zoning District: CS (Commercial Service). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Adam Petersen at apetersen@m-group.us From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1.Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB on November 1, 2018. An earlier staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to City codes and policies. A copy of the report without prior attachments is available in Attachment G and the draft excerpt minutes are available in Attachment H. The report is also available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67465. The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the Board and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report and modified to reflect recent project changes. 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Background On November 1, 2018, the ARB reviewed the project in a first formal hearing. The Boards’ comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Landscaping: The Board expressed a desire to see new landscaping that would improve the site. The applicant replaced existing lawn area between the front dining patio and the sidewalk along El Camino Real with a variety of shrubs, perennials, and ornamental grasses Shading and Built-to-line: Provide a trellis that enhances the outdoor dining experience with shading and visually brings the building to the street. The applicant has proposed an aluminum trellis system painted to match the charcoal color of the metal awning. The trellis will be covered with a 68% perforated metal material. El Camino Real Pedestrian Environment. Enhance the pedestrian friendliness of the site along El Camino Real with landscaping and public seating. The applicant proposes new landscaping along El Camino Real consisting of New Zealand flax and a variety of echeveria (a succulent) plants. The applicant also repositioned the trellis at the back of the proposed 12 foot wide sidewalk, four feet from the property line. Seating Area Configuration, Railings and Trash Cans. Include details of the seating area configuration as it relates to the entry and proposed bike rack. Update the railings to be consistent throughout the project, and upgrade the garbage cans onsite. The applicant has provided a colored close up of the outdoor seating area that shows dedicated bike parking positioned adjacent to the outdoor dining area, 16 ft. from the rear edge of the sidewalk and 11 ft. to the closest entrance of the building. The railings that border the entry walkway from El Camino Real and around the outdoor dining area are consistent with the proposed metal railings around the side dining area. The applicant has provided detail sheets of the proposed garbage cans for the site. Use of Corrugated Metal Siding. Extend the corrugated metal siding lower into the stucco area. The applicant has extended the corrugated metal siding lower into the stucco area along the non-drive through elevation, across a portion of the front façade, and along the side of the drive- through elevation. 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 A video recording of that meeting is available online: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural- review-board-74-11012018/. Analysis1 The ARB board discussed five primary areas that the applicant should address as summarized in the previous table. The following sections describe these issues in detail and the applicant’s responses. Landscaping The Board commented that there was an opportunity for significant landscaping to improve the site, to enhance the landscape experience on site, and create new landscape ideas. Project Response: The applicant proposes a new landscape experience. While the project would retain the multi- stem Japanese Maple tree in the front of the site, they would replace the grass around it with a combination of one-gallon blue oat grass, dwarf heavenly bamboo, and New Zealand flax with a meandering path of blue grama separating these plants from succulents that are behind the flag poles. The existing cobbles would remain at the flagpoles. Beyond the flag poles, and up to the edge of the sidewalk along El Camino Real, the applicant proposes additional succulents. These succulents are also proposed along the outer edge of the brick wall that is parallel to the sidewalk along the frontage of the site containing the building. Behind these walls, the applicant proposes dwarf heavenly bamboo. Fronting the parking spaces that frame the front landscaped areas would be the blue grama and where it is perpendicular to the sidewalk would be blue grama. Planters are proposed along the non-drive through elevation of the building, adjacent to the outdoor dining area. Blue grama and dwarf heavenly bamboo are proposed for these planters. The proposed landscaping is included in sheet T-3 and an image of the landscaping, showing the outdoor dining area configuration, is included below. Figure 1 – Enlarged Site Plan with Landscaping 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Shading and Built-to-line The Board noted that removing the existing trellis would make outdoor dining less welcoming, and that the inclusion of a trellis would enliven and even perhaps enhance the street frontage. A trellis over the outdoor diners provides a sense of enclosure, particularly with the dining areas’ orientation towards El Camino Real. Project Response: The applicant proposes a metal trellis system over three key areas of the project site: 1) the walkway from El Camino Real to the project frontage, 2) the front outdoor dining area, and 3) the non-drive through outdoor dining area. The trellis system would be painted to match the charcoal color of the metal awning on the building itself. The trellis will be covered with a perforated metal material that is 68% open. This trellis would provide shade for customers while enhancing the street frontage. 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Pedestrian Environment The Board noted that they could not make the finding that the project was pedestrian friendly and that the project needed to demonstrate how a pedestrian from the sidewalk approached McDonald’s. Project Response: The project has responded to the Board’s desire for a more pedestrian friendly environmental in two distinct ways. First, the project proposes a metal trellis over the entry walkway to the back of the 12 foot wide sidewalk. This shifts the trellis approximately six-and-a-half feet closer to the sidewalk than the existing trellis feature. Second, the applicant has proposed landscaping along the back of the sidewalk, comprised of succulent plants, in place of hardscape. Figure 2 and Figure 3 below show the existing conditions and a rendering of the proposed project. Figure 2 – Existing Frontage Conditions Figure 3 – Proposed Frontage Conditions 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Seating Area Configuration, Railings and Trash Cans The Board deliberated about the need for additional details including an understanding of the seating area configuration as it relates to the entry, proposed bike rack, and lawn area; updating the railings to be consistent throughout the project; and upgrade the garbage cans onsite. Project Response The project provides bike parking that is located between the outdoor dining area and the entry path that extends from El Camino Real to the building. The bike parking provides spaces for six bikes and would provide approximately four-and-a-half feet of circulation space from the rear tire to the dining area. Additional wider space and access to the dining area is provided from either side of the bike rack. The unobstructed pathway in front of the bike parking is approximately five-feet in width and would provide direct access to the building entrance. Figure 4 below provides a close up view of the front outdoor dining area and the bike parking. The applicant has proposed consistent metal railings around each of the outdoor dining areas. These are shown on sheets A2.0, A2.1, A2.2, A2.3 as well as the color elevation sheets in the plan set. The metal railings are proposed to be a “cityscape” color to match the color of the metal awning around the building. There are two types of trash cans proposed for the project site – aluminum and concrete containers. The aluminum containers are proposed for outdoor patio areas, and the concrete trash cans are proposed for parking lot and drive through areas. Details of these trash enclosures will be provided to the Board at the hearing. 2 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Figure 4 – Close Up of Outdoor Dining and Bike Parking Use of Corrugated Metal Siding. The Board noted that the elevations should extend the corrugated metal siding lower into the stucco area. Project Response The project has extended the corrugated metal siding lower on the non-drive through elevation and also extended the metal siding onto each elevation. Architectural Review Findings, Standards and Criteria The project is subject to Architectural Review findings and Context-Based Design Criteria found in Attachment B and Performance Standards contained in Attachment E. This information is provided to help inform the ARB’s evaluation of the project relative to compatibility with the immediate environment of the site. Environmental Review Bike parking Entries 2 Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301(a) (Existing Facilities). The project consists of a proposal to remodel an existing restaurant building on a previously disturbed site in an urbanized area. Therefore, the project is consistent with the subject exemption. 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 23, 2018. Postcard mailing on November 23, 2018, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Adam Petersen, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408)340-5642 x 106 (650) 329-2575 apetersen@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX) Attachment C: Conditions of Approval (DOCX) Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) Attachment E: Performance Criteria (DOCX) Attachment F: Applicant Project Description (PDF) Attachment G: November 1, 2018 ARB Staff Report w/o Attachments (PDF) Attachment H: November 1, 2018 Draft Excerpt ARB Minutes (DOCX) Attachment I: Project Plans (DOCX) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 16 2.a Packet Pg. 17 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 3128 El Camino Real 17PLN-00462 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The project promotes the enhancement of the architectural and landscaping quality in the El Camino Real corridor. The design of the commercial use is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan in that the site is designated Service Commercial and the Comprehensive Plan Table indicates compliance with the applicable policies. The proposed project is generally consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan, including the following goals and policies: Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Service Commercial (CS). The project consists of architectural and site planning alterations to a commercial business on a parcel designed as Service Commercial (CS) which the Comp Plan states may be appropriate. Land Use and Community Design 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 project retains the City’s compact nature because it occurs on a site that is infill and provides an attractive development consistent with the City’s design criteria. 2.b Packet Pg. 18 POLICY L-1.2: Limit future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area. The boundary of the urban service area is otherwise known as the urban growth boundary. Retain undeveloped land west of Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as open space, with allowances made for very low-intensity development consistent with the open space character of the area. Retain undeveloped land northeast of Highway 101 as open space. The project is an urban infill development proposal in the urban service area of the city. Because it proposes to remodel a structure on a commercially designated parcel while retaining the same square footage and building footprint, it preserves open space and other undeveloped areas. The project is compatible with the surrounding uses and the overall scale and character because it consists of a building that is one story in height, which is similar in height to the commercial structures located to the northeast and southeast of the project along El Camino Real. The project is consistent with the land use definition and Map L-6 because it provides a commercial use on a commercially designated property. POLICY L-1.3: Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. POLICY L-1.5: Regulate land uses in Palo Alto according to the land use definitions in this Element and Map L-6. 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 proposed project is consistent with the policies that implement Goal L-2 thereby fostering public life, meeting city needs and embracing the principles of sustainability. As noted in Finding #6, the project implements numerous sustainable development techniques. POLICY L-2.9: Facilitate reuse of existing buildings. The project would reuse the existing McDonald’s building. Goal L-4: Inviting pedestrian scale centers that offer a variety of retail and commercial services and provide focal points and community gathering places for the city’s residential neighborhoods and employment districts. The project creates an inviting pedestrian scale through the use of a pedestrian path leading from the El Camino Real sidewalk to the business. Further, the project enhances the pedestrian scale by widening the sidewalk along El Camino Real to 12-feet. The project retains the local serving retail corridor along El Camino Real by maintaining a commercial use on the property. POLICY L-4.15: Recognize El Camino Real as both a local serving and regional serving corridor, defined by a mix of commercial uses and housing. 2.b Packet Pg. 19 Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create coherent development patterns and enhance city streets. The project as proposed is consistent with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The project enhances the aesthetic appearance of buildings along El Camino by remodeling a dated commercial exterior. The project is consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance because it maintains building setbacks, height, parking standards, and signage requirements. Further, the project is subject to the City’s design review process, which ensures a high quality appearance. POLICY L-6.2: Use the Zoning Ordinance, design review process, design guidelines and Coordinated Area Plans to ensure high quality residential and commercial design and architectural compatibility. Natural Environment Element Goal N-2: A thriving urban forest that provides public health, ecological, economic, and aesthetic benefits for Palo Alto. The project is consistent with Goal N-2 because it preserves trees onsite, while planting new tree along El Camino Real consisting of two new street trees and two trees onsite, thereby contributing to the urban forest that promotes public health, ecological, economic and aesthetic benefits. POLICY N-2.7: 7 Strive toward the aspirational, long-term goal of achieving a 50 percent tree canopy cover across the city The project retains the trees onsite and proposes two new street trees along the El Camino Real frontage and two trees onsite The project has also been reviewed for conformance with the development standards in the zoning code and found to be in compliance with the intent and regulations contained therein. A comprehensive review of the project to applicable development standards is included in the administrative record. The project is subject to the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Specifically, the project is located in the Cal-Ventura area, which calls for renovations of existing buildings to focus on enhancing the appearance of the area with architectural and landscaping improvements. Buildings that are more auto-oriented should include landscape site design and signage that improve the pedestrian connection to the street, better define the public realm and improve the environmental quality of all users. The project is consistent with Cal-Ventura area vision because it enhances a dated stucco façade building with tile, metal banding, and a new modern roofline. The project is further consistent with the following applicable South El Camino Real Design Guidelines: 3.1.1 Effective Sidewalk Width. The project provides a 12-foot effect sidewalk width along El Camino Real. 3.1.6 Entries: The project provides two main entries from El Camino Real. 2.b Packet Pg. 20 3.1.7 Increase setback: The existing building has an increased setback which is used for outdoor seating. 3.3.1 Usable Amenities: The lawn and outdoor dining areas provide landscaping and hardscape features that function as open space amenities for the site that patrons are able to use. 3.3.4 Screening and 4.5.7: All mechanical equipment is screened from view from public right-of-ways. 3.4.2 Integrate into Project Design: The project includes lighting in the metal canopy surrounding the building. 4.2.1 Relation of Entries to the Street: The project has two entries that are directly accessible from El Camino Real via paved walkways. 4.4.5 Screening of Service, Trash and Utility Area: The project retains the trash and service areas, and screens these by locating the trash facility behind the building. 4.5.1 Flat Roofs and Parapets Encouraged: The project brings the building into compliance with this guideline. The project includes a flat roof and flat parapet. 4.5.2 Parapet Design: The project provides a parapet design that is articulated along the facades providing good visual bounce to the roofline of the building. 4.5.4 Roof lines Consistent with Building: The proposed roofline consists of linear features and dimension, which is reflective and consistent with the strong lines found in the linear nature of the windows, doors, tile, and metal eyebrow on the building. 4.8.1 Materials Integrity and Durability: The combination of stucco, tile, brick and metal consist of long lasting materials and convey quality. 4.8.2 Mix of Materials: The project uses a mixture of materials consisting of stucco, tile, brick and metal. 4.8.3 Materials Reflect Articulations of Building Elements: Entries to the building are framed in tile, while corner elements have brick wrapping them 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: Identifiable elements, such as entrances, are positioned to be easily identified from El Camino Real. The project provides a covered trellis extended from the edge of the building to the back 2.b Packet Pg. 21 of the sidewalk along El Camino Real that leads to two entrances at the front of the building. The project proposes to enhance these entrance with new glazing and upgraded stucco. The entrances lead to comfortable dining areas in the interior of the project. The attempt to provide simple yet nuanced order and environment allows for privacy and an open environment at the same time. The project preserves the existing trees on- and off-site along El Camino Real while retaining the open landscaped area. The open landscaped area would be modern to match the design of the building, comprised of succulents, dwarf bamboo, flax, and blue grama plants. The project would include landscaping up to the edge of the back of the sidewalk. These natural features constitute identifiable features of this site. The trees have been preserved and integrated with the design and new trees have been added to enhance the urban canopy. Careful attention has been paid to appropriate scale, massing and material usage to meet the aspects of the zoning code and comments provided by various city departments and the architectural review board. The project is consistent with the massing requirements because it complies with the PAMC and the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Proper buffering from El Camino Real and placement of open space is intended to enhance the commercial dining experience. In addition, the El Camino Real façade is provided with deep recesses and other shielding to eliminate any undesirable effects of the street. These features enhance the conditions for visitors patronizing the site. 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 The project promotes pedestrian walkability by providing the area necessary for a 12-foot wide walk along El Camino Real. This 12-foot wide sidewalk enhances the pedestrian environment and promotes walkability because there is adequate space and setbacks for pedestrians along El Camino Real to circulate. Further, the project extends the covered trellis over the walkway to the edge of the back of the sidewalk providing pedestrian shelter and a direct entry to the project from the sidewalk. The project includes bicycle parking located immediately tangential to this walkway, approximately 11 feet from the building entrance and 16 feet from the edge of the sidewalk. The bicycle parking is secure because it is located on a rack and adjacent to the outdoor dining area, while positioned in a location that will not impede access to any of the building entries. 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 2.b Packet Pg. 22 The project provides a strong relationship with the sidewalk by locating two entrances to the building setback from the 12-foot sidewalk along El Camino Real. Pedestrian activity is encouraged by providing partially covered sidewalks from El Camino Real to the building entrances and locating the primary access points at the front entrance to the building facing El Camino Real. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks As demonstrated in Attachment D, the project conforms to the height, setback, and floor area requirements. Accordingly, its massing is minimized and conforms to the 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 The project does not directly abut a lower scale residential development. A parking lot and trees buffer the site from adjacent office and commercial uses. Therefore this context-based criteria is not applicable. 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 The open space is provided in the form of an existing landscaped area bordering an outdoor dining patio at the front of the building. Public open space is also facilitated in the form of the wider sidewalk along El Camino Real. The project has forgone developable area by providing sidewalk width. 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 The project does not propose changes to the configuration of the parking lot, access or circulation around the site. Therefore this criteria is not applicable. 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 The project is not a large multi-acre site. Therefore this criteria is not applicable. 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project 2.b Packet Pg. 23 The project is design and materials achieve sustainability and green building design. The plants proposed are regional indigenous drought resistant plants which contribute to sustainability as a result of photosynthesis and low water usage. The project’s consistency with this criteria is noted in Finding #6. In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site in that the building is located in a service commercial zone district where other buildings of similar size and scale are common. The design is a reflection of its commercial use. Entries and detailed materials reinforce a pedestrian scale for both the commercial business entrance. The forms are modern reflecting the character of the buildings to the west and northwest along El Camino Real. The project employs high quality materials embodied in the use of tile, stucco, metal and brick. These features employ appropriate textures, colors, and details. The stucco is a Chelsea grey finish and tile is black with a charcoal grout color, which are not garish, and appropriate use of details in metal entrance awnings and railings enclosing the outside dining areas. The design is compatible with the sidewalks, roadway, utilities and other existing improvements. Further, the project as conditioned, is consistent with the South El Camino Real design guidelines, which ensures a high aesthetic quality. 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: All departments have vetted this design for safety and proper access to functional and utilitarian elements. There are no comments related to the layout of the project concerning the safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic from the Office of Transportation or the Fire Department. The project provides bicycle parking spaces at a proposed rack which promotes the safe storage of bicycles and does not impede the circulation of pedestrians accessing the business. The parking design preserves the pedestrian environment because access to the parking is provided through existing curb cuts on the property and the project provides clear vision triangles for motorists exiting the parking area. 2.b Packet Pg. 24 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 size and location of the existing Japanese Maple is a dominant element in the landscape as are the magnolia and London Plane trees along El Camion Real. The landscape design is intended to enhance the site through an upscale, modern expression of the plants used in the area. Plants are planted symmetrically in the open spaces areas around the front of the site, and the color and texture choice and heights of the plantings were selected to compliment the natural and built environment. The plants soften the edge of El Camino Real for users of the outdoor dining area at the front of the building, thereby contributing to a more pleasant and safer experience for users of this space. The plants consist of regional indigenous plants that have a low water demand and can be appropriately maintained because of their minimal maintenance requirements. 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: The project retains several trees onsite, which contributes to shade and improves air quality through photosynthesis. The project consists of a remodel to an infill parcel and widens the El Camino Real sidewalk to 12-feet in width, which encourages walkability and thereby reduces automobile dependency and use of fossil fuels. The project uses low water use plants, which enhances water efficiency compared to the existing lawn. All plumbing equipment is required to meet California requirements for efficiency which are close to consistency with the majority of the LEED requirements. In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. 2.b Packet Pg. 25 ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 3128 El Camino Real 17PLN-00462 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "McDonald’s, 2017 Major Remodel Project, 3128 El Camino real, Palo Alto, California,” stamped as received by the City on November 15, 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 Architectural Review (AR) approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. Project plans submitted for Building permits shall incorporate the following changes: a. Demonstrate that all signage and other site improvements are located behind the 12-foot wide sidewalk along El Camino Real. b. Demonstrate that the trash receptacles are those consistent with Detail No. 6 on sheet 12 of the “Outdoor Fixtures” packet of the plan set. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. BICYCLE PARKING. The project shall provide 2 long-term Class 1 bicycling parking spaces and 13 short-term bicycling parking spaces as described in PAMC Section 18.54.060. These facilities shall be constructed/installed prior to issuance of any occupancy permit. 6. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall automatically expire after two years from the original date of approval, if within such two year period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings has not commenced pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the permit or approval. Application for a one year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the expiration. (PAMC 18.77.090(a)) 7. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the 2.c Packet Pg. 26 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. 8. 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, Adam Petersen apetersen@m-group.us to schedule this inspection. TRANSPORTATION DIVISION 9. BICYCLE PARKING: The proposed short-term bicycle parking facility is not a suitable fixture for meeting the performance standards described in Chapter 18.54 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Please substitute the “wave” rack with an inverted-u or similar style that provides two points of contact between the rack and a typical bicycle frame. Provide racks in the amount required by the existing conditional use permit. The location of the proposed bicycle parking meets all code requirements. Please keep the parking in this location and substitute the fixture with one which meets the requirements described above. 10. PAVEMENT MARKINGS: The outbound drive aisle shows right and left turn arrow pavement markings. Please substitute the left arrow with a right arrow as right turns are prohibited from the driveway due to the median. 11. BICYCLES & DRIVE-THRU SERVICE: According to the Conditional Use Permit associated with this property, bicyclists are to be permitted to receive service from the drive-thru lanes and signage shall be provided on signage advertising drive-through service. On plans, show the location of this signage and include a detail drawing of the sign panel(s) which shall clearly indicate bicyclists are permitted to use the drive-through lane. 12. DRIVEWAY APPROACH: If reconstruction of the driveway approach within the public right of way is required or proposed, it shall be rebuilt per City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Standard drawing #120. Street-grade driveways are not permitted. The ramped portion of the driveway shall not exceed 5-feet in lateral width. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF EXCAVATION AND GRADING PERMIT: 2.c Packet Pg. 27 13. SIDEWALK EASEMENT. The applicant shall include an offer of dedication for a public access easement for the additional dimension of sidewalk between the property line and back of walk and/or building edge that meets the El Camino Real Master Plan requirements. 14. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property that are broken, badly cracked, displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter strip. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650- 496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the inspector can determine the extent of replacement work. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work or include a note that Public Works’ inspector has determined no work is required. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 15. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’ arborist at 650-496- 5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’ arborist (650- 496-5953). 16. GRADING PERMIT: The site plan must include an earthworks table showing cut and fill volumes. If the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. An application and plans for a grading permit are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 17. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 18. SWPPP: The proposed development may disturb more than one acre of land. Accordingly, the applicant may be required to comply with the State of California’s General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. This entails filing a Notice of Intent to Comply (NOI), paying a filing fee, and preparing and implementing a site specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that addresses both construction-stage and post-construction BMP’s for storm water quality protection. The applicant may be required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit. 2.c Packet Pg. 28 19. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet of street trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist (phone: 650-496-5953). This approval shall appear on the plans. Show construction protection of the trees per City requirements. 20. 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. 21. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 22. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. 23. CALTRANS: Caltrans review and approval of this project may be 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. 24. This project triggers the California Regional Water Quality Control Board’s revised provision C.3 for storm water regulations (incorporated into the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 16.11) that apply to land development projects that create or replace between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. The applicant must implement one or more of the following site design measures on the grading and drainage plan: Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse. Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas. Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas. Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas. Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces. 2.c Packet Pg. 29 Construct driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 25. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS. The Site Plans will show Type I or Type II fencing around the Street Trees a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone as shown on Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T-1, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans; and/or Project Arborist direction for each tree. Plans with Public Trees shall show (a) full extension of Type II street tree fencing to enclose the entire planter strip or, (b) Type I protection to the outer branch dripline for rolled curb & sidewalk or no-sidewalk situations. Add a note: “Pruning Restrictions. No pruning or clearance cutting of branches is permitted. Contractor shall obtain a Public Tree Permit from Urban Forestry (650-496-5953) for any work on Public Trees” 26. SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full-sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize all relevant Tree Activity Inspections that apply to this project. 27. 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. 28. 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. 29. 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. BUILDING DIVISION 30. Comments and corrections from the “Pre-Comments Accessibility Inspection” report performed by Robert Dunbar, the CPA Accessibility Specialist Inspector shall be addressed in the Building Permit submittal. 2.c Packet Pg. 30 31. The review and approval of this project does not include any other items of construction other than those written in the ARB project review application included with the project plans and documents under this review. If the plans include items or elements of construction that are not included in the written description, it or they may not have been known to have been a part of the intended review and have not, unless otherwise specifically called out in the approval, been reviewed. 2.c Packet Pg. 31 Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3128 El Camino Real 17PLN-00462 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.18 (CS DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Building Setback Front Yard 0 – 10 ft. to create an 8 ft. – 12 ft. effective sidewalk width 62 ft. 9 in. No change Rear Yard None Required 110 ft. No change Interior Side Yard None Required 61 ft. 4.25 in. No change Interior Side Yard None Required 80 ft. 2 in. No change Maximum Site Coverage (building footprint) None Required 12.5 percent 11.9 percent Maximum Height (w/in 150 ft. of an abutting residential zone) 50 ft. 17 ft. 10 in. 19 ft. 4 in. Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.4:1 FAR 0.15 FAR 7,921 sf Including Trellis Area 0.11 FAR 5,747 sf Without Trellis Area 0.14 FAR 7,397 sf Including Trellis Area 0.11 FAR 5,747 sf Without Trellis Area 18.18.100 Performance Standards. In addition to the standards for development prescribed above, all development shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance. All mixed use development shall also comply with the provisions of Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance. 18.18.110 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. 2.d Packet Pg. 32 Page 2 of 2 Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) For 5,747 sf eating and drinking establishment with drive-in Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking* 3 per 100 sf of gross floor area = 172 spaces Based on 5,747 sf building 74 parking spaces 74 parking spaces (legal non-conforming) Bicycle Parking 3 per 400 sf = 43 Based on 5,747 sf building Long Term: 40% = 17 Short Term: 60% = 26 13 short term spaces Long Term: Project conditioned to provide 2 long term bicycle parking spaces Short Term: 13 (legal non-conforming) Loading Space Zero Spaces for buildings 0 - 9,999 sf none none *Parking: The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) required three parking spaces per 100 gross square feet of gross floor area for an eating and drinking establishment with a drive-in. For a 5,747 sf restaurant, this would generate a need for 172 spaces. The site currently provides 74 parking spaces and accordingly is a non-conforming facility. A non-conforming facility is allowed to be altered provided such alterations do not increase the degree of noncompliance. Therefore, the amount of parking provided on-site is consistent with the PAMC. Signage: The project wall signage is consistent with the standards prescribed in PAMC section 16.20.130. The main façade of the building measures approximately 48 ft. by 19 ft., for a total area of 912 square feet (sf). Pursuant to Table 3 in the PAMC, the project is permitted a wall sign area of 58.8 sf. The “welcome” signs and “M” signs total 40 sf. The window panel signs for “pay here” and “pick-up here” total an area of five (5) sf, and the address sign is 3.6 sf. The total wall sign area is 48.6 sf which is less than the maximum permitted for one face of the building. The wall signs do not exceed a thickness of or projection of 10-inches, and the wall signs do not extend above the top level of the wall that the sign is mounted to. The project would retain the existing monument sign fronting the site, and proposes two menu board signs behind the building for drive through patrons. The monument sign measures approximately 43 sf and each menu board is 34 sf for a total area of approximately 68 sf. The PAMC permits the monument sign, and it is within the prescribed maximum area, and the two menu boards would replace two existing menu boards already on the site. 2.d Packet Pg. 33 ATTACHMENT E Performance Criteria 18.23 3128 El Camino Real 17PLN-00462 These performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. The project retains the original trash location, at the rear of the building. The project does not include modifications to the trash enclosure, and trash storage is fully enclosed by walls and a roof. The trash area is located more than 2,000 ft. from the closest residence. Therefore, the location of the trash enclosure is as far as reasonably possible from residences. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The project photometric plan demonstrates that light will not spill off the site onto neighboring properties. The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting (either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage pick-up. The project is not located within 50 feet of residentially zone properties or properties with residential uses. Future late night uses or activities would be subject to requirements when proposed. Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. The project has concealed all mechanical equipment behind the roof top parapet. The project retains landscaping along the perimeter of the site serving as a buffer between the parking lot and adjacent sites. There are no abutting residentially zoned properties or residential uses. 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Project Consistency 18.23.030 Lighting 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping 2.e Packet Pg. 34 The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are intended to protect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residential properties. New equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be subject to these requirements. The project proposes roof mounted HVAC equipment concealed by the building parapet. This is the same equipment that is currently on the building. Therefore, noise would not increase, and the project would not affect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located in nonresidential zones because residential zones and uses are not abutting the project. The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. The project would not affect the existing parking configuration. The project would improve screening through planting trees along El Camino Real that would screen the parking area. Further, the project would not visually impact adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses because it is not located adjacent to residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located in nonresidential zones. The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project site. The project proposes bicycle parking on-site for future uses and will maintain vehicular and pedestrian access through driveway aprons in existing curb cuts. The project includes widening of the sidewalk along El Camino Real to enhance the pedestrian environment. Further, improvements to the site will be required to conform to ADA requirements. Therefore, the project will enhance the vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle circulation. The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. The project will not produce odors or toxic air contaminants because it contains mechanical equipment that will conform to manufacturer requirements designed to protect human health. 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration Project Consistency 18.23.070 Parking 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access 18.23.090 Air Quality 2.e Packet Pg. 35 In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. The project will not involve the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials because the project consists of an office remodel and occupation of the structure by an office use which is not associated with hazardous materials. 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials 2.e Packet Pg. 36 2.f Packet Pg. 37 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9663) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/1/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3128 El Camino Real: Minor Board Level Review of Exterior Modifications (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3128 El Camino Real [17PLN-00462]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Minor Architectural Review to Allow the Remodel of an Existing 5,988 Square Foot McDonalds. Scope of Work Includes: Remodel of Exterior Facade, Landscaping, Signage, and Outdoor Seating. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15301a (Existing Facilities) Zoning District: CS (Commercial Service). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Adam Petersen at apetersen@m-group.us From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Development based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The project proposes a remodel of an existing McDonald’s located at 3128 El Camino Real. These alterations include resurfacing the façade of the restaurant with tile and stucco. The project would also widen El Camino Real sidewalk to 12-feet in width, plant four new trees along El Camino Real, retain existing parking and the drive-through configuration. On balance, the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Palo Alto Municipal Code, and the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Background 2 Packet Pg. 8 2.g Packet Pg. 38 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Project Information Owner: Leland Stanford University Board of Trustees Architect: Stantec Architecture, Inc., James Shively Representative: Stantec Architecture, Inc., James Shively Legal Counsel: Not Applicable Property Information Address: 3128 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Ventura Lot Dimensions & Area: 276 ft. long by approximately 204 ft. wide; 56,694 sf Housing Inventory Site: Yes, 24 unit realistic capacity Located w/in a Plume: Yes, COE Plume Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes, street trees Historic Resource(s): Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s): The existing building area consists of a 5,988 sf structure with a drive through, outdoor dining, landscaping and 74 parking spaces. The structure was built in 1974 and consists of a one-story building with a basement. The height of the existing structure is 17-feet 10-inches. Existing Land Use(s): McDonald’s Restaurant with a drive through Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: CS (vacant shopping center and gym) West: PC-4637 (parking lot and commercial banking center) East: CS (restaurant) South: RP (professional office) 2 Packet Pg. 9 2.g Packet Pg. 39 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Maps, 2018 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Service Commercial (CS) Comp. Plan Designation: Service Commercial (CS) Context-Based Design Criteria: Yes, as noted 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, the project is located in the Ventura area Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not Applicable Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Project Site El Camino 2 Packet Pg. 10 2.g Packet Pg. 40 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None Project Description The project includes exterior alterations to the existing McDonald’s restaurant. These alterations include resurfacing the façade of the restaurant with tile and stucco. The tile is proposed to be a black color located on the façade of the building facing El Camino Real, and the stucco is grey in color with a “frieze” texture. Brick banding would be retained at corner elements of the building and at the lower portion of the buildings elevations. The project would retain the configuration and location of all windows, but would reconfigure the entry facing El Camino Real that is setback from the front of the structure. The entry would be a single door, framed by the black tile and window to its right. The project would remove the existing roofline, replacing the curves and angles with a more linear roof. However, the project would retain two portions of the arched metal roof features facing El Camino Real. Around the front entry of the building, the project proposes a metal banding canopy that projects from the building. The project would also widen the El Camino Real sidewalk to 12-feet in width, plant four new trees along El Camino Real, retain parking, and the drive-through configuration. The applicant proposes to retain the exterior dining area at the front of the building, setback from El Camino Real, and include new exterior dining area located along the northwest side of the building, enclosed by a new metal railing. Figure 1 below provides a rendering of the project and Figure 2 provides the proposed site plan: Figure 1 – Northeast and Northwest Façades 2 Packet Pg. 11 2.g Packet Pg. 41 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 The project includes new signage on the building and on the site. Four “welcome” signs would be located on the building, with two at the front entry facing El Camino Real and two located on the southeastern elevation. These signs are approximately 2.5 sf each, for a total of 10 sf. Two yellow ‘M’ signs would also be located on the front façade of the building and comprise 28 sf. The project would retain the existing monument sign fronting on El Camino Real. Other signage replaced on the building consists of a menu board and a pick up and pay here canopy signs on the drive-through. Figure 2 – Site Plan Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested: Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Development Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project 2 Packet Pg. 12 2.g Packet Pg. 42 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The project is located in the Ventura neighborhood and is encompassed by predominantly auto oriented uses and structures. Adjacent commercial buildings are predominantly single story in nature and are comprised of a variety of materials and architectural styles. Dominant materials include stucco, tile, wood, metal, and glazed windows. Parking lots for these commercial and office structures tend to line the frontages of El Camino Real. As a result of these parking lots, setbacks for structures along El Camino Real vary with some buildings located along the street edge and others setback more than 200 feet from the street. The project would retain the existing development pattern in the area because it consists of an exterior remodel. As a result, the auto oriented design and position of the parking lots would reflect the development pattern found on adjacent properties. The project retains a similar height and form, which mirrors the rectangular and linear forms of the adjacent buildings. Similarly, the tile and stucco used in the structure reflects the tile and stucco found on other building along El Camino Real. Altering the roofline, by removing the angles and edges and instead incorporating a design that is comprised of linear edges contributes to a more contemporary theme that reflects other buildings surrounding the project. These design features enhance the buildings compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood setting and character Zoning Compliance2 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment D. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes, or is seeking through the requested permits permission to deviate from certain code standards, in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and 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. 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 2 Packet Pg. 13 2.g Packet Pg. 43 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Service Commercial (CS). The Comprehensive Plan notes that facilities on CS designated sites are intended to provide citywide and regional services and rely on customers arriving by car. These areas do not benefit from being in high volume pedestrian areas, and typical uses include motels, appliance stores and restaurants including fast service types. The maximum FAR for these site is 0.4, with no minimum FAR. On balance, the project is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan as well. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment B. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project provides a black wave/ribbon style bicycle rack near the front of the building, facing El Camino Real. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan notes that a Class II bike lane is proposed along El Camino Real, fronting the project site. However, the project is not required to install the bike lane because of the size/scale of the project. South El Camino Real Design Guidelines The project is located in the Cal-Ventura area of the south El Camino Real Design Guidelines, which is subject to unique standards in the guidelines. The Cal Ventura area notes that development is likely to remain auto-oriented and that renovations should focus on enhancing the appearance with architectural and landscaping improvements. Buildings that are more auto-oriented should include landscape, site design and signage that improve the pedestrian connection to the street, define the public realm and improvement environmental quality for all users. Further, the Guidelines note that existing buildings undergoing renovations should follow the spirit of the Design Guidelines. The proposed changes to the project are consistent with the spirit of the Design Guidelines. On balance, the project is consistent with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines given its location in the Cal-Ventura area. The project enhances the architecture and landscaping by remodeling a dated building with a new design and by providing additional trees lining El Camino Real. Further, the project is consistent with Design Guidelines 4.5 related to flat roofs, parapets that articulate the flat roofs and hide roof mounted equipment, as well as Guideline 4.5.4 which encourage roof lines and shapes consistent with the design of the structure. The new design of the structure is more modern, with horizontal lines and the roof reflects this design. Additional merits of consistency with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines are provided in Attachment B. Section 6.4 of the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines provides guidance for buildings undergoing renovations. The project provides for articulation in the façade, complimentary 2 Packet Pg. 14 2.g Packet Pg. 44 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 roofline, doors and windows facing El Camino Real, and decorative features in the form of the metal banding around the building. The project is in a building that is suitable for renovations and does not include parking lot alterations, and is therefore not subject to Guidelines 6.4.1 and 6.4.6. As a result of the projects consistency with Guidelines 6.4.2 through 6.4.5, it can be found in conformance with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Architectural Review Findings, Standards and Criteria The project is subject to Architectural Review findings and Context-Based Design Criteria found in Attachment B and Performance Standards contained in Attachment E. This information is provided to help inform the ARB’s evaluation of the project relative to compatibility with the immediate environment of the site. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301(a) (Existing Facilities). The project consists of a proposal to remodel an existing restaurant building on a previously disturbed site in an urbanized area. Therefore, the project is consistent with the subject exemption. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly October 19, 2018], which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing October 22, 2018, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Adam Petersen, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408)340-5642 x 106 (650) 329-2575 apetersen@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 15 2.g Packet Pg. 45 City of Palo Alto Page 1 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3128 El Camino Real [17PLN-00462]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Minor Architectural Review to Allow the Remodel of an Existing 5,988 Square Foot McDonalds. Scope of Work Includes: Remodel of Exterior Facade, Landscaping, Signage, and Outdoor Seating. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15301a (Existing Facilities) Zoning District: CS (Commercial Service). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Adam Petersen at apetersen@m-group.us Chair Furth: That takes us to item number 2 on our agenda, which is a public hearing. It's quasi-judicial. It concerns 3128 El Camino Real, which is an existing McDonald's. It's a block we've been looking at a lot recently. You are asking us for a recommendation on the applicant's request for approval of a minor architectural review to allow remodel of an existing 6,000 square foot McDonald's. Scope of work includes the remodel of the exterior façade, landscaping, signage, and outdoor seating. It's exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, in accordance with Guideline Section 15301a for existing facilities. The zoning district is Commercial Service, and the project planner is Adam Petersen. Adam Petersen, Project Planner: Good morning. Chair Furth: Excuse me just a minute, Adam, before we do that. Have all of us viewed the site? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. Board Member Lew: Yes. Chair Furth: For the record, all of us have inspected the site. Thank you. Does anybody have any conversations to disclose with other parties regarding this matter? Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to disclose that I received an email from Randy Popp, a local architect, essentially pointing out examples of environmentally-friendly architecture done by McDonald's at other locations around the nation. Chair Furth: Thank you. Anybody else? Board Member Lew: I think that email was sent to everybody, right? Because I got that email. Board Member Gooyer: I got that, too, yeah. Chair Furth: Then that needs to be printed... Vice Chair Baltay: I'm just disclosing it. Chair Furth: ...and made available to the public. Now. If somebody could go do that. And I guess I should read my email more carefully. Okay. Staff, please. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXCERPT DRAFT MINUTES: November 1, 2018 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM 2.h Packet Pg. 46 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Mr. Petersen: Good morning, Chair Furth, members of the Architectural Review Board. I'm Adam Petersen from the Planning & Community Environment Department. I'm here today to present a minor architectural review request for exterior remodel to the McDonald's at 3128 El Camino Real. The project, again, is a minor board-level review. It would include widening the sidewalk to 12 feet along El Camino Real; planting of street trees along the front façade, or along the street frontage of the building; reconfiguring the roof line of the structure; installing a metal canopy around the front of the building, as well; black tile around the entries facing El Camino Real; painting the stucco; and also, replacing existing signage and adding new signage to the building. The recommendation is that this project, staff recommends approval to the Planning & Community Environment Director. The project site as noted is along El Camino Real. It is surrounded substantially by other office and commercial uses that are set back from the street, sort of a mishmash of a development pattern in the area. The site itself as noted would not change the existing building square footage. The square footage of the building would remain the same. There would be no other site modifications except for widening of the sidewalk. The parking would remain the same. The drive-throughs, the existing menu boards would remain the same. They would just be updated. And really, just façade modifications to the building itself. These are the existing conditions. As you can see, the front of the building along El Camino Real, and then, also, the back of the building. In the bottom photo you can see the two menu boards. Those would be updated and modernized. This gets into the existing and proposed conditions for the project. Again, in the upper left, you can see the existing conditions. It would remove the wood trellis from the building and it would change the roof line to create a more flat roof line. It also would paint the stucco and upgrade the stucco, and then, install, sort of this blackish tile around the entries. And then, have a metal canopy around the front of the building. It would also install a railing for the outdoor dining area on the none-drive-through side of the building. Moving around the side of the building, again, this is looking at the drive-through elevation. Again, you can see that it would remove the wood trellis from the front of the building. You would have the metal canopy and the metal overhang. The project would retain the existing brick banding that's on the lower half of the building, so you would have a combination of brick banding on the lower half, combined with stucco, along with tile and a metal canopy around the building. You'd retain the fencing, you'd retain a lot of landscaping that directs people from El Camino Real into the site. Going through the elevations just quickly, as you can see, this elevation at the bottom, that's where the brick banding would be retained. You can see the front black tile around the front entry way, along with the metal canopies. Going around to the back, again, you can see that it retains a lot of the...It retains the essence of the materials that are there while upgrading the stucco and the roof line. And, in terms of the analysis for the project, the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning code. It maintains all setbacks. It's located in the Cal Ventura area of the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. That area is noted that, or the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines note that that area is intended to remain auto- oriented or would likely remain auto-oriented. And, the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines specifically mentions that for remodels, that it's important that they follow the spirit of the guidelines. Overall the project is consistent with that spirit because it remodels a dated building, it upgrades the roofline. The South El Camino Real Design Guidelines call for more flat roof lines, more level roof lines, so, it would change the, you're going to change the roof line consistent with the design guidelines. And, provide new street trees along the sidewalk and widen the sidewalk to 12 feet, which is called for in the design guidelines. And then, it also would maintain direct access to the building from El Camino Real. Similar height. The height would increase from 17 feet to 19 feet, with a more contemporary style. As noted, this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and the motion is to recommend approval to the Director of Planning & Community Environment. I'd like to turn the presentation over to the applicant at this time. Chair Furth: Before you do that, I do, indeed, need to look at my email more frequently. I think when it gets over 100 unread messages, I lose the bottom ones. The email in question is to us from -- including staff -- from Randy Popp, sent Sunday, October 28th, at 10:09 a.m. It's about new standards for McDonald's, and it references an article in Architect Magazine about downsizing the golden architects. In order to read that article, you need to be a registered member of that publication. At least I'm not able to read it without registering, but I think if you'll give up your email address, that's all that it takes. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, it's just an email address. 2.h Packet Pg. 47 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Chair Furth: So, that should be made available to the public. And now the applicant knows that at least some of us have read it. Thank you. You have 10 minutes. And if you could give us your name and spell it for our transcriber, we would appreciate it. Jim Shively, Stantec Architecture: Okay. I'm Jim Shively. [spells name]. I'm with Stantec Architecture, representing McDonald's. Good morning, Chair and Board, and I want to thank staff for a wonderful job they've done. It's taken us a little longer than we thought, but it's been a real treat working with them. Thank you, Adam and Jodie. We did put together the PowerPoint Adam requested, and they did a wonderful job describing what the project entails. What it is, it's part of McDonald's MRP program. It's a major remodel program. They take the existing restaurant and upgrade it with a more modern, contemporary line to it. The MRP program calls for, we remediate all barriers on site, ADA. We would be required to do that anyway, but McDonald's is one of my most proactive clients that want everything accessible. The other issue on this one, although it doesn’t fall into a perfect MRP model, MRP -- Major Remodel Program -- you've seen them. The stores, restaurants that have the red mansard that wrap all the way around it. What we basically replace it with is a geometric box, and we play with the forms and the elements to add some interest to the elevation. This is the site plan. We are adding, not four, but five trees out front, which will offer some shading quality for the main dining area out front. Again, all of the accessible pathways, public right-of-way, as well as the accessible parking to the entries, will be fully ADA compliant. On the interior, we do that as well - equal distribution of ADA seating, and the restrooms will be upgraded to be accessible. These are the two elevations, and Adam did a wonderful job in describing what we are looking to do here. The two brand walls are the ones that have the golden arches on them. It is a tile material with a darker wood type finish on it. We are retaining the bricks. We are doing all new furnishings out front, and the furnishings also come with a vertically-cantilevered canopy/awning element. It's a wire mesh grid over a steel frame and would be painted to match the trim of the building. That comes in three different sizes. The largest I believe is 7 foot by 12 foot, and then there are individual vertically-cantilevered canopies that would serve one table. This is the drive-through side. Again, we are redoing the plaster on it. You see one of the brand walls there. There is the ADA parking that would be upgraded and fully compliant. In addition, you see that we have identified the drive- through windows. The one at the rear of the project is the pay window, and the one in the foreground here is the order pick-up window. We like to identify those and pop those out so it's even clearer. Now, on this one, typically I've only got about six to eight inches of relief, and the paint really helps in those conditions. But, it's pretty obvious in this with the projections that those are the pick-up and the pay windows. And we have a really loyal customer base here and they really don't need much queuing visual aids. They know where they're going through the project. This is the materials sample board that's been provided. I think it's keyed well to the elevations, and I can address any questions as it relates to the finishes, also. There is the elevation. With that, if you've got any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Or staff? Board Member Lew: I have a question for the architect. The color board is showing three colors for the trellis. Mr. Shively: Right. Board Member Lew: I think we have three colors on the color board. Mr. Shively: Yes. Board Member Lew: And then, it seemed like most of the trellis was white in the renderings, and I was wondering, where is the yellow... Mr. Shively: The yellow... Board Member Lew: ...on the trellis. Because it seems like... 2.h Packet Pg. 48 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Mr. Shively: It's on the drive-through. Oh, I can point here. Board Member Lew: Is it just the...? Mr. Shively: It's those two little bands there. Again, it's another queuing visual aid. But that is the only area that the yellow would be. The other metal that you're seeing is this band right here. Board Member Lew: Okay. Great. Thank you very much. Chair Furth: Anybody else have questions of the applicant? Or staff? Board Member Baltay? Vice Chair Baltay? Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Adam, I want to be clear I understand the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. If this were a new building, wouldn't it be required to be built up to the frontage, to the street front? Mr. Shively: It would. It would require it to be built up to the frontage. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, thanks. I just wanted to be clear that I understand that. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. I had a question. If I look at the building head on, which you can only do if you're the passenger, take me through the layers -- sidewalk, landscaping, building, cars. Mr. Shively: Okay. What we have...I don't know that I've got a good picture of it. Out in front is El Camino... Chair Furth: What I want to know is, basically, I don't want to see the entry, I want to see the building from the front. From the street side. I need you to sort of talk me through it. A straight-on shot of it. Mr. Shively: Adam, do you...? I believe it's...I have set of drawings here that I would be happy to... Chair Furth: Sure. You can talk me through it. I've seen the site plan. Mr. Shively: This is the best graphic I've got on my PowerPoint. Ms. Gerhardt: On Sheet A2.0, starts the elevations. Chair Furth: Right. But I'm trying to...What I'm after is, my principal concern with this project is the landscaping and where it is and where it isn't, and as people have been pointing out, the South El Camino Design Guidelines anticipate a different kind of development, where we don't see cars, particularly. The buildings are in the front, the parking is in the back, or underneath the building. So, there's an opportunity for significant landscaping to improve the site. I'm trying to get a sense of what the landscape experience...what the experience of landscaping will be for a person walking by, a person driving by. Mr. Shively: Right. I've got one exhibit, if I can [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: Super. Thank you. Ms. Gerhardt: And for clarification, Sheet T-2 is the landscape plan. Chair Furth: The applicant's architect has given me a copy of one of the elevations we already have. This is the tree protection plan, and the trees are colored. And the street trees here are...What are they? Mr. Petersen: The proposed street trees are red maple, and then, liquid amber. 2.h Packet Pg. 49 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Chair Furth: And they are deciduous. Mr. Petersen: Yes. Chair Furth: Yes, they're deciduous. That's a statement, not a question. At this point. Okay. I'll pass this along. You were going to tell me, basically, what landscaping is there between the curb and your site? Mr. Shively: There are two... Chair Furth: At the front of it. Mr. Shively: Here we go. Let me find my...I'm sorry, my eyesight is going on me. Chair Furth: No, it's the very small plan detail. I'm glad you're having trouble, too. Mr. Shively: I brought two pairs of glasses... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: I always want bigger landscape plans. Mr. Shively: Out front here, you see that, you see the single tree out in front in what we call the forward patio area. That is where we have significant seating out there, and it would be all new seating in there. But that area surrounding that tree is landscaped, so we do have all of that out there. On the side, we have the paving elements over here, but then these two trees form the landscaping on the non-drive- through side. We do have perimeter with some really nice trees out there, but it's really not an experience for the pedestrians. I and a bunch of other people like to get out lunch and go to the back here and park, and that's where we have lunch. We do have a splattering of landscaping on the back of the building here, and then the trees that help obscure the drive-through area in this location here. We also have a planter area here, and really, what I can tell you is, if there are concerns with the landscaping, we would absolutely be willing to revisit that if there were issues that were identified as improvement that you might see for it. Chair Furth: The tree identified as the multi-stemmed Japanese maple, is that the existing tree...? Mr. Shively: Yes. Chair Furth: ... or is it a new tree? Okay. That's a very dense Japanese maple you have there. Mr. Shively: Yeah. Yeah. Chair Furth: Any other questions. Board Member Lew: I have a related question. I think in your notes you're saying that the low brick walls along El Camino are being removed. And then, there are the brick walls, longer brick walls, longer and taller, that run perpendicular to El Camino, toward the entry doors. Mr. Shively: Uh-huh. Board Member Lew: I just want to make sure that I understand this correctly, is that the long walls are staying, but the short ones along the sidewalk are being removed? I think there's a note that says that they're going to be removed, typically, and one of them is being labeled. Mr. Shively: Yes. Board Member Lew: But not all of them are labeled. 2.h Packet Pg. 50 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Mr. Shively: Yeah, the long wall is. Board Member Lew: The long wall that's, that goes along the ramp, that stays? Mr. Shively: Yes, I believe that is the case. Let me... Chair Furth: What's going on there? Board Member Lew: This is paving, because there's the flag poles. It's just concrete. Chair Furth: Any other questions of the applicant or the staff before we deliberate? Staff have any comments? Oh, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this subject? I have no speaker cards. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and we will deliberate. Who would like to start? Alex? Board Member Lew: Okay. Thank you for your presentation. I have seen some of the newly-remodeled McDonald's on the inside, and the inside isn't in our purview today, but I was actually surprised at how nice the new, the newer, the new design scheme is, with the gray color scheme. It's actually very, very handsome. I think I might have a comment for staff. In the staff report, you mention that under our regular zoning, that for a restaurant with drive-through, that 180 parking spaces would be required, and this is grandfathered in with 74. I think that's fine. I've been to the site. But, it really gets to my question, is that, is our code out of date? I think the applicant's letter is saying that most people come through the drive-through, and that seems to be the case. We have a double-wide drive-through. I've seen the long queues of cars at McDonald's and Starbucks, and I'm just wondering if our code is not correct or up to date. Because I think people want restaurants on El Camino. We have neighbors from Ventura and stuff and they want places like restaurants to go to, and they're not getting them. And I'm wondering if it's because our code requires too much parking. We have, in Ventura, there's the Chinese restaurant, and it has minimal parking. It impacts the neighbors, and I'm sure they don't like it. But, at the same time, it's really nice to have a restaurant to walk to five minutes away from your house. Anyway, that's just a larger question about that. On this particular project, I think my main concern is, as Wynne mentioned, was landscaping. There's the front patio and the side patio, and the trellises are being removed. I think my concern on the side patio is trellises being removed, you've got the queuing of the cars for the drive- through, and you're removing all the Camellias along the building. I'm just worried that that's not going to be an attractive, as attractive as what's currently there. On the front, I think my main issue is the, I think you're adding the bike racks in that area, and I do see that the staff has a condition of approval to change the proposed bike rack, which I think is fine. I support that. But, I think that we need to see the layout and how that impacts the seating and the lawn. We need to see a plan of that and not just incrementally adding stuff into the courtyard area, or the lawn area, but actually trying to make a nice design there. I did notice that the existing site doesn't have any bike parking, and I saw people locking their bikes to the handicap ramp and the trellis columns, and all sorts of things like that. It seems like we do need the bike racks. It seems like the staff's requirement, which is, like, six long-term and 13 short- term, seems to be a lot for this site. And I do want to see how that impacts that front lawn area. I'd be willing to have some on the side or the back. I think our code requires it to be within 50 feet of the front door. It seems like it's going to be a lot in a small space, so I would like to see a plan. I think you're showing a new railing on the side patio area, and it's different than the existing railing on the front. I'm not so crazy about that. I'm fine with the new proposed design. I am questioning whether...I'm wondering if the corrugated metal could be taller than what's shown. I'm saying maybe extend it down lower into the stucco area, if it's possible or not. And then, I think my other question is, can the garbage cans, can those be upgraded to something nicer? I mean, there are lots of them all around the parking lot. I think they're not so attractive. And some of them have been painted. I was wondering if there's a better option for that. I did see that you have lots of site furnishings in there, but I'm not sure which ones go where. That is where I am on this one. I do thank you for the wider sidewalk and the extra street trees on El Camino. I think that goes a long way, for me, in making the project better. I'm curious to see what the rest of my board members think on this project. 2.h Packet Pg. 51 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Chair Furth: Vice Chair Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Good morning. Thank you for your presentation. I think I agree with many of the directions Alex was heading on this. Certainly questioning the amount of parking that's required, that very rarely seems to be used here. I'd like to focus my comments, however, on the pedestrian friendliness, the street frontage aspect to the restaurant. Right now, it really is a 1950's, sort of strip mall kind of design. It's set way back, it's very auto-centric, it's all about having lots of parking that's easily visible. And our neighborhood there is changing, changing very fast, to be one where very few people drive to McDonald's. You walk there, you scooter there, you go through the drive-through there, perhaps. It just seems out of sync. Secondarily, and what's really getting me, I think, is that you have now some trellis-covered seating areas outside, especially one in the front, which is a relatively nice patio. It's shady, it's out in the public area where you can see and be seen. By removing the trellis, the trellis is actually on both sides of the building, and especially in our climate, you really make outdoor dining much less friendly. On any warm, summer day, nobody would be sitting there. Most of the time you'll be inside where it's air conditioned, whereas with some shading and some trellises and some really thoughtfully- prepared outdoor seating, you could continue to enliven, even perhaps enhance, the street frontage. Make it so when you're passing by, you can see the activity, which is, at least for me, one of the important things we're trying to achieve along El Camino. As it transitions to be a more urban, pedestrian-oriented public right-of-way, we want to see that businesses and offices and buildings serve to enliven, to further enhance the public experience. I'm afraid I don't see your project doing that at all. I think the materials and the design do a fine job of rebranding McDonald's, and it's great when you're passing by at 40 miles an hour. It's pretty clear what's going on. But as far as, "Gee, where should I go for lunch? I used to sit outside under that trellis, but now it's too hot." You're not really succeeding at that level, so I really think you need to come back with a more thoughtful approach to the front area of the building, in front of the building, between the McDonald's store frontage and the sidewalk, and continue to make that -- To make that even a better place to be, to sit, to eat, to be seen. That's sort of my biggest criticism of this project right now, is that that's not happening. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Gooyer. Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, I have the same thing. I looked at the article about McDonald's, their redesign concepts, everything else, and I saw the Chicago store, not that you can compare the Chicago store with this, but I thought, "Oh, you know, they're really doing some interesting things." Then, I open this up and, I mean, not that the original building is a monument to architecture, but at least there was some thought given to the roof, and that sort of thing. And I agree completely. My first thought was exactly what my fellow board member indicated, that any time I've eaten there, I sit outside under the trellis, and they are all gone. I would just drive by this place now because they aren't there. And I think there should be more emphasis put on...We talked about bringing the building forward a bit, and I think the trellis and the whole idea of dining up front there, I think makes it more noticeable, and it...This just pushes the whole thing back. Then, when you look at the elevation, to me, it's kind of an interesting third of a building, and then, a shoebox in back of it. I mean, any "design" that was there with the roof, that's currently there -- again, not that I’m saying that that's a wonderful design, but it just gets replaced by a stark rectangular box. The, I guess the mesh, whatever you want to call it, the louvers on top, are way too small. I mean, at first, it looks like it's just some sort of a stripe. But, I mean, if you're going to do something, they need to be about three times the size if you're going to make a statement about it. I realize this is a minor design, but I think this is going in the wrong direction. I don't really...I'm not a big fan of this particular design. Let me... You know, the good points, I agree. The landscaping is better, the parking is better, we have the bicycle racks, all that kind of thing, but I would have expected that. This is mainly a review of the building itself, not the peripheral things that I think should be there anyway. Chair Furth: Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. I'm glad that McDonald's is addressing this particular site. I am looking at this as a remodel of a use that is rare in this town, which is a drive- through, and a... What's our appropriate term now? We don't call this fast food, we call it something else. Anyway, it's fast food. It's a useful thing to have in our town. It's a useful thing to have in this neighborhood. I mean, the tragedy of our housing situation is that the nearest housing to you is parked 2.h Packet Pg. 52 City of Palo Alto Page 8 right at the curb, which is why it's hard to see your building. I have no particular objections to the changing of materials and the roof. I've always been particularly un-fond of the existing roof design, so I'm okay with that change. I think the colors are fine. But, I wouldn't be in a position to approve it because I couldn't make the findings regarding landscaping, or pedestrian-friendly and supportive frontage. This is turning into a fairly heavily occupied area. It's going to have a big hotel down the way. You have very popular restaurants around you. You have people living in the neighborhood. You have lots and lots of repeat customers. I think that relatively few people only come here once. Because although you're on El Camino Real, it's primarily a local street at this point in terms of traffic. It's terrific that you're widening the sidewalk. Thank you. The street trees help because regular street trees along that section really provide a kind of unity that's, or an attractive coherence that's often missing there. Specifically, I think the garbage cans are an important design element and need to be addressed in that fashion. I very much agree with that. I think you need shading over the outdoor seating areas. This isn't just how often I have to see my dermatologist, but people are not going to be attracted to an unshaded seating area. It needs to have shading. You know, you can do it with trellises, you can do it with landscape trellises, you can do it with non-deciduous trees, though that's tricky. But it needs shade. Otherwise, it's not inviting, and it isn't going to be used. I also think that when you're on El Camino Real, which is a busy, noisy street, something about having a roof over you, a trellis over you, gives you a sense of enclosure, and the psychological sense of less vulnerability to the passing traffic. This site has two driveways, which chops up the pedestrian experience more than is typical of a parcel of this width, so you need to compensate for that in the space that remains. I think you need seating somewhere that tells pedestrians they are welcome, whether or not they got a hamburger. I also think that the plants need to be bigger, generally. I really don't want to see any flat bits of lawn, and I really don't want to see any plants that are less than knee height. I think when you have planting areas, that's the chance to add significant greenery that comes up higher. If you look at our code, we ask that you use local native materials that are good animal habitat where possible, where feasible, and I think that needs to be addressed more seriously. I'm glad you're addressing the bicycle parking issue. It's true that in the absence of bicycle parking, we get informal bicycle parking that may make it harder to use accessible features of the site. It certainly makes it harder to use a bicycle. I think that's it for me. Are there other comments? Alex. Board Member Lew: I have a question for the architect. There's a chain-link fence along the back of the property. It's low, maybe like three or four feet high. Does that belong to McDonald's? Or do you know, is that the neighbor's, the rear neighboring property's fence? Mr. Shively: I don't know. Board Member Lew: Okay. It has barbed wire along the top, even though it's a low fence. And I was wondering... And it's not allowed under our code, and I was wondering if the barbed wire could be removed. I'm fine with the chain-link fence itself, but maybe just the top could be removed. If it's McDonald's fence. Obviously, if it belongs to the neighbors, we don't have... Mr. Shively: Yeah, I don't know that I've ever encountered it. I didn't see it while I was eating my lunch. I'm going to go look at that. Board Member Lew: Yeah, you don't see it because it's, there's, it's almost like there is a...What do you call it? Like a swale or something, in the back. It's low, and the fence is low, so you don't see it if you're just driving along. Mr. Shively: Right. Board Member Lew: Anyway, if you could research that, that would be great. Mr. Shively: Absolutely. Board Member Lew: Thank you. 2.h Packet Pg. 53 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Mr. Shively: Will I have the opportunity to speak one more time? Board Member Lew: You normally get 10 minutes for rebuttal. Chair Furth: You may. You are entitled to respond. There just was no public comment to respond to. Would you like to speak? We do not have a heavy agenda, with the permission...? We will give you another three minutes. And you're entitled to more. Mr. Shively: I've heard nothing really that we can't accommodate. To highlight, I've got the trash enclosure and the furniture here. I've actually got a rendering with the trellises staying in place, so we're more than willing to keep those trellises, repair as a needed, possibly put a sheet of something on top of it to make it a tad more contemporary. The corrugated metal, thank you very much for your comment. I just got done in Petaluma, where it was my suggestion to McDonald's -- and it took some convincing -- that we needed to actually make that entire wall corrugated metal. Petaluma is more of a rural environment, but on this design, as I look at it, I would think we could make that whole north side corrugated to the horizontal band, might give it some balance. And then, swing it beyond the brand wall, returning so it reads as a corrugated metal on top there. Let me quickly make sure I'm covering all of them. A trellis, we've talked about. I have no problem, and I will be going back to the Petaluma office today -- that's where our landscape architect is -- and saying, "Come on, let's step up to the plate here, let's address some of the landscaping. You've given me pretty clear direction on that, and I'm in total agreement with it. I have no problem with anything I've heard here. What I am hoping for is to be able to work it in a subcommittee or with staff. I would love to report to McDonald's that we're moving forward. If there is any possibility of that session after this session, I can stay here all day if you'd like. Thank you so much. Chair Furth: Thank you. I would just comment that I'm not suggesting that you retain the existing trellises, which may not...Whatever trellis you come up with, I trust it will go well with your new building. Vice Chair Baltay: Sure. I share that... Chair Furth: Vice Chair Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: ...sentiment. It seems to me that the existing trellises are old and worn out, and what I'm commenting on is that there's a tremendous opportunity for something much better. If McDonald's is trying to rebrand itself, it's a great place to do it, and probably not best done by keeping the old trellis, but rather, really turning your landscape architect loose to come up with some new ideas. Chair Furth: Other comments? Alex. Board Member Lew: Yes. I think I agree with my fellow board members regarding the trellis, but I do want to ask staff. My understanding is on other projects, that if you have a covered, roofed, outdoor patio, that that can count towards square footage. And if it counts towards square footage, does that count towards parking? I just wanted some clarification from staff, make sure that we're not causing another problem. Ms. Gerhardt: It is correct if you have a solid roof that is used for sales and services, which this would be because it would be, you know, people purchasing something and going out there to eat, then that would be FAR. But, if you're just asking for a trellis, which is an open feature that the rain water can still get through, then that does not count towards FAR. I think that would be what we would be looking for. Chair Furth: If it makes it attractive in the sun but not in the rain, it's not FAR. Thank you for that clarification. 2.h Packet Pg. 54 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Ms. Gerhardt: That's a decent summary. Also, related to the parking question, the high level of parking that is required on this project is because it is a drive-through project, so it is a different parking ratio than a standard restaurant that does not have a drive-through. Board Member Lew: Which is interesting. I think we should...Because you would think that it would be, it might be the other way around. If people are driving through and they're not parking... Chair Furth: I would think it would be designed to discourage drive-through restaurants. Vice Chair Baltay: Jodie, would you enlighten my ignorance, please, and explain how that work? Why the drive-through would require more? I don't understand. Ms. Gerhardt: I can just read you the code. I don't know the... Vice Chair Baltay: Please do that. Ms. Gerhardt: I don't know the intent behind it. I can only assume it was to discourage drive-throughs, but I don't know that for certain. The code says that for drive-through and take-out facilities that are eating and drinking, you need to have three parking spaces per 100 square feet of gross floor area. So, three per 100 of the entire building. Whereas a standard restaurant which is eating and drinking, you need one space for every 60 gross square feet of public area, and then, one space for every 200 square feet of back-of-the-room kind of space. Chair Furth: What an interesting code. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, Jodie. Board Member Lew: I think my recommendation would be for this one to go to subcommittee, because it seems like the Board is fairly...I think we all understand where we're coming from. I think it's fairly clear. And the applicant seems to understand what we want. I would support this going to subcommittee. Chair Furth: How do the rest of you feel about that? What is your opinion, I should say? Vice Chair Baltay: I'm generally opposed to things going to subcommittee. I think this is going to be a bigger change than that. Chair Furth: Robert? Board Member Gooyer: I’m just not a fan of the design at all, so... Chair Furth: Not going to get his vote. Board Member Gooyer: I mean, it's one of these things, you know, after 40 years of the thing, I wanted something that really, you know, would be a nice addition to the neighborhood. I'm sorry, it's a box. I mean, it's bad enough having to deal with only apartments, everything else we get around here, the condominiums that are flat-top boxes, but I understand why they are because they have a height limit cap. This doesn't. But they made a box just because it's considered "modern," or something, or minimalist, or whatever you want to call it. Modern and minimalist is not always attractive. It can be, but in this particular case, I don't agree with it. I mean, I'm a no vote on it. Chair Furth: This is a minor architecture review for a remodel, and this is not one of those cases where we get a remodel where we then discover one standing building, one standing wall left after they begin work. I'm seeing it as having a narrower scope. 2.h Packet Pg. 55 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Board Member Lew: It does, but I want to caution the Board, that this happened before on a Taco Bell in Palo Alto, where it was a minor remodel, and then, somehow the whole thing got replaced. Vice Chair Baltay: How does that comment support committee motion? Board Member Lew: It doesn't. That's why...Yes. It doesn't. Chair Furth: Staff, as you know, we felt on occasion that we have reviewed projects after being informed that it's a minor remodel, and they're doing various things because of the existing building, and then, we drive by and, what do you know? All the walls fell down but one. What can you tell us that would reassure us about this project? Ms. Gerhardt: We do have a demolition plan, Sheet AO2, that shows what walls are supposed to be removed. And, we will also be looking at the building permit to ensure that it matches this plan. Chair Furth: (inaudible) look closely at AO2, so let's take a look. Board Member Gooyer: I mean, the way I see it, if you're adding almost double the height of the exterior walls, that's a little bit more than just superficial modification. Chair Furth: Did you guys read this? Ms. Gerhardt: And from this plan, it appears that really only one of the front doors, that area around the front door is being changed out. It appears that most of the walls are remaining, but we can have the applicant confirm that. Chair Furth: Could you comment, please? Mr. Shively: Jodie is correct. The door, as you're looking at the front, it would be the main entry for the pedestrians approaching the building. We're removing two of the side lights and retaining the active door and the side light. Chair Furth: While we have you here, could you show me how a pedestrian from the sidewalk approaches McDonald's, approaches the front door? Mr. Shively: Okay, I can barely see this, but this would be the path here. Chair Furth: (inaudible) Ms. Gerhardt: Sheet SP-1 shows you the entire site. And SP-2 shows you more detail about the front. Chair Furth: I'm walking down the sidewalk. I want to walk into McDonald's. Is that a pathway I see, between the parking and the landscaping? That little arrow thing, is that my pathway? Mr. Shively: The arrows, the gray arrows... Chair Furth: Pale gray. Mr. Shively: ...show the accessible path of travel. Chair Furth: Which an able-bodied person could use, too. Mr. Shively: Yes. Chair Furth: Thank you. 2.h Packet Pg. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 12 Vice Chair Baltay: I think that there is going to be bigger changes, not on the building itself, as Alex perhaps alluded to, but on the landscaping and the stuff in the front. The brick wall, for example, he mentioned wasn't entirely clear, and for that reason, I think it needs to come back to the full Board for a review. Chair Furth: All right. Staff, when might this get back on our agenda? I guess we have some space on our agendas next month. Ms. Gerhardt: We are quickly running out of space, but if we can keep it short, we usually try and get this type of item back in a month. That would be the early December hearing, which is December 6th. And that just, we'd need commitment from the applicant that they could turn around changes, really in a week. Chair Furth: Thank you. I'm in favor of bringing it back to the Board as a whole. Is that agreeable to my colleagues? They are indicating yes. And I'm glad the applicant thinks we were clear on our requests. I am somewhat obsessed with -- or focused, I should say -- on the need for people who are walking up and down sidewalks, to be able to sit down if they need to, and then, stand up again, without feeling they are intruding. I will be looking for that, as well as significant landscaping. Anything else that anybody wants to add before we send this off? Alex. Board Member Lew: Is that a motion? Should we have a motion and a second? MOTION Chair Furth: I'd make a motion to continue this to December 6th. Applicant, are you saying yes? Mr. Shively: (inaudible) Chair Furth: Yes. Mr. Shively: I can assure you, we're going to make the revisions in the next couple of days, and I'm going to direct staff to work the weekend to make it happen. Chair Furth: We look forward to seeing you again. Mr. Shively: If we can do it in...Is it just technically not possible to hit the next ARB? Chair Furth: It is not, so, we will see you in the first week of December. All right. I would make a motion to continue this matter to December 6, 2018. Is there a second? Vice Chair Baltay: I'll second that, sure. Chair Furth: All those in favor? Opposed? Hearing no nays, we have a 4-0 motion to continue. Board Member Thompson, absent. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 4-0. Chair Furth: Thank you for your work. We look forward to seeing you again. I will say that I have spent years in San Bernardino County, the home of McDonald's, as well as living in Passey, the home of the fanciest French McDonald's I've ever seen, with the most elegant customers. I look forward to seeing what you do here. Chair Furth: We'll take a five-minute break to set up for the next project. 2.h Packet Pg. 57 Attachment I 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 to find “3128 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: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4244 2.i Packet Pg. 58 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9824) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/6/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3705 El Camino Real: 59 Affordable Units at Wilton Court Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3705 El Camino Real [18PLN-00136]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request of a Major Architectural Review to Allow for the Demolition of two Existing Retail Buildings and Construction of a 100% Affordable Housing Project. The Project Consists of a Four Story Building Containing 59 Residential Units, Two Levels of Garage Parking, and Associated Site Improvements. The Applicant Also Requests a Zone Change to Apply the Affordable Housing Combining District Regulations to the Site, and a Design Enhancement Exception to Allow for Garage and Ground Level Encroachments into a Required Rear and Street Side Yards. Zoning District: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15194 (Affordable Housing). For More Information Contact the 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. Find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per Guidelines Section 15194 (Affordable Housing Exemption). 2. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary 3 Packet Pg. 59 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB on October 4, 2018. The video, meeting minutes, and staff report from that hearing are included below. A copy of the staff report without prior attachments is available in Attachment E. Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66966 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-10042018/ Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67470 The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the Board and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report, as modified to reflect recent project changes. The project and associated rezoning will be reviewed by the City Council at a public hearing later this year, and the Board is encouraged to make a recommendation on the project as presented. The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Relocate and enhance the visibility of the primary entrance on El Camino Real The main lobby has been relocated to the corner of El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue Provide a shade study to illustrate the shading impacts of the building on adjacent properties A shade study diagram has been included with the project plans Consider methods for protecting the privacy of the neighbors The previously proposed upper roof deck facing the neighboring property across the alley has been eliminated from the project plans. Additionally, the project includes an offer to provide a new “good neighbor” fence on the neighboring property across the alley from the project site Provide landscaping and lighting plans in order to demonstrate consistency with the applicable findings Landscaping and lighting plans with plant and material schedules are included in the project plans Consider refinements to the materials and detailing that would enhance architectural texture and relief A materials page has been included with the project plans, and shows a variety of textures, including ground level board- formed concrete, terra cotta tiles, and several stucco sections of various earth- tone colors Enhance the usability, playfulness, and attractiveness of the outdoor amenity space The rear patio has been enhanced to provide varied landscaping, seating areas, and a trellis area with a barbeque and countertops Incorporate additional window sun shades on All of the south-facing windows now 3 Packet Pg. 60 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 the south elevation to stimulate visual interest and provide enhanced shading contain perforated metal sun shades Analysis of Key Issues1 In addition to the comments raised by the Board, the applicant has incorporated changes to the project to meet City standards, including the provision of a stormwater treatment facility at the rear of the site, tree protection measures for an on-site heritage oak, and adjustments to the turning radii for the below-grade garage ramp and aisles. Six of the project’s dwelling units have been eliminated from the current proposal (from 65 to 59 total units proposed), however, the number of parking spaces remains at 41 total, which exceeds the minimum required for the proposed AH Combining District. Except as discussed below (Design Enhancement Exception), the project complies with all Zoning Ordinance requirements for the requested Affordable Housing Combining District overlay. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans, and Guidelines The staff report for the October 4, 2018 ARB hearing on the project (Attachment E) contains an analysis of the project relative to the Comprehensive Plan, El Camino Real Design Guidelines, and South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Relevant policies in these aforementioned documents are analyzed in the draft Record of Land Use Action in Attachment B. In summary, the Comprehensive Plan contains strong support for the creation of higher-density housing projects, and especially affordable housing projects, near public transit services. As previously noted, the site is located along the VTA 22 Bus route, and is located within two blocks of bus stops heading in either direction along El Camino Real. The Comprehensive Plan also supports providing transitions between higher density developments along commercial corridors (such as the project site), and nearby lower density neighborhoods. Lastly, the Comprehensive Plan contains policies in support of retail preservation. However, the applicant has requested a waiver from this requirement in order to provide site amenities and parking for the site. The El Camino Real and South El Camino Real Design Guidelines encourage parking in the rear of the site, as well as screening for at-grade parking with landscaping. Additionally, the Guidelines encourage new developments to define and enhance the pedestrian realm by promoting “active” frontages with prominent lobbies, appropriate landscaping and lighting. The Guidelines also encourage the provision of community rooms and above-grade plazas for residential-only projects. The project adheres to these aforementioned policies, as well as a great number of other policies for the subject Barron-Ventura node and for exclusively- residential projects as demonstrated in the findings for approval in the draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B). 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. 3 Packet Pg. 61 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 On balance, the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the guidance provided in the El Camino Real and South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Transportation Demand Management and Parking Some neighbors have expressed concerns about the amount of parking associated with the project, and that the reductions authorized by the AH Combining District would cause future residents to park on nearby surrounding streets. In accordance with the AH district regulations, the applicant has provided a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan for the project (Attachment F), which includes a number of measures that will be taken to incentivize alternative forms of transportation for future residents. The measures for the project are included below: With the measures identified, the plan indicates that the project would greatly exceed the Comprehensive Plan’s 30% peak hour trip reduction target established for the El Camino Real corridor. The TDM plan also includes an analysis of the parking proposed for the site using the GreenTRIP Parking Connect model, which uses a number of variables (TDM measures, transit proximity, unit affordability, etc.) to estimate parking demand for development projects in the 3 Packet Pg. 62 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 San Francisco Bay Area. The GreenTRIP model described in the analysis estimates that an on- site parking supply of 0.5 spaces per bedroom (31 spaces) would be sufficient for the project, which the project exceeds by 10 spaces. Setbacks The previous ARB hearing on the project included a discussion of the buildings setbacks relative to the El Camino Real, Wilton Avenue, alley, and commercial-abutting sides of the property. As discussed, the project site is located at the corner of El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue. The shorter linear frontage is on the Wilton Avenue frontage, which therefore constitutes the “front” yard for the purposes of the Municipal Code. The El Camino Real frontage is therefore considered a street side yard, and the commercial-abutting side is considered a rear yard. The Municipal Code provides conflicting definitions of whether an alley constitutes a street, and no guidance on the required setback for such an alley. Staff has determined it is more correct to describe the property line off the alley as a street side (rather than an interior) lot line, given the subject property is separated from the nearby multifamily residential property by a 20’- wide public right-of-way providing two-way vehicle access. Design Enhancement Exception The project includes a request for a deviation from the 10 foot rear and 5 foot street side setback requirements to allow for the at-grade and below-grade garage levels and bicycle room through a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE). DEEs may be applied to site development and parking requirements that are otherwise applicable for multifamily development projects when such exceptions would enhance the design of the project. The findings to approve a Design Enhancement Exception are included in the draft Record of Land Use Action in Attachment B. The required rear setback of the site contains parking for vehicles and bicycles, which do not add gross floor area to the project, and also allows for adequate turning radii for vehicles entering the below grade parking level. Moreover, the DEE would allow for additional at- and below-grade parking spaces that would otherwise be restricted by the application of the required setbacks. With adherence to all project conditions of approval, the garage setback exceptions would not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. Accordingly, staff believes that the findings for approval of a DEE can be made. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt from CEQA per Guidelines Section 15194 (Affordable Housing Exemption). The project meets the required criteria for this exemption as established in Guidelines Sections 15192 and 15194, as further detailed in Attachment D. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments 3 Packet Pg. 63 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 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 20, 2018, which is 16 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on November 20, 2018, which is 16 days in advance of the meeting. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Graham Owen, AICP, Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2552 (650) 329-2575 graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Existing Zoning Map (PDF) Attachment B: Record of Land Use Action with ARB and DEE Findings (DOCX) Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) Attachment D: Notice of Exemption Affordable Housing (DOCX) Attachment E: October 4, 2018 ARB Staff Report w/o Attachments (PDF) Attachment F: TDM Plan and Parking Analysis (PDF) Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 64 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 0.0' 107.9' 50.0' 07.9'9' 5.0' 5.0' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 50.0' 113.3' 8.2' 42.5' 120.4'50.0' 102.9' 26.7' 24.4' 113.3'45.0' 153.9' 421 19.3' 7.9' 151.4' 7.9' 50.1' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 45.0 6.0' 45.0' 06.0' 106.0'106.0' 20.7' 71.6' 26.3' 67.6' 35.9'4.3' 121.6' 2.2' 106.8' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 109.7' 50.8' 101.3'50.0' 128.9' 109.7' 50.0' 101.3' 50.1' 102.9' 90' 62.6' 88.2' 62.6' 88.2' 53.9' 60.0' 120.0'20.0' 80.0' 60.0' 102.8' 100.0' 70.0' 71.7' 27.1' 49.6' 62.6' 19.0' 47.2'71.7' 65.0' 106.0'150.0' 90.0' 9.7'2.0'22.0' 126.2' 50.0' 114.7' 32.6' 2 0.9' 95.8' 50.0' 95.8' 1 2.2' 40.6' 79.6' 50.0' 79.6' 21.0' 46.2' 47.6' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 107.9' 55.0' 107.9' 55.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 45.0' 107.9' 45.0' 107.9' 50.0' 107.9' 50.0' 10.0' 94.0' 107.9' 106.0' 87.9' 15.7'2.0' 55.0' 140.0' 55.0' 140.0' 75.0' 165.0' 75.0' 165.0' 165.0' 50.0' 165.0' 99.2' 155.0' 120.1' 104.3' 110.2' 15.7' 94.0' 31.4' 57.7' 24.9' 20.6' 85.1' 119.2' 165.0' 109.0' 13.7' 130.2'98.7' 130.2' 141.2' 120.3' 15.7' 131.3' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 100.0' 106.0' 100.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 120.4' 50.5' 114.7' 110.0' 140.0' 100.0' 15.7' 130.0' 27.6' 127.4' 49.9' 155.0' 49.9' 155.0' 59.1' 155.0' 59.1' 50.0' 143.0' 50.0' 143.0' 50.0' 143.0' 50.0' 143.0' 50.0' 143.0' 50.0' 143.0' 50.0' 143.0' 143.0' 50.0 50.0' 120.0'120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 120.0' 60.0' 92.9' 15.7' 50.0' 102.8' 44.5' 143.0' 44.5' 143.0' 44.5' 143.0' 44.5' 143.0' 44.5' 142.5' 44.5' 142.5' 44.5' 142.5' 44.5' 142.5' 108.0' 93.8' 15.7' 98.0' 103.6'103.6'167.5' 15.7' 93.1' 177.5'50.0' 142.5' 50.0' 142.5' 50.0' 142.5' 50.0' 142.5' 62.5' 142.5' 62.5' 142.5' 50.0' 143.0' 20.6' 24.9' 57.7' 31.4' 30.1' 120.0' 35.1' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 119.9' 60.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 89.0'119.8' 89.0'120.0' 110.0' 130.2' 55.0' 109.0' 165.0'239.2' 105.0' 55.0' 130.2' 120.0' 50.0' 50.0' 119.9' 50.0' 119.9' 50.0' 119.9' 50.0' 119.9' 50.0' 119.9' 50.0' 119.8' 50.0' 119.8' 50.0' 119.8' 53.0' 119.8' 53.0' 119.8' 50.0' 119.8' 50.0' 119.7' 62.5' 142.5' 62.5' 142.5' 62.5' 142.5' 62.5' 142.5' 62.5' 142.5' 148.8' 148.8' 153.9' 150.4' 150.4' 76.7' 37.7' 37.6' 100.0' 100.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 119.8' 119.8' 101.6' 93.6' 66.0' 53.4' 82.5' 82.5' 165.0' 55.1' 265.0' 74.2' 50.0' 119.7' 164.5' 239.2' 239.2' 5.9' 45.0' 101.2' 38.9' 18.9' 175.8' 1.2' 80.6' 150.0' 161.8'7.5' 101.2' 19.2' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 110.0'110.0' 110.0'110.0' 110.0' 100.0' 89.0' 92.4' 7.9'17.4' 45.0' 120.0' 45.0' 45.0' 120.0' 45.0' BARRON AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMIN MATADERO AV BARRON AVENUE CURTNER AVENUE WILTON AVENUE KENDALL AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL MADELINE COURT CY PRESS LANE LANE 66 L A R-2 RM-30 CN This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Special Setback abc Known Structures Tree (TR) 3703-3709 El Camino Real Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes Curb Edge abc Dimensions (AP) Water Feature Railroad abc Zone District Labels 0' 128' Existing Zoning Map - 3703-3709 El Camino Real CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto gowen, 2018-09-18 17:43:11 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 3.a Packet Pg. 65 ACTION NO. 2018-____ RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 3705 EL CAMINO REAL: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND DESIGN ENHANCEMENT EXCEPTION (18PLN-00136) On December __, 2018, the Council of the City of Palo Alto, after considering all of the evidence presented, approved the Architectural Review application for a four-story, 59-unit affordable housing project containing two levels of garage parking and associated site improvements in the CN(AH) (Neighborhood Commercial with Affordable Housing Combining District), making the following findings, determination and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. A. An application for Architectural Review to allow a four-story affordable housing project on the site was submitted on April 19, 2018 B. The application was filed in conjunction with an application to amend the Zoning District Map to add the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District to the site. C. The Planning and Transportation Commission held a duly noticed public hearing, at which evidence was presented and all persons were afforded an opportunity to be heard, and recommended approval of the Zoning District Map Amendment on September 26, 2018. D. On December 6, 2018, the Architectural Review Board held a duly noticed public hearing, at which evidence was presented and all persons were afforded an opportunity to be heard, and recommended approval of the Architectural Review and associated Design Enhancement Exception on December 6, 2016. E. The City Council, after reviewing the evidence presented, adopted the recommendation of the Planning and Transportation Commission and Architectural Review Board and approved the subject project. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The proposed project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt per Section 15194 (Affordable Housing Exemption) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. The project meets the required criteria for this exemption as established in Guidelines Sections 15192 and 15194. SECTION 3. Architectural Review Findings. Architectural Review approval is based on the findings indicated under PAMC Section 18.76.020: 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 design is consistent with a number of policies and programs in the Comprehensive Plan, including the following: 3.b Packet Pg. 66 Land Use Element Policy L-2.5: Support the creation of affordable housing units for middle to lower income level earners, such as City and school district employees, as feasible. Policy L-2.4: Use a variety of strategies to stimulate housing, near retail, employment, and transit, in a way that connects to and enhances existing neighborhoods. Program L2.4.7: Explore mechanisms for increasing multi-family housing density near multimodal transit centers. Policy L-3.4: Ensure that new multi-family buildings, entries and outdoor spaces are designed and arranged so that each development has a clear relationship to a public street. Policy L-3.1: Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. Policy L-4.2: Preserve ground-floor retail, limit the displacement of existing retail from neighborhood centers and explore opportunities to expand retail. Policy L-4.15: Recognize El Camino Real as both a local serving and regional serving corridor, defined by a mix of commercial uses and housing. Policy L-6.7: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible. Housing Element Policy H2.1: Identify and implement strategies to increase housing density and diversity, including mixed-use development and a range of unit styles, near community services. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and mixed income housing to support the City’s fair share of the regional housing needs and to ensure that the City’s population remains economically diverse. Program H2.1.1: To allow for higher density residential development, consider amending the zoning code to permit high-density residential in mixed use or single use projects in commercial area within one-half mile of fixed rail stations and to allow limited exceptions to the 50-foot height limit for Housing Element sites within one –quarter mile of fixed rail stations. Program H2.1.2: Allow increased residential densities and mixed use development only where adequate urban services and amenities, including roadway capacity, are available. Program H2.1.4: Amend the Zoning Code to create zoning incentives that encourage the development of smaller, more affordable housing units, including units for seniors, such as reduced parking requirements for units less than 900 square feet and other flexible development standards. Program H2.1.6: Consider density bonuses and/or concessions including allowing greater concessions for 100% affordable housing developments. Program H2.2.8: Assess the potential of removing maximum residential densities (i.e. dwelling units per acre) in mixed use zoning districts to encourage the creation of smaller housing units within the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and adopt standards as appropriate. Program H2.1.10: As a part of planning for the future of El Camino Real, explore the identification of pedestrian nodes (i.e. “pearls on a string”) consistent with the South El Camino Design Guidelines, with greater densities in these nodes than in other areas. Program H2.2.6: On parcels zoned for mixed use, consider allowing exclusively residential use on extremely small parcels through the transfer of zoning requirements between adjacent parcels to 3.b Packet Pg. 67 create horizontal mixed use arrangements. If determined to be appropriate, adopt an ordinance to implement this program. Program H3.1.5: Encourage the use of flexible development standards, including floor-area ratio limits, creative architectural solutions, and green building practices in the design of projects with a substantial BMR component. Program H3.1.12: Amend the Zoning Code to provide additional incentives to developers who provide extremely low-income (ELI), very low-income, and low income housing units, above and beyond what is required by the Below Market Rate program, such as reduced parking requirements for smaller units, reduced landscaping requirements, and reduced fees. The site is located on El Camino Real, and accordingly, the project has been evaluated relative to the El Camino Real and South El Camino Real Design Guidelines as applicable. The project includes a number of design elements that are consistent with these Guidelines, including the following: Barron-Ventura District Vision: New buildings should front El Camino Real with a scale appropriate to a neighborhood commercial district. Street level facades should have numerous pedestrian amenities. Street level facades should also be highly transparent from the sidewalk Build-to Lines: Buildings should be built up to the sidewalk to reinforce the definition and importance of the street. […] On parcels located in node areas, a minimum of seventy-five percent of the El Camino Real frontage must be comprised of building mass built up the build-to setback line.\ Corner Parcels: For corner parcels, the building should be built up to the setback line in order to define the corner[…] In node areas, the building should continue at the side street setback line for a minimum of fifty percent of the side street property frontage. Minimum height: Building should have a minimum height of twenty-five feet in order to provide a presence in scale with El Camino Real. Limited Driveway Access from El Camino Real: New developments should minimize driveways and curb cuts to reduce impacts on El Camino Real traffic flow and on-street parking. Alley Access: Properties with rear alleys are strongly encouraged to have all vehicles access from the alley. Usable Amenities: Landscape and hardscape features should not just be visually appealing, but also function as open space amenities to be used and enjoyed[…]Amenities should be functional as well as visually appealing, with seating, tables, canopies and covering trellises. Privacy of Adjacent Residential Uses: Privacy of existing residential properties must be protected through screening and landscaping. Fencing, shrubbery, trellises, and high windows should be used to protect views into residential properties. Minimum Alley Setback: Buildings and landscaping should be set back to create a 20-foot minimum clearance. Where alleys intersect with streets, adequate sight distances and building setbacks should be provided. Orientation to Alley: Buildings should have windows and doors oriented towards the alley. Although it is not expected that a building will have as many doors and windows facing the alley as it does El Camino Real, the openings that do face the alley should have a human scale and details. Alley-accessed parking should include well-designed, covered rear building entries, or connect to front entries through generously proportioned pedestrian passageways. Articulated Facades: In order to create a cohesive streetscape, building facades should be articulated with a building base, body, and roof or parapet edge. 3.b Packet Pg. 68 Corners: Corners should be addressed with special features such as prominent entries, massing, and architectural elements. Architectural Expression of Building Entries: Entries should be marked by architectural features that emphasize their importance. Features such as tall building features, projecting overhangs, special lighting, awnings and signage can signify the location and importance of an entry. Expression of Habitation: Residential or mixed-use residential projects should incorporate elements that signal habitation such as entrances, stairs, porches, bay and balconies that are visible to people on the street. Articulation and Depth: Building elevations should have variation and depth, rather than a false front treatment. Varies massing, projections, and recesses can be used to create a sense of articulation and depth. Active Street Frontage: Residential projects should maintain an active ground floor street frontage. Uses such as lobbies, community rooms, and habitable outdoor terraces and plazas should be situated along ground floor street frontage. Partially-Recessed or Underground Garage Treatment: Where parking is provided in a partially- submerged/split level garage, the ventilated garage façade should be completely screened with architectural and landscape devices. 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 includes an intuitive program that would be desirable for future residents, visitors and the community. The building contains a main entrance at the corner of El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue, with two levels of vehicle parking accessed via the rear alley. An existing heritage oak tree on the site contributes beneficial canopy and habitat on the site, and will be protected during construction. The building includes a stepped massing away from El Camino Real, which provides a transition in scale, mass, and character to the two-story multifamily apartments across the rear alley from the site. The project is consistent with the context-based design criteria for the zone, and is consistent with the El Camino Real and South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The project has eliminated a previously proposed roof deck on an upper level, which will help mitigate potential privacy and noise concerns for the adjacent multifamily residents, and includes an offer to upgrade the neighboring property’s alley fence. 3.b Packet Pg. 69 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 contains a variety of compatible, durable and high quality materials, including terra cotta tiles, board formed concrete, and stucco of various colors. The materials are largely earth-tone and muted, but also provide a cohesive and unified architectural statement. Architectural details, such the use of a second floor overhang, sunshades, and an articulated glass façade on the ground level, also stimulate visual interest and will enhance the streetscape appearance of the site. 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 has been designed appropriately for a building along an urban commercial corridor. The El Camino Real frontage includes the pedestrian lobby, as well as two dedicated bicycle rooms with direct access to the street to encourage cycling. Vehicle access for the project is off of the rear alley, which would reduce vehicle queuing on El Camino Real and provide superior access management than curb cuts along the primary frontages. The alley frontage also contains a trash room, which is appropriately arranged to allow for necessary building operations. Open space on the site consists of a podium courtyard above the ground-level parking garage, which contains a variety of site amenities and landscaping. 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 landscaping for the site consists of a number of appropriate, edible, fragrant, and indigenous plants, including citrus trees, lavender, sage, and toyon shrubs, and a variety of grasses and groundcovers. The landscaping is arranged adjacent to and within the public rights-of-way on the site frontages, as well as in the podium courtyard and rear landscape area. The landscaping enhances the building design, as well as the attractiveness and usability of the project’s open space area. Additionally, vines are proposed to cover the garage vents at the rear alley, which will provide an appropriate screen for adjacent residents. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. A summary of the project’s compliance is on sheet GB-1 of the plans. The project includes a number of measures including storm water drainage, heritage tree protection, electric vehicle charging outlets, a solar-ready roof. Site planning emphasizes the primacy of pedestrians and cyclists accessing the site frontage, and enhances connections with nearby transit services. 3.b Packet Pg. 70 SECTION 4. Architectural Review Approval Granted. Architectural Review Approval is hereby granted for the Project by the City Council pursuant to PAMC Section 18.77.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and subject to the conditions of approval in Section 7 of this Record. SECTION 5. Design Enhancement Exception Findings. Design Enhancement Exception approval is based on the findings indicated under PAMC Section 18.76.050: Finding #1: There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district; The site includes two legal lots on a corner that, when merged, place the front lot line on Wilton Avenue rather than El Camino Real. The vast majority of lots along the El Camino Real corridor contain front lot lines along El Camino Real, and otherwise contain zero-lot lines for commercial components of projects in the CN zoning district. The project does not contain a commercial component, however, ground floor uses are exclusively amenities and site parking, and do not contain any residential units. The requested Design Enhancement Exception would allow for the garage and bicycle parking room to encroach into the street side (alley) setback and rear (commercial-abutting) setback, the latter of which would be permitted by-right if the El Camino Real frontage were narrower than Wilton Avenue’s or if the ground floor contained a commercial use, rather than residential amenity use. Given these zoning constraints, there are exception and extraordinary circumstances applicable to the property and project that do not apply generally to property in the same zoning district. Finding #2: The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirements of this title (Zoning) and the architectural review findings set forth in Section 18.76.020(d); and The Design Enhancement Exception to allow setback encroachments for the garage and bicycle room will allow for a functional garage ramp to access the underground parking level, which reduces the impact of surface parking on the site. The DEE also allows for additional structured parking for the project that would otherwise be required to conform to the street side and rear setbacks. As discussed above, the DEE would not be necessary should the project include a commercial component or deeper lot configuration, and will allow for a function garage space that also provides for a continuous streetscape appearance along El Camino Real. Finding #3: The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The exception is for accessory parking uses that are excluded from Gross Floor Area and will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. 3.b Packet Pg. 71 SECTION 11. Design Enhancement Exception Granted. Design Enhancement Exception approval hereby is granted for rear and street side yard setback encroachments for vehicle and bicycle garage parking, effective [DATE] and subject to the conditions of approval in Section 7 of this Record. The granting of this Design Enhancement Exception does not constitute a variance, and shall be effective only to the extent that the approved plans are not changed in a manner that affects the granted exception. SECTION 7. Conditions of Approval. PLANNING 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Use and development shall be conducted in substantial conformance with the approved plans entitled, "Wilton Court Apartments,” dated November 20, 2018 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. NOISE. The use of the podium courtyard shall at all times be in conformance with the Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 8). 5. LIGHTING. All exterior lighting associated with the podium courtyard shall be oriented downward and away from City rights of way and adjacent properties. Light filaments and bulbs shall not be visible at the property line in order to prevent glare. 6. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 7. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall automatically expire after two years from the original date of approval, if within such two year period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings has not commenced pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the permit or approval. Application for a one year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the expiration. (PAMC 18.77.090(a)) 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. 3.b Packet Pg. 72 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, Jodie Gerhardt at Graham.Owen@CityofPaloAlto.org to schedule this inspection. 10. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall automatically expire after two years from the original date of approval, if within such two year period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings has not commenced pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the permit or approval. Application for a one year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the expiration. (PAMC 18.77.090(a)) TRANSPORTATION 11. The zoning standards applied to this project require submittal and approval of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan. Accordingly, the applicant shall prepare and submit a TDM plan for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment prior to planning entitlement. The TDM plan shall include measures and strategies to reduce evening peak-hour motor vehicle trips arriving and departing the site by a minimum of 30%. The TDM plan shall include an annual monitoring plan to determine compliance with the trip reduction target. If results from the monitoring reports show the target was not achieved, the Director of Planning & Community Environment may require changes to the TDM program or impose administrative penalties if deficiencies are not addressed within six months. 12. The required 12-foot wide sidewalk along the El Camino Real frontage shall be paved with city- standard sidewalk and free of vertical obstructions with the exception of street trees, street furniture, lighting, and other approved furnishings. On revised plans, show off-site features along the building frontages such as sidewalk, curb, gutter, street trees, and curb ramps. Clearly indicate any proposed changes from existing conditions. URBAN FORESTRY 13. Tree protection, fencing alignments and type, shall be shown for all trees retained on the site. 14. Tree Replacement will meet the Urban Forest Master Plan Policy of No Net Loss of tree canopy. The project applicant shall supply canopy diameters of trees currently on site and expected diameters of newly planted trees at 15 years of growth. In general, small stature tree species are expected to have a canopy 15’ in diameter, medium stature 25’ and large stature 35’. a. Trees along El Camino Real will be large stature at maturity, drought tolerant and of a species that is native or climate adaptive. California sycamore (Platanus racemosa) or an approved alternate with similar attributes. b. Site identified for potted plants along El Camino Real shall be planted with large stature trees. Potted plants are not acceptable. 15. The City requires adequate viable soil volume areas for healthy public trees. The volume of viable soil to be provided per tree is based on the size of the tree at maturity. Connecting two or more 3.b Packet Pg. 73 planting sites is ideal and requires 75% of the soil volume per tree as compared to single-site volumes below. Soil cells may be used under the sidewalk or an engineered equivalent. c. 400 cubic feet of rootable soil volume shall be available per small tree, d. 800 cubic feet per medium-sized tree and e. 1200 cubic feet per large-sized tree 16. NEW TREES—PERFORMANCE MEASURES. New trees shall be shown on all relevant plans: site, utility, irrigation, landscape, etc. in a location 10’ clear radius from any (new or existing) underground utility or curb cut. a. Add note on the Planting Plan that states, “Tree Planting. Prior to in-ground installation, Urban Forestry inspection/approval required for tree stock, planting conditions and irrigation adequacy. Contact (650-496-5953).” b. Landscape Plan tree planting shall state the Urban Forestry approved species, size and using Standard Planting Dwg. #604 for street trees or those planted in a parking median, and shall note the tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. Wooden cross-brace is prohibited. c. Add note on the Planting & Irrigation Plan that states, “Irrigation and tree planting in the right- of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards.” d. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. e. Automatic irrigation bubblers shall be provided for each tree. Standard Dwg. #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Bubblers mounted inside an aeration tube are prohibited. 17. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 18. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 3.b Packet Pg. 74 19. 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. 20. 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. 21. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b) verified all his/her updated TPR mitigation measures and changes are incorporated in the plan set, (c) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (d) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. 22. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to any site work verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Section. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 23. 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. 24. OBLIGATION TO MONITOR AND PROTECT NEIGHBORING TREES. Project site arborist will protect and monitor neighboring trees/protected redwood/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. FIRE 25. Install a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler, NFPA 14 standpipe, NFPA 24 underground fire svc, NFPA 72 fire alarm system and an Emergency Responder Radio (DAS) Sys. 26. Provide Code analysis allowing only 1 exit from the Garage Level B1 parking area. The 2016 CBC Table 1006.3.2(2) requires 2 exits from this area if the occupant load exceeds 29 persons. The occupant load calculated for this area is 38 for 7657 sq ft. On Sht TS0.0 under project data Garage Level B1 is shown as 988 sq ft. On Sht TS0.1 the Garage Level B1 is shown as 7657 sq ft. Please clarify. 3.b Packet Pg. 75 27. Upgrade public fire hydrant located in front of 480 Wilton Ave to a Clow model 76. 28. Provide exterior elevations on the plan sets with dimensions. 29. Roof access will be the way of fixed ladders at the top of the stairwell enclosure with min 4’x4’ roof hatches. Roof hatches shown can be reduced in size if needed. 30. Elevator shall be sized to accommodate a gurney and 2 attending medical personnel. PUBLIC WORKS – ENGINEERING 31. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project shall comply with the storm water regulations contained in provision C.3 of the NPDES municipal storm water discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (and incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11). These regulations apply to land development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface, and restaurants, retail gasoline outlets, auto service facilities, and uncovered parking lots that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. In order to address the potential permanent impacts of the project on storm water quality, the applicant shall incorporate into the project a set of permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to protect storm water quality, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. The applicant shall identify, size, design and incorporate permanent storm water pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape-based treatment controls such as bioswales, filter strips, and permeable pavement rather than mechanical devices that require long-term maintenance) to treat the runoff from a “water quality storm” specified in PAMC Chapter 16.11 prior to discharge to the municipal storm drain system. Effective February 10, 2011, regulated projects, must contract with a qualified third-party reviewer during the planning review process to certify that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. A stamped and signed letter from the third party reviewer confirming which documents they reviewed and that the proposed C.3 design is in compliance with MRP 2.0 Provision C.3 and PAMC 16.11 and this C.3 Data Form (http://www.scvurppp- w2k.com/pdfs/1112/SCVURPPP_C.3_Data_Form_final_2012.pdf) completely filled out and stamped and signed as approved by the qualified third party reviewer must be submitted in advance of PWE approving the Planning application. Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, third-party reviewer shall also submit to the City a certification for approval that the project’s permanent measures were constructed and installed in accordance to the approved permit drawings. 32. Applicant will be required to dedicate the additional portion of land to create a 12’ sidewalk on El Camino Real. Please clearly show this 12’ clear dimension on plans to confirm proposed improvements do not encroach into the 12’. 33. As the proposed building crosses two existing parcels, the lots will need to be merged prior to Building permit issuance. It isn’t clear if condominium units are proposed, but if they are, a 3.b Packet Pg. 76 Tentative Map and a Final Map are required for the proposed development and the applicant shall submit a major subdivision application to the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Please show all existing and proposed dedications and easements on the map submitted as part of the application. Please be advised that the Final Map shall be recorded with the Santa Clara County Clerk Recorder prior to Building or Grading and Excavation Permit issuance. A digital copy of the Parcel Map, in AutoCAD format, shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering and shall conform to North American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NGVD88 for vertical survey controls. Tentative/Final maps are submitted under a Major Subdivision application to the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Public Works will review and provide comments on the documents provided as part of the submittal. Please be advised that under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, off-site improvement plans are processed as an extension of the subdivision application process and the applicant may be required to enter into a subdivision improvement agreement and provide security for work shown in the plans. 34. Applicant will be required to offer a dedication for a public access easement for the additional dimension of sidewalk between the property line and back of walk and/or building edge that meets the El Camino Real Master Plan requirements. If no mapping is to be done for this project, the dedication will be required to be recorded in advance of permit issuance. 35. Applicant will be required to dedicate a Public Utility Easement at the location of the new proposed transformer. If no mapping is to be done for this project, the dedication will be required to be recorded in advance of permit issuance. It is unclear if applicant intends to use the existing transformer and existing PUE – please clarify this on the plans. 36. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must all existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work . The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 37. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’ arborist at 650-496- 5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’ arborist (650- 496-5953). 38. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the 3.b Packet Pg. 77 pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 39. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. 40. DEWATERING: Proposed underground garage excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April 1 through October 31 due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level; if the proposed project will encounter groundwater, the applicant must provide all required dewatering submittals for Public Works review and approval prior to grading permit issuance. Public Works has dewatering submittal requirements and guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 41. GRADING & EXCAVATION PERMIT: An application for a grading & excavation permit must be submitted to Public Works when applying for a building permit. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 42. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 43. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet of street trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist (phone: 650-496-5953). This approval shall appear on the plans. Show construction protection of the trees per City requirements. 44. 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. 45. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area 3.b Packet Pg. 78 Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 1. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of the Building and/or Grading permit. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. 46. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. 47. 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. 48. STORM WATER HYDRAULICS AND HYDROLOGY: Plans provided do not show if the existing site drainage has a direct discharge into the existing system. Provide an analysis that compares the existing and proposed site runoff from the project site. Runoff shall be based on City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards for 10 year storm event with HGL’s 0.5 foot below inlet grates elevations and 100-year storm with HGL not exceeding the street right-of-way. As described on the City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards. Please provide the tabulated calculations directly on the conceptual grading and drainage plan. This project may be required to replace and upsize the existing storm drain system to handle the added flows and/or depending on the current pipe condition. The IDF tables and Precipitation Map for Palo Alto is available County of Santa Clara County Drainage Manual dated October 2007. The proposed project shall not increase runoff to the public storm drain system. 49. Provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall including the following: pad elevation, basement elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, shoring for the proposed basement, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for the basement access, crane locations (if any), etc. Plans submitted for the Grading and Excavation Permit, shall be stand-alone, and therefore the plans shall include any conditions from other divisions that pertain to items encountered during rough grading for example if contaminated groundwater is encountered and dewatering is expected, provide notes on the plans based Water Quality’s conditions of approval. Provide a note on the plans to direct the contractor to the approve City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map, which is available on the City’s website. 3.b Packet Pg. 79 50. Provide the following note on the Grading and Drainage Plan and/or Site Plan: “Contractor shall contact Public Works Engineering (PWE) Inspectors to inspect and approve the storm drain system (pipes, area drains, inlets, bubblers, dry wells, etc.) associated with the project prior to backfill. Contractor shall schedule an inspection, at a minimum 48-hours in advance by calling (650)496- 6929”. 51. Decorative streetlights shall be added to meet spacing guidelines of 35-feet to 40-feet per light. Existing “cobra head” lights shall be replaced by tall decorative lights and the remaining distance shall be met with pedestrian scale lights. Spec will be provided, however applicant shall use LED luminaire instead of incandescent or sodium vapor. 52. PAVEMENT: Any cutting into the pavement will trigger additional pavement requirements. Add the following note to the Site Plan: “Applicant and contractor will be responsible for resurfacing portions of Wilton Avenue and Lane 66 based on the roadway surface condition after project completion and limits of trench work. At a minimum pavement resurfacing of the full width of the street along the project frontage may be required.” Plot and label the area to be resurfaced as hatched on the site plan. WGW UTILITES 53. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - loadsheet per unit for each unit on the property for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the new total loads. 54. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way. 55. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater lateral need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas. 56. The applicant shall be responsible for upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 57. The gas service, meters, and meter location must meet WGW standards and requirements 58. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be 3.b Packet Pg. 80 installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. 59. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 60. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 61. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 62. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 63. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. 64. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters; lesser distances require a permanent impermeable root-barrier a minimum of 3ft horizontal from water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters . 65. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto current utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. 3.b Packet Pg. 81 PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ Deputy City Attorney Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment 3.b Packet Pg. 82 Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3703-3709 El Camino Real Zoning District CN (Existing Zoning) CN (AH) (Proposed Zoning) (18.30(J))(9) Regulation Required Required Proposed Minimum Site Area (ft2) None Required None Required 20,150 sf Site Width (ft) None Required None Required 98 feet Site Depth (ft) None Required None Required 168 feet Min. Front Yard 0 – 10 feet to create an 8 – 12 feet effective sidewalk width (7) Same as Underlying District 5 feet off Wilton Avenue Min. Rear Yard 10 feet for residential portion; no requirement for commercial portion Same as Underlying District 10 feet for residential units; 1 foot for ground floor and below grade portions Min. Interior Side Yard 10 feet (for lots abutting a residential zone district) Same as Underlying District N/A Min. Street Side Yard 5 feet Same as Underlying District 5 feet off El Camino Real; 5 feet off alley for residential units, 2.7 feet for garage (DEE proposed) Build-to-Lines 50 percent of frontage built to setback; 33 percent of side street built to setback (1) Same as Underlying District 81% build-to on ECR frontage; 57% build-to on Wilton Avenue Maximum Site Coverage 50 percent None Required None Required Maximum Height Standard: 40 feet on El Camino Real Maximum Height Within 150 feet of a residential zone district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the side: 35 feet(4) Standard: 50 feet Maximum Height Within 50 ft of a R1, R-2, RMD, RM-15, or RM-30 zoned property: 35 feet (11) Standard: 44 feet to roof, 48 feet to parapet Transitional Height: 35 feet Maximum Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.6:1(4) 2.0:1 1.85:1 Maximum Total Mixed Use Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0:1(4) 2.4:1 Not applicable Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts Daylight plane height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zoning district abutting the lot line Daylight plane height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zoning district abutting the lot line Adjacent RM-30 zone is greater than 70 feet in width, and therefore no side or rear daylight plane is required 3.c Packet Pg. 83 Page 2 of 3 Maximum Residential Density per Acre 15-20 units/per acre (8) None Required 127 units per acre Minimum Site Open Space/Landscape Coverage (percent) (10) 30 percent 20 percent 32 percent Minimum Usable Open Space (sf per unit) 150 sf per unit (when six units or more) (2) 25 sf per unit for 5 or fewer units, 50 sf per unit for 6 units or more 110 sf per unit Minimum Common Open Space (sf per unit) N/A None Required None required Minimum Private Open Space (sf per unit) N/A None Required None required Zoning District CN (Existing Zoning) CN (AH) (Proposed Zoning) (18.30(J)) Regulation Required Required Proposed Multiple-Family Off-Street Parking Requirement 1.25 per studio, 1.5 per one- bedroom; 2 per two-bedroom 0.75 per unit (33 total spaces required). The Director may modify this standard based on findings from a parking study that show fewer spaces are needed for the project. The required parking ratio for special needs housing units, as defined in Section 51312 of the Health and Safety Code shall not exceed 0.3 spaces per unit. 41 total spaces 0.69 per unit (project total) 0.75 per unit for units not dedicated for individuals with developmental disabilities Guest Parking 33% of all residential units provided None None Bicycle Parking PAMC 18.52.040 Table 1 1 space per unit/ 100% Long Term (LT) Same as Underlying District 86 spaces in bicycle storage rooms; 8 short term spaces near main entry CN Notes 1) Twenty-five-foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage; build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. 2) Required usable open space: (1) may be any combination of private and common open spaces; (2) does not need to be located on the ground (but rooftop gardens are not included as open space); (3) minimum private open space dimension six feet; and (4) minimum common open space dimension twelve feet. 3) Residential density shall be computed based upon the total site area, irrespective of the percent of the site devoted to commercial use. 4) For CN sites on El Camino Real, height may increase to a maximum of 40 feet and the FAR may increase to a maximum of 1.0:1 (0.5:1 for nonresidential, 0.5:1 for residential). 3.c Packet Pg. 84 Page 3 of 3 5) For sites abutting an RM-40 zoned residential district or a residential Planned Community (PC) district, maximum height may be increased to 50 feet. 6) Ground floor commercial uses generally include retail, personal services, hotels and eating and drinking establishments. Office uses may be included only to the extent they are permitted in ground floor regulations. 7) A 12-foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage. 8) Residential densities up to 20 units/acre only on CN zoned housing inventory sites identified in the Housing Element. CN (AH) Notes 9) These developments shall be designed and constructed in compliance with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23, as well as the context-based design criteria outlined in Section 18.13.060 for residential-only projects, Section 18.16.090 for mixed use projects in the CN, CC, and CS districts, and Section 18.18.110 for mixed use projects in the CD district, provided that more restrictive regulations may be recommended by the architectural review board and approved by the director of planning and community environment, pursuant to Section 18.76.020. 10) Landscape coverage is the total area of the site covered with landscaping as defined in Chapter 18.04. For the purposes of this Chapter 18.30(J), areas provided for usable open space may be counted towards the landscape site coverage requirement. Landscape and open space areas may be located on or above the ground level, and may include balconies, terraces, and rooftop gardens. 11) The Planning Director may recommend a waiver from the transitional height standard. 3.c Packet Pg. 85 NOTICE OF EXEMPTION PROJECT TITLE: 3703-3709 El Camino Real (Wilton Court) PROJECT LOCATION: 3703-3705 and 3707-3709 El Camino Real; APNs: 132-35-045 and 132-41-085; City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, California PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Rezoning of the site to add Affordable Housing Combining District (Overlay), and Architectural Review of a new 59-Unit, 4-story residential housing project containing 100% income-restricted units. NAME OF PUBLIC AGENCY APPROVING THE PROJECT: City of Palo Alto NAME OF PERSON OR GROUP CARRYING OUT PROJECT: Palo Alto Housing EXEMPT STATUS (check one) ☐ Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268) ☐ Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)) ☐ Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c)) ☒ Categorical Exemption: 15194 Affordable Housing ☒ Statutory Exemptions. REASONS WHY PROJECT IS EXEMPT: Project meets threshold criteria set forth in Sections 15192 and 15194, as described in Attachment A. 3.d Packet Pg. 86 City of Palo Alto Notice of Exemption P a g e | 2 PROJECT PLANNER: Graham Owen IF FILED BY APPLICANT: 1. Attach certified document of exemption finding. 2. Declare if a Notice of Exemption has been filed by the public agency approving the project ☐Yes ☐ N/A Signature (Public Agency) Title Date 3.d Packet Pg. 87 City of Palo Alto Notice of Exemption P a g e | 3 CEQA Guidelines Section 15192. Threshold Requirements for Exemptions for Agricultural Housing, Affordable Housing, and Residential Infill Projects. In order to qualify for an exemption set forth in sections 15193, 15194 or 15195, a housing project must meet all of the threshold criteria set forth below. (a) The project must be consistent with: (1) Any applicable general plan, specific plan, or local coastal program, including any mitigation measures required by such plan or program, as that plan or program existed on the date that the application for the project pursuant to Section 65943 of the Government Code was deemed complete; and The project is consistent with the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The land use designation for the site is CN Neighborhood Commercial, which allow for higher density residential uses near transit services. (2) Any applicable zoning ordinance, as that zoning ordinance existed on the date that the application for the project pursuant to Section 65943 of the Government Code was deemed complete, unless the zoning of project property is inconsistent with the general plan because the project property has not been rezoned to conform to the general plan. The project will be consistent with the zoning ordinance prior to City Council approval. (b) Community-level environmental review has been adopted or certified. An Environmental Impact Report was adopted for the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan on November 13, 2017. (c) The project and other projects approved prior to the approval of the project can be adequately served by existing utilities, and the project applicant has paid, or has committed to pay, all applicable in-lieu or development fees. The site is located on an existing developed site in an urbanized area that is currently developed with all relevant utilities. The applicant will be required to pay all applicable development impact fees as set forth in the Municipal Fee Schedule. (d) The site of the project: 3.d Packet Pg. 88 City of Palo Alto Notice of Exemption P a g e | 4 (1) Does not contain wetlands, as defined in Section 328.3 of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The site is located in an urbanized area and does not contain any wetlands. The nearest watercourse is the Matadero Creek, located approximately 0.2 miles from the site. (2) Does not have any value as an ecological community upon which wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and invertebrates depend for their conservation and protection. The site is developed with commercial buildings and an associated parking lot, and does not contain significant habitat or ecological value to animals, birds, or plants. Protected trees on and near the site would be protected during construction or replaced in accordance with Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. (3) Does not harm any species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.) or by the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 1900) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code), the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code. The site is not subject to a Habitat Conservation Plan and is not known to contain any species protected by federal or state statutes. (4) Does not cause the destruction or removal of any species protected by a local ordinance in effect at the time the application for the project was deemed complete. The site is located in an urbanized area of the City of Palo Alto. The site is almost entirely covered by buildings, parking lots, and other impervious surfaces, and does not contain wetlands or valuable wildlife habitat. The site is not known to contain any species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act, Native Plant Protection Act, or the California Endangered Species Act. The project would not cause the destruction or removal of any locally-protected plant or animal species. 3.d Packet Pg. 89 City of Palo Alto Notice of Exemption P a g e | 5 (e) The site of the project is not included on any list of facilities and sites compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The site is not located on any list of facilities and sites compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. (f) The site of the project is subject to a preliminary endangerment assessment prepared by a registered environmental assessor to determine the existence of any release of a hazardous substance on the site and to determine the potential for exposure of future occupants to significant health hazards from any nearby property or activity. In addition, the following steps have been taken in response to the results of this assessment: (1) If a release of a hazardous substance is found to exist on the site, the release shall be removed, or any significant effects of the release shall be mitigated to a level of insignificance in compliance with state and federal requirements. The site was characterized in a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and Phase II Summary Limited Investigation. The Phase II investigation collected soil, vapor, and groundwater samples from the subject site, and several samples contained contaminants in concentrations above residential screening levels. These contaminants are suspected to have originated from the historical motor and marine supply business that operated on the site prior to the existing uses. The Phase II report provided recommended mitigation measures to ensure that the health and safety of future building occupants is protected, including the removal of contaminated soil from the site and the installation of a vapor intrusion barrier beneath the planned parking garage. All such measures would be reviewed and approved by the appropriate oversight agency in accordance with the recommended Site Management Plan and in compliance with all state and federal requirements. With an approved Site Management Plan, all effects of the soil, soil vapor, and groundwater contaminants on the site would be mitigated to a level of insignificance. (2) If a potential for exposure to significant hazards from surrounding properties or activities is found to exist, the effects of the potential exposure shall be mitigated to a level of insignificance in compliance with state and federal requirements. 3.d Packet Pg. 90 City of Palo Alto Notice of Exemption P a g e | 6 The nearest surrounding property with a history of releases of hazardous substances is located approximately 150 feet away at 3601 El Camino Real. This nearby site contains a Shell-branded Gas Station and is a Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) cleanup site under the oversight of the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health Local Oversight Program. Due to historical leaking underground tanks associated with the gas station use, petroleum hydrocarbons were found in the soil and groundwater at and near the site. The associated groundwater plume was delineated in a Site Conceptual Model from 2014, which showed groundwater movement in the north-ward direction from the site. A case closure and no further action notice for this site was issued on July 29, 2016. The Wilton Court site is located outside of the plume delineated in the Site Conceptual Model and in the opposite direction of the detected groundwater movement. (g) The project does not have a significant effect on historical resources pursuant to Section 21084.1 of the Public Resources Code. Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms for the two existing commercial buildings were prepared to survey the historical development of the two parcels on the site. These forms are used to assess whether a building or site contains a potentially significant historic resource due to its association with events, persons, or exemplar architectural style significant to the development of the state of California. Both buildings were assessed and neither was found to be a potentially historic resource or eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historic Resources. (h) The project site is not subject to wildland fire hazard, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, unless the applicable general plan or zoning ordinance contains provisions to mitigate the risk of a wildland fire hazard. The site is located in an urbanized area and is not subject to wildland fire hazards. (i) The project site does not have an unusually high risk of fire or explosion from materials stored or used on nearby properties. The site contains retail uses containing stored materials that are typically associated with such uses. The surrounding uses are multifamily residential apartments, a restaurant, and other retail uses. Neither the site nor the surrounding properties have an unusually high risk of fire or explosions. 3.d Packet Pg. 91 City of Palo Alto Notice of Exemption P a g e | 7 (j) The project site does not present a risk of a public health exposure at a level that would exceed the standards established by any state or federal agency. Criteria addressed under subsection (f)(1). With an approved Site Management Plan, all effects of the soil, soil vapor, and groundwater contaminants on the site would be mitigated to a level of insignificance. As mitigated, the site would not present a risk of a public health exposure that would exceed the standards established by any state or federal agency. (k) Either the project site is not within a delineated earthquake fault zone or a seismic hazard zone, as determined pursuant to Section 2622 and 2696 of the Public Resources Code respectively, or the applicable general plan or zoning ordinance contains provisions to mitigate the risk of an earthquake or seismic hazard. The site is not located in an earthquake fault zone or seismic hazard zone. Construction of the project would proceed in compliance with the California Building Code. (l) Either the project site does not present a landslide hazard, flood plain, flood way, or restriction zone, or the applicable general plan or zoning ordinance contains provisions to mitigate the risk of a landslide or flood. The site is not located in a flood zone or area subject to landslide hazards. (m) The project site is not located on developed open space. The site is located in an urbanized area and is not located on any developed or undeveloped open space. (n) The project site is not located within the boundaries of a state conservancy. The site is not located within the boundaries of a state conservancy. (o) The project has not been divided into smaller projects to qualify for one or more of the exemptions set forth in sections 15193 to 15195. The project has not been divided into smaller projects to qualify for one or more of the exemptions set forth in Sections 15193 to 15195. 3.d Packet Pg. 92 City of Palo Alto Notice of Exemption P a g e | 8 Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Sections 21159.21 and 21159.27, Public Resources Code. CEQA Guidelines Section 15194 (Affordable Housing Exemption) CEQA does not apply to any development project that meets the following criteria: (a) The project meets the threshold criteria set forth in section 15192. As demonstrated below, the project meets the threshold requirements set forth in 15192. (b) The project meets the following size criteria: the project site is not more than five acres in area. The project is located on a site encompassing less than half of an acre. (c) The project meets both of the following requirements regarding location: (1) The project meets one of the following location requirements relating to population density: (A) The project site is located within an urbanized area or within a census-defined place with a population density of at least 5,000 persons per square mile. Not applicable (B) If the project consists of 50 or fewer units, the project site is located within an incorporated city with a population density of at least 2,500 persons per square mile and a total population of at least 25,000 persons. Not applicable (C) The project is located within either an incorporated city or a census defined place with a population density of at least 1,000 persons per square mile and there is no reasonable possibility that the project would have a significant effect on the environment or the residents of the project due to unusual circumstances or due to the 3.d Packet Pg. 93 City of Palo Alto Notice of Exemption P a g e | 9 related or cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity of the project. The site is located within the City of Palo Alto, which is an incorporated City with a population density in excess of 1,000 persons per square mile. There is no reasonable possibility that the project would have a significant effect on the environment or the residents of the project due to unusual circumstances or due to the related or cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable projects in the vicinity of the project. Net peak hour vehicle trips associated with the project would be negligible given the existing intensive retail uses. (2) The project meets one of the following site-specific location requirements: (A) The project site has been previously developed for qualified urban uses; or (B) The parcels immediately adjacent to the project site are developed with qualified urban uses. (C) The project site has not been developed for urban uses and all of the following conditions are met: 1. No parcel within the site has been created within 10 years prior to the proposed development of the site. 2. At least 75 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that are developed with qualified urban uses. 3. The existing remaining 25 percent of the perimeter of the site adjoins parcels that have previously been developed for qualified urban uses. The project site contains two commercial buildings that contain several retail establishments. Retail is considered a qualifying urban use per Guidelines Section 15191. Additionally, the site is surrounded by retail and residential uses, which are also qualifying urban uses. (d) The project meets both of the following requirements regarding provision of affordable housing. (1) The project consists of the construction, conversion, or use of residential housing consisting of 100 or fewer units that are affordable to low-income households. 3.d Packet Pg. 94 City of Palo Alto Notice of Exemption P a g e | 10 (2) The developer of the project provides sufficient legal commitments to the appropriate local agency to ensure the continued availability and use of the housing units for lower income households for a period of at least 30 years, at monthly housing costs deemed to be “affordable rent” for lower income, very low income, and extremely low income households, as determined pursuant to Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. The project consists of the construction of 59 units that would be affordable to low- and very-low income households. Note: Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 21159.23, Public Resources Code. 3.d Packet Pg. 95 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9423) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/4/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3705 El Camino Real: 65 Affordable Units at Wilton Court Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3705 El Camino Real [18PLN-00136]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow for the Demolition of two Existing Retail Buildings and the Construction of a 100% Affordable Housing Project on the Site Located at 3703-3709 El Camino Real. The Project Consists of a Four Story Building Containing Sixty-Five Residential Units, Two Levels of Garage Parking, and Associated Site Improvements. The Applicant Also Requests a Zone Change to Apply the Affordable Housing Combining District Regulations to the Site. Zoning District: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15194 (Affordable Housing). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at Graham.Owen@CityofPaloAlto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Continue the project to a date uncertain in order to allow for plan modifications that would meet the ARB findings. Report Summary The applicant requests approval of an Architectural Review (AR) application of a four-story, 65- unit building on the subject site. All units in the project would be deed-restricted for low and very-low income individuals, as well as a number of units for individuals with developmental disabilities. This AR application is being processed concurrently with an application to amend the zoning district map (rezoning) to add the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District 2 Packet Pg. 8 3.e Packet Pg. 96 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 regulations to the site. The AH Combining District modifies a number of the key development standards for the underlying Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zone, including height, FAR, density, parking, lot coverage, and open space in order to incentivize affordable housing construction. Background Project Information Owner: Palo Alto Housing Architect: Pyatok Architects Representative: Sheryl Klein, Palo Alto Housing Board Chair Legal Counsel: Not applicable Property Information Address: 3703-3709 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Ventura Lot Dimensions & Area: 163’ x 98’ (20,150 sf) Housing Inventory Site: Yes, with a realistic yield of 9 units across the two parcels Located w/in a Plume: Not applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes, several street trees Historic Resource(s): DPR forms indicate there are no historic resources Existing Improvement(s): Two detached structures; 1-story each; circa 1938 and 1949 Existing Land Use(s): Retail Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: Northeast: RM-30 Multi-family Residential (apartments) Northwest: CN Neighborhood Commercial (restaurant) Southeast: CN Neighborhood Commercial (retail) Southwest: CN Neighborhood Commercial (retail) Special Setbacks: Not applicable Aerial View of Property: 2 Packet Pg. 9 3.e Packet Pg. 97 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Zoning Designation: CN Neighborhood Commercial / AH Overlay (Pending) Comp. Plan Designation: Neighborhood Commercial Context-Based Design: Yes Downtown Urban Design: Not applicable SOFA II CAP: Not applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): Yes Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes Located w/in AIA (Airport Influence Area): Not applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: The Council conducted a prescreening of the project at a public hearing on August 28, 2017. Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/60907 2 Packet Pg. 10 3.e Packet Pg. 98 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Meeting Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61317 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-136/ The Council approved the AH Combining District at a public hearing on April 9, 2018. Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64347 Meeting Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=43577.64&BlobID=65350 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-152-2-3-2-2-2/ PTC: The PTC conducted hearings on AH Combining District on February 14 and March 14, 2018. February 14, 2018 Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63360 Meeting Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64590 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-63-2/ March 14, 2018 Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63857 Meeting Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64589 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/planning-transportation-commission-63-2-2/ PTC conducted hearings on the rezoning of the subject site on September 26, 2018 Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/66818 HRB: None ARB: None Project Description The applicant seeks to develop a four-story residential building on the subject property containing 65 income restricted-units. The site is located at the northeast intersection of El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue on the southern edge of the Ventura neighborhood. The application for Architectural Review is being processed concurrently with an application to amend the zoning district map to add the Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District to the site. That rezoning application was reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission on September 26, 2018, which recommended approval of the rezoning to the City Council. The building follows an L-shaped plan with the longer portion built up to the required 12 foot sidewalk along El Camino Real. The main entrance to the building is located on the El Camino Real frontage approximately 24 feet from the Wilton Avenue corner. The first floor is composed of community and auxiliary spaces, as well as a parking garage accessed from the alley. An additional level of parking is provided beneath the building, and is accessed separately at the end of the alley. The second floor contains 23 units, as well as a large outdoor patio area on a podium above the first floor garage. The third floor is composed solely of 23 residential units, and the fourth floor is composed of 19 units with a roof deck at the corner of Wilton Avenue and the rear alley. The roof contains a ~4 foot parapet on all sides, and space for potential solar panels. The proposed building would be ~48 feet in height. Towards the alley side of the project, the total height to the roof is lowered to 32 feet, with an additional ~4 foot parapet/safety railing, 2 Packet Pg. 11 3.e Packet Pg. 99 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 which provides a transition on Wilton Avenue between the taller portions of the building on El Camino Real to a lower profile along the alley. The materials include board-formed concrete on the first floor street frontages, and combination of stucco and wall tiles on the higher elevations. In addition to these materials, the alley-facing (northeast) and southeast elevations include stucco with an alternative color. The second through fourth floors slightly overhand the first floor by a foot on the street-facing frontages. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The site is located at the southeast corner of El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue and is improved with two mid-century 1-story commercial buildings containing retail establishments, including a stamp and coin shop, a European grocery, a hair salon, and a bridal shop. The site is located on the southern edge of the Ventura neighborhood, and is surrounded by a diverse range of uses, including one and two-story retail buildings and multi-family residential apartments. Reflecting this diversity of uses, the zoning districts in the vicinity of the site are varied, but generally follow a pattern of Neighborhood Commercial Districts fronting El Camino Real abutting Multi-Family Residential districts one block off the corridor. The Multi-Family Districts in the vicinity are long and narrow following the contour of the El Camino Real corridor, and abut Two-Family and Single-Family Residential districts to the northeast. Zoning Compliance2 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed, and a summary table is provided in Attachment D. The current iteration of the project plans is noncompliant for building setbacks based on less than the minimum requirement for the underlying CN district along the street frontages and interior lot line abutting the adjacent retail building. The applicant will work to resolve these setback issues, and would appreciate early guidance on the overall project design from the Board in order to fully inform a resubmittal, which would be returned to the Board for further review. In addition, the applicant has requested a waiver from the retail preservation requirement that applies to the site as permitted through the AH Combining District regulations. This retail waiver request will be considered by the City Council when they review the project. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 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. 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 2 Packet Pg. 12 3.e Packet Pg. 100 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) land use designation for the project site is Neighborhood Commercial, which supports the development of higher-density housing on sites located near public transit services. The site is located on El Camino Real, which is served by the VTA 22 Bus, which provides 15 minute headways during much of the day, including peak commute hours. The Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Housing Elements contain a number of policies and programs that support the development of higher density housing in transit-served areas, as well as providing flexible development standards for projects with substantial affordable housing components. The Housing Element designates these two parcels as having a realistic potential for 9 units. The Comp Plan also contains policies that seek to provide transitions to lower density residential districts, which is provided for in the form of a transition in the height of the project towards the multi-family residences (and single family residences beyond) on Wilton Avenue. Finally, the Comp Plan contains policies encouraging the preservation of retail, whereas the applicant has requested a waiver to the otherwise applicable preservation requirement for this project. A list of the applicable Comp Plan policies is included in Attachment F. On balance, the project is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan. The site is located on El Camino Real and is therefore subject to the El Camino Real Design Guidelines and South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. Links to these Guidelines are included below: El Camino Real (ECR) Design Guidelines (79’ ECR Guidelines): https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/19040 South El Camino Real (ECR) Design Guidelines: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/19041 Both sets of Guidelines include direction for the future physical development of the corridor, with detailed policies for buildings, streets and paving, signs, landscaping and trees, and the overall streetscape appearance. The ECR Design Guidelines recommend screening parking with walls, landscaping, and berms, and relegating parking to the sides and rear of the site. Frontages along El Camino Real should use the front setback (assuming ECR) to provide a landscape buffer between the building and the street to block noise and provide a more pleasant view of the building. Light poles associated with the project should be between 12’ and 20’ in total height, with low and even levels of light intensity to prevent glare. The South ECR Design Guidelines provide more specific guidance for residential-only projects on the ECR corridor. The site is located in the Barron-Ventura Area, which is characterized by 2 Packet Pg. 13 3.e Packet Pg. 101 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 moderately dense development. The guidelines suggests that new buildings should front El Camino Real with an appropriate scale for the neighborhood commercial district, with a particular emphasis on pedestrian amenities and transparent facades at street level. Exclusively residential projects should be setback 20-24 feet from the curb on El Camino Real frontage, and 16 feet from the curb on sidestreets. This greater setback appears to assume residential units on the ground floor or slightly above ground floor, whereas the current application contains functional community and auxiliary spaces on the ground floor. The South ECR Design Guidelines suggest that projects should have prominent pedestrian entryways facing El Camino Real, which are announced with elements such as overhangs, columns, and low walls to create a strong presence. The Guidelines also encourage “active” frontages through the use of lobbies, community rooms, as well as and outdoor terraces and plazas above ground level. The scale and character of the development should provide a strong street edge that is appropriate to the “boulevard scale” of El Camino Real. Flat roofs with parapets are strongly encouraged, especially for buildings that do not contain units with individual entry ways to the street. The Guidelines encourage articulation in the massing to enhance visual interest and a sense of scale. Multi-Modal Access & Parking Of particular interest to many in the neighborhood is amount of parking associated with the use. The project contains 42 parking spaces, whereas the minimum required for the use is 38 spaces per the AH Combining District regulations. The units provided for residents with developmental disabilities are not required to provide associated parking spaces. A traffic assessment was performed for the project, which indicates that net peak hour trips associated with the project would be negligible given the existing intensive retail use. The studied intersections (Wilton Avenue/El Camino Real and Barron Avenue/El Camino Real) currently operate adequately during weekday peak hours and, with the addition of the project, would not be measurably impacted. Additionally, the assessment projected that approximately 5% of associated trips would be assigned to travel east of the site onto Wilton Avenue, with the majority of vehicles traveling north or south on El Camino Real. Consistency with Application Findings The findings to approve an Architectural Review application are included in Attachment C. While the project is still under development and will need to correct the previously mentioned setback issue, the ARB is invited to discuss whether the findings can be met. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project exempt from CEQA per Guidelines Section 15194 (Affordable Housing Exemption). The project meets the required criteria for this exemption as established in Guidelines Sections 15192 and 15194 as detailed in Attachment E. 2 Packet Pg. 14 3.e Packet Pg. 102 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on September 21, 2018, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on September 24, 2018, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. 2. Recommend the project continue to a date certain Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Graham Owen, AICP, Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2552 (650) 329-2575 Graham.Owen@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: x Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) x Attachment B: Applicant Project Description (PDF) x Attachment C: Findings and Context-Based Design Criteria (DOCX) x Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) x Attachment E: Affordable Housing Exemption (DOCX) x Attachment F: Comprehensive Plan Policies (DOCX) x Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 15 3.e Packet Pg. 103 [NAME OF DOCUMENT] | VOLUME [Client Name] Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | i WILTON COURT AFFORDABLE HOUSING Transportation Demand Management Plan November 2018 Image: Google Earth © 2018 3.f Packet Pg. 104 WILTON COURT AFFORDABLE HOUSING TDM PLAN Palo Alto Housing Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 1 INTRODUCTION The following TDM Plan has been prepared for Palo Alto Housing as part of the City of Palo Alto’s TDM requirement for new projects. As an affordable housing development, the project is subject to the Affordable Housing Combining District regulations. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION Project The proposed affordable housing development is be located along the northern side of El Camino Real between Wilton Avenue and Curtner Avenue. The project is a 100% affordable development that will include 59 residential units, comprised of 56 single-room occupancy (SRO) units and three one-bedroom units. The proposed project meets or exceeds vehicle and bike parking requirements with 41 vehicle parking spaces, a bike room with capacity for 70 bikes, and guest bike parking for 8 bikes near the main entry.1 Area Context Transit Service The site of the proposed project is along El Camino Real, the main arterial road serving the east side of the San Francisco Peninsula. The site is accessible to a number of bus services including 24-hour frequent local service, express service and a local community shopper shuttle. The site is also immediately adjacent to northbound buses running along the El Camino Real Corridor. Transit services available on site include the following: Figure 1 Existing Transit Service within 1/2 Mile of Site Transit Agency Route Number Destinations Service Hours Bus Frequency Range Walking Distance to nearest stop Stanford University Marguerite Shopping Express (SE) Palo Alto Transit Center to San Antonio Shopping Center Academic Year2 Weekdays (3:15 pm – 10:35), Academic Year Weekends (9:35 am – 11:08 pm) 50 to 60 minutes (Regular Academic Year Service) 0.3 miles at Hansen Way and El Camino Real Summer weekends and Academic holidays3 (9:45 am – 11:08 pm) 2 hours (Summer/Holidays) 1 Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.52, Table 1 2 Approximately from mid-September to mid-June. 3 Approximately from mid-June to mid-September, and 10 federal holidays 3.f Packet Pg. 105 WILTON COURT AFFORDABLE HOUSING TDM PLAN Palo Alto Housing Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2 Transit Agency Route Number Destinations Service Hours Bus Frequency Range Walking Distance to nearest stop VTA 22 (Local) Palo Alto Transit Center to Eastridge Transit Center 24 hours a day, 7 days a week 10 to 60 minutes (Weekdays) 250 feet at Curtner and El Camino Real 15 to 80 minutes (Weekends/Holidays) VTA 101 (Express) Camden & Highway 85 to Palo Alto Weekdays (Southbound departure at 4:10 pm and 5:10pm; Northbound arrival at 6:17am and 7:05am) N/A (Two runs in each direction) 0.5 Miles at Hansen & Curve VTA 102 (Express) South San Jose to Palo Alto Weekdays (Northbound 6:44-9:01 am; Southbound 3:15-5:33 pm) 10 to 30 minutes 0.5 Miles at Hansen & Curve VTA 104 (Express) Penitencia Creek Transit Center to Palo Alto Weekdays (Westbound 6:47 & 7:35 am; Eastbound 4:22 & 4:51 pm) N/A (Two runs in each direction) 0.5 Miles at Hansen & Curve Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities There are two Class III and three Class II bicycle facilities, headed multiple directions, within a ½ mile of the site. Figure 2 Bike Facilities within 1/2 Mile of Site Class of Bike Facility Facility Name Description of Corridor Destinations Distance from Site Class III Matadero Ave Shared Lane Markers Bol Park Bike Path to Park Bike Boulevard 0.08 Miles Class III Park Blvd Bicycle Boulevard Palo Alto School Campus to San Antonio Shopping Center. 0.25 Miles Class II Los Robles Ave Unbuffered Bike Lanes and Shared Lane Markers El Camino Real to Bol Park Bike Path 0.3 Miles Class II Hansen Way Buffered and Unbuffered Bike lanes Page Mill to El Camino Real 0.35 Miles Class II W. Meadow Dr. Unbuffered Bike Lanes El Camino Way to E. Meadow Circle 0.45 Miles Future Improvements The City of Palo Alto and the California Department of Transportation will be installing a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK) System at El Camino Real and Baron Avenue to enhance pedestrian crossing safety at the un-signalized intersection. 3.f Packet Pg. 106 WILTON COURT AFFORDABLE HOUSING TDM PLAN Palo Alto Housing Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3 Access to Amenities The site of the proposed project is located on El Camino Real, with restaurants and coffee shops in close walking proximity. Additionally, the site is an approximate 15 minute walk to a Grocery Outlet on Alma Street. However, there are other major amenities and shopping centers less than 10 minute transit trip away, including San Antonio Center. Other major destinations, such as downtown Palo Alto, are easily accessible by transit or bicycle. Figure 3 Shopping Areas within Three Miles of Site Shopping Area Distance from Proposed Site (Miles) Estimated Travel Time by Mode, minutes Major Amenities Bike Walking Transit California Ave. Business District 0.9 6 18 7 Country Sun Natural Foods, Caltrain San Antonio Center 1.8 7 36 10 Trader Joes, Walmart, Safeway, Target, CVS, Sprouts Farmers Market Embarcadero Rd. 2 13 40 16 Trader Joes, CVS Downtown Palo Alto 2.8 16 55 20 Whole Foods, CVS, Caltrain Baseline Vehicle Trip Generation The baseline figure was informed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (10th Edition) report. The average rate of total weekday trips per dwelling unit for mid-rise apartments4 is 5.44. Therefore, the baseline estimation of this site’s weekday trip generation totals 321 daily trips. The highest peak hour baseline estimation is in the afternoon, with 26 trips. It should be noted that the affordable housing proposed for the site, which currently contains retail, will only net a total of 11 new trips per day. Figure 4 Baseline Vehicle Trip Generation Estimates Land Use Size Total Weekday Rate Total Weekday Trips AM Peak Rate AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Rate PM Peak Hour Trips Affordable Housing (Proposed Use) 59 units 5.44 321 0.36 21 0.44 26 Retail (Existing Use) 8,200 square feet 37.75 310 0.94 16 3.81 21 Net Trips -- -- 11 -- 5 -- 5 Source: Project Trip Generation Estimates by Hexagon, using Rates from ITE Trip Generation, 10th Edition, 2017 Note: Above numbers may not add up due to rounding 4 ITE Code 221 3.f Packet Pg. 107 WILTON COURT AFFORDABLE HOUSING TDM PLAN Palo Alto Housing Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4 TDM PROGRAM A TDM program can encourage the site’s residents to use the most environmentally friendly and spatially efficient mode possible for each trip, with an emphasis on transit, bicycling, walking, and shared rides. Proposed TDM Strategies The strategies outlined in Figure 5 are designed to work together to affect site users’ travel habits. Targeted programs strengthen the benefits of investments in bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and the site’s proximity to major transit nodes by reinforcing awareness of these options, breaking down barriers to incorporating them in travel routines, and incentivizing habitual use. Figure 5 TDM Strategy Summary TDM Strategy Description Caltrain Go Pass provision Provide unlimited Caltrain rides for all residents. VTA SmartPass provision Provide unlimited VTA local and express bus rides for all residents. Emergency Mobility Subsidy Tenants who commit to not owning a motor vehicle will receive an annual stipend of $100 per household for emergency rides to be used towards a transportation network company (TNC) (e.g. Lyft, Uber), taxi and/or scooter share in order to reduce parking demand. Bike Share Provide shared bicycles onsite for the use of residents. Carpool Ride-Matching Services Tenant ride-matching services allows residents to easily be paired with potential carpool partners. Information Boards/Kiosks TDM information boards, kiosk, and hotline/online access to transportation information and coordinators. Improved Bus Shelter Upgrades to on-street bus shelter to encourage transit ridership Improved Pedestrian and Bicycle Access to Site Improvements to crossing along El Camino Real Shuttle to Caltrain Station and Neighborhood Amenities/Shopping Centers Provide timed connections to Caltrain stations during peak travel hours, shopping shuttles to area shopping centers during evenings and weekends, and demand-response services during off-hours. Promotional Programs Promotion and organization of events for the following programs: new tenant orientation packets on transportation alternatives; flyers, posters, brochures, and emails on commute alternatives; transportation fairs; Bike to Work Day, Spare the Air; Rideshare Week; trip planning assistance routes and maps. On-site Transportation Coordinator On-site property management staff will provide a welcome package for new tenants, distribute Go Passes and other memberships, and additional information. Monitoring program By annually monitoring the TDM and parking program, the owner/management can adjust the strategies etc. in order to meet requirements, parking ratio, mode split, etc. 3.f Packet Pg. 108 WILTON COURT AFFORDABLE HOUSING TDM PLAN Palo Alto Housing Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5 Impact of Proposed TDM Program Trip Generation (URBEMIS) The URBEMIS model5 is used in this analysis to estimate an appropriate and conservative potential trip percentage reduction impact from the stated baseline. Based on the proposed site’s existing context in the urban environment and regional transportation network, along with the TDM program as described in Figure 5, the model estimates a 50.5% reduction in daily trips from the Hexagon baseline of 321 trips. This reduction would result in the project creating 159 daily trips and may help justify a proportionate reduction in the parking requirement. Peak hour motor vehicle trips, which are the standard set by the Transportation Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan6, are estimated to be a maximum of 13 trips during the afternoon peak hour, a 50.5% reduction from the Hexagon baseline of 26 trips. This estimate exceeds the minimum 30% reduction required for new projects along the El Camino Real Corridor. Parking Demand (GreenTRIP Connect) To estimate parking demand for the project, the GreenTRIP Connect Parking Model was used. The GreenTRIP Connect Parking Model was developed by the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT), a national nonprofit organization focused on developing research and modeling tools for city planning. The model’s equations were developed and calibrated using parking demand data from 71 transit-oriented developments throughout the Bay Area.7 The model is similar to those produced by CNT for King County, Washington State (RightSizeParking.org) and Washington, D.C. (ParkRightDC.org). The model’s calculations are based on local data and include several variables such as parking supply, average rent, parking price, average bedrooms per unit, presence of transit passes or carshare memberships, availability of affordable units, and neighborhood variables (walkability, job density and frequency of transit). Due to the local variables used in it, the GreenTRIP model only applies in the San Francisco Bay Area. These variables demonstrate the critical relationship between parking and vehicle trip generation. Parking supply and parking pricing are two of the most important factors to consider when determining ultimate vehicle trip generation. They are also the primary reasons why there is such a strong nexus between reductions in parking demand and vehicle trip generation – by limiting the former, lower vehicle trip generation naturally follows (whereas having TDM programs such as transit passes with free and abundant parking oftentimes has limited success in reducing vehicle trips). For transit-oriented developments in particular, the model is more appropriate than relying on more generic parking demand data from sources such as the ITE Parking Generation (4th Edition) report, which provides data gathered at isolated suburban sites around the United States with free parking and little or no transit. While data from the ITE Parking Generation report is valuable for estimating demand at conventional auto-oriented sites, it is inappropriate for sites such as 3709 El Camino Real, unless substantial adjustments are made to account for factors such 5 Urban Emissions Model 6 p. 78 7 http://www.transformca.org/GreenTRIP-Connect/Methodology. http://www.transformca.org/sites/default/files/Parking%20Model%20July%202016.pdf 3.f Packet Pg. 109 WILTON COURT AFFORDABLE HOUSING TDM PLAN Palo Alto Housing Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6 as transit service levels, neighborhood character, area parking prices, and other factors that affect parking demand. When factoring in the site, context, and proposed strategies (including resident transit passes and bike share programs), the GreenTRIP model estimates a predicted rate of 0.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit, which, is substantially less than the recommendation for a generic location in Santa Clara County on average (0.9 spaces per unit). This 0.5 rate equates to a demand for approximately 31 parking spaces8. Therefore, the proposed supply of 41 parking spaces is sufficient for this site. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING Per the Transportation Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan new developments are expected to regularly monitor the success of their TDM measures. Success in TDM programs comes with meeting or surpassing measurable benchmarks that relate directly to the implementing entity’s overarching goals. With regular and rigorous monitoring, the developer can ensure that its investments in TDM programs are as cost-effective as possible, and it can enable staff to adjust the proposed TDM framework over time in response to changing resident needs. The number of vehicle trips associated with the project will be tracked using an annual hose count through the first five-year evaluation period. The trip count will be managed and overseen by the site-wide TDM coordinator. The purpose of the hose count is to determine how many vehicles are entering and exiting the site during the peak hour. The hose count will be conducted over a 3-day period; Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday during a normal business week. Data on vehicle entries and exits will be collected at all entry and exit points to the site continuously over the 3- day period. An average of the peak hour data for the three days will be taken to determine the number of peak hour vehicle trips. The count will be conducted during the same month each year and the initial count should commence within a year of the certificate of occupancy. The target of 30% trip reduction, as required by the Comprehensive Plan, will be measured using a baseline of 26 afternoon peak hour vehicle trips. A manual count and/or a limited timeframe may be necessary if cost is a prohibitive factor. If the TDM project is not achieving the trip reduction target, changes may be made to the TDM program to assure objectives will be met. 8 http://connect.greentrip.org/ 3.f Packet Pg. 110 Attachment G Project Plans and CEQA Notice of Exemption Hardcopies of project plans and the Notice of CEQA Exemption are provided to Board members. These plans and environmental documents 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 to find “3705 El Camino Real” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the Project Plans, CEQA Notice of Exemption and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4374&TargetID=319 3.g Packet Pg. 111 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9800) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/6/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 4115 El Camino Real: 7 Unit Mixed Use Building (2nd Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4115 El Camino Real (17PLN-00280): Recommendation on a Major Architectural Review for a Proposed Three-Story, 16,725 Square Foot Mixed- Use Development Comprised of Ground Floor Retail, Second Floor Office and Residential, Third Floor Residential (Seven Residential Units in Total) and Below-Grade Parking. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is Being Circulated for Public Comment Between November 30, 2018 and January 2, 2018. Zoning District: CN (Neighborhood 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.Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB on June 7, 2018, where the Board provided comment and direction for the applicant to revise their project to better meet the Architectural Review findings. An earlier staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies; that report is available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65334. A copy of the report without prior attachments is available in Attachment G. 4 Packet Pg. 112 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the Board and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report and modified to reflect recent project changes. The project requires adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration in accordance with CEQA. The implementation of the project would result in some environmental impacts, all of which can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Attachments include findings for approval of the project and conditions of approval. Background On June 7, 2018 the project was the subject of an ARB public hearing. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-2- 3-2-2-2-2/. The Board’s comments and the applicant’s responses are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Parking was insufficient, and a parking reduction would require approval from the Director. Basement level parking was increased to have eight spaces at grade off El Camino Way, 20 basement level spaces, and 19 puzzle-lift spaces for a total of 47 spaces. 47 spaces are required. One of the spaces at grade is accessible and required additional area. This caused a reduction in the landscape amenity area along El Camino Way. (Sheets A006, A008, A009) Materials/building should be reorganized to be more pedestrian-oriented and residential feeling. Front Elevation (Sheet A013): The style of the entry tower was revised. The beams and columns were removed. A base material was added along the retail and was carried onto the entry tower and down the breezeway. The cantilevered office space was revised so that the windows align with the retail. The office balcony wall was revised to create more of a base element for the building. An elevation plane was added across the balcony and over the cantilevered elements. The residential balcony was exposed to create more of a stepping in the massing. Rhythm of the retail storefront was revised to match the office above. Right Elevation (Sheet A013): Garage ramp screen aligned with second floor deck above. Windows in middle were realigned. Wood material added to recess. 4 Packet Pg. 113 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Wood massing revised to feel more organized. Landscape added to the garage screen to soften edge. Third floor balcony pulled back to create more stepping. Cantilevered office mass was extended to create a better material transition. Rear Elevation (Sheet A014): Planter added at entry tower. Second floor balcony glass rail replaced with planter. Planter trellis element extended up to match new planter edge. Wood massing extended on right side to overlap the garage. Balconies at right were pulled back to clean up the cantilever edge. Balcony separation was shifted. Residential windows resized and reorganized. Signage should not be on the second floor, to make the building more pedestrian-oriented. Signage is on the first floor for the retail. There is no building signage for the second-floor office (Sheet A013). COMPARISON PHOTOS Previous Front Elevation (June 2018) 4 Packet Pg. 114 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Current Front Elevation (October 2018) Source: SDG Architects, Inc. 2018 Previous Rear Elevation Current Rear Elevation 4 Packet Pg. 115 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Source: SDG Architects, Inc. 2018 Previous Right Elevation Current Right Elevation Source: SDG Architects, Inc. 2018 4 Packet Pg. 116 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Previous Left Elevation Current Left Elevation Source: SDG Architects, Inc. 2018 Analysis1 The revised project appears to respond well to the Board’s comments. The rendering quality of the revised plans’ elevations also appears to be improved over the previous submittal. With the inclusion of mechanical lift parking and adjustments to the surface parking, the proposal is now in compliance with the zoning parking requirements, providing 47 total spaces, including the required accessible and electric vehicle parking. With regards to the architecture, the building materials are now better organized, particularly on the right side of the building. On the front, the entry tower is differentiated from the rest of the ground floor. This responds to the comments seeking a visual difference between the residential and retail uses. Additionally, the potential signage was modified to be more pedestrian-scale with the removal of the sign locations on the second floor. However, signage will be a deferred submittal item, with no signage being proposed at this time. The landscaping is generally the same, however the planter strip on the right side was relocated to be along the driveway/ramp to the underground parking. This helps screen the parking area from the view of the street and meet the context-based findings. This also shifts the pedestrian 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. 4 Packet Pg. 117 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 path of travel from the secondary residential stairs towards El Camino Way, whereas in the original plans they let out towards El Camino Real. An additional accessible parking space was added at the rear to serve the ground-floor retail space. This caused a reduction in the amount of landscape for the outdoor amenity space along El Camino Way. Findings for approval may be found in Attachment B and they demonstrate how the proposed project meets the Contextual Design Criteria, Performance Standards (Attachment C), Zoning Code, South El Camino Real Design Guidelines and Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. Public circulation of this document started on November 30, 2018 and will end on January 2, 2018. Staff will accept comments on the IS/MND during this timeframe. The IS/MND is available as Attachment G. The Initial Study identifies potentially significant environmental impact(s) and mitigation measures to avoid or significantly reduce these impacts, as summarized below: Biological Resources – Bird surveys and construction timing will reduce impacts to nesting birds, if they are present. Cultural and Tribal Resources - A qualified archaeologist shall train construction personnel for archaeological and paleontological sensitivity prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activities. Geology and Soils – The project shall implement the design recommendations outlined in the Geotechnical Investigation to reduce impacts from liquefaction. Noise – The project shall implement noise reduction techniques during construction to control noise. Implementation of mitigation measures are required to reduce these impacts to less than significant. These mitigation measures have been incorporated into a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that will be made a condition of approval to insure these measures are implemented. 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 23, 2018, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on November 21, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. 4 Packet Pg. 118 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon Ah Sing, AICP, Consultant Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager 408-340-5642 x109 (650) 329-2575 sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX) Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX) Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) Attachment E: Applicant Response to ARB Comments (PDF) Attachment F: June 7, 2018 Staff Report w/o Attachments (PDF) Attachment G: Project Plans and Environmental Documents (DOCX) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Packet Pg. 119 3.a Packet Pg. 46 4.a Packet Pg. 120 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 4115 El Camino Real 17PLN-00280 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The proposed project complies with the zoning code and requires no exceptions to the development standards. The project is subject to the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The proposed project is generally consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan, below is an analysis of the applicable goals and policies: Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Neighborhood Commercial (CN). The project consists of retail and office with off-street parking and mixed-use residential which the Comp Plan states may be appropriate along the El Camino. Land Use and Community Design 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 project redevelops and existing commercial parcel and provides an attractive development consistent with the City’s design criteria. Policy L-1.3: Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. The project is an urban infill development proposal in the urban service area of the city. Policy L-1.4: Commit to creating an inventory of below market rate housing for purchase and rental. The proposed project includes one BMR unit for sale. 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 proposed project allows for a publicly- accessible passage way between El Camino Way and El Camino Real. This increases access to the El Camino for other residents in the 4.b Packet Pg. 121 Policy L-2.2 Enhance connections between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods by promoting walkable and bikeable connections and a diverse range of retail and services that caters to the daily needs of residents. neighborhood. Policy L-2.6 Create opportunities for new mixed use development consisting of housing and retail. The proposed project includes housing, retail, and office. Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create coherent development patterns and enhance city streets. The project is consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance because it maintains building setbacks, height, parking standards. Further, the project is subject to the City’s design review process, which ensures a high-quality appearance. Policy L-6.2: Use the Zoning Ordinance, design review process, design guidelines and Coordinated Area Plans to ensure high quality residential and commercial design and architectural compatibility. Business and Economics Element Goal B-6: Attractive, vibrant retail centers, each with a mix of uses and a distinctive character. The project provides a mix of uses on El Camino Real. Policy B-6.5 Strengthen the commercial viability of businesses along the El Camino Real corridor by, for example, encouraging the development of well-designed retail, professional services and housing The South El Camino Real Design Guidelines are applicable to the project and the site is located within the Triangle Area Pedestrian Node. The project is generally consistent with the Guidelines, below is an analysis of the applicable guidelines: 3.1.1 Effective Sidewalk Width: Create a 12-foot effective sidewalk width along El Camino Real The project proposes a 12-foot effective sidewalk width. 3.1.2 Sidewalk Setback Design: The design of the sidewalk setback should create an urban “downtown” character. The proposed sidewalk setback includes an area for outdoor seating. 3.1.3 Build to lines: Buildings should be built up to the sidewalk to reinforce the definition and importance of the street. The project provides 51% built to the setback. The project includes a driveway ramp down to basement parking, as well as pedestrian path from El Camino Real to El Camino Way. This path is also adjacent to an 4.b Packet Pg. 122 outdoor seating area along El Camino Real. There is a trade-off in meeting this guideline and other design guideline objectives. If the outdoor seating area and pathway were not included, then the project would have 75% frontage. 3.1.5 Minimum Height: Buildings should have a minimum height of 25 feet in order to provide presence along El Camino Real. The project is 39 feet in height to the parapets. 3.1.7 Increased Setback: Increased setbacks are permitted only if the additional setback provides a public amenity such as a wider sidewalk, outdoor seating or outdoor dining. Increased setbacks allow for the project to include an outdoor seating area and pedestrian pathway. 3.3.1 Usable Amenities: Landscape and hardscape features should not just be visually appealing, but also function as open space amenities to be used and enjoyed. The project includes outdoor seating areas along El Camino Real and El Camino Way. 4.1.8 Expression of Use: Building forms should be articulated as an expression of the building use. The project has been revised to add additional definition to the residential entry tower, which separates the use from the ground-floor retail. The balconies also provide visible private outdoor space, identifying the residential and office use. 4.2.1 Relationship of Entries to the Street: Buildings should have entries directly accessible and visible from El Camino Real. All three uses have entrances facing El Camino Real. 4.3.6 Design Consistency on All Facades: All exposed sides of a building should be designed with the same level of care and integrity. All four sides of the building use the same variety of materials and level of detail. They are also articulated for visual interest and to reduce massing. 4.4.1 Amenities: Building design should offer amenities to users and the public such as protection from the elements and places for people to gather or retreat. The project provides a number of public and private gathering areas. 4.5.1 Flat Roofs and Parapets Encouraged. Flat roofs with parapets are strongly encouraged. The proposed building has a flat roof with parapet design. 4.8.1 Mix of Materials: Juxtaposition of contrasting materials can This project includes stucco, wood siding, glass, and metal in a composed design. 4.b Packet Pg. 123 create interest when carefully integrated. The project has also been reviewed for conformance with the development standards in the zoning code and found to be in compliance with the intent and regulations contained therein. A comprehensive review of the project to applicable development standards is included in the administrative record. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The area is comprised of various commercial and residential buildings one to three stories in height. The project proposes to construct a building that is taller than the immediate surrounding, although a block away, there is another recently built building of similar mass and height. The proposed project is consistent with the findings to provide high quality materials and finishes in a neutral color palette. The building height and scale is comparable to more recent developments in the area, particularly for a mixed-use project. The building will have retail on the first floor, which is accessible to many residents within walking distance of the project site. The project also proposes a smaller-scale office space, which is also desired in this area. 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 The finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project offers short term bike 4.b Packet Pg. 124 racks for commercial visitors and well as long-term bike lockers for residents. There is pedestrian access through the parcel in the covered breezeway to promote walkability and connectivity. However cars can only enter the garage on El Camino Real or the parking lot on El Camino Way. The pedestrian walk ways are paved with attractive materials and landscapes. 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 The finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project has its entry directly off the sidewalk to encourage pedestrians and allow for sidewalk uses such as storefront windows and open plaza space. There is also a pedestrian cut through to El Camino Way which allows for passage through the site. This passage is well landscaped and appealing. The office and residential decks also increase activity and view to the street. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks The finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project conforms to the required setbacks for the CN zone. Massing has been minimized through the use of a variety of materials and a building form that steps up from two stories on the street and at the rear to three stories in the middle. Additionally, the use of balconies helps break up the visual mass of the building. 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties The project does not directly abut a lower scale residential development. Therefore, this context-based criteria is not applicable. 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 The finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides residents with private decks and access to a shared private common open space on the ground which includes a grass area and dining area. There is also a similarly outfitted private common open space on the third floor. Public open spaces include a dining area on El Camino Real and a seating area on El Camino Way. 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 4.b Packet Pg. 125 The finding can be made in the affirmative in that there are a limited number of spaces available at the street level with the majority of the parking underground. The pedestrian paths of travel through the site are separated from the parking lot and paved with different materials. The surface parking is also partially screened by landscaping along El Camino Way. 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood This site is less than an acre. Therefore, this context-based criteria is not applicable. 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project The finding can be made in the affirmative in that the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2 in accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations,. This is demonstrated on the GB sheets in the plan set. 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 project proposes a contemporary style that is recognizable along the El Camino corridor overall, though it is different from the existing development adjacent to the project site. The project uses materials such as stucco, wood siding, with glass railings on the balconies and metal awnings. As conditioned, the stucco surfaces will be a smooth finish texture. The proposed colors are neutral and are compatible with surrounding color schemes. The project is subject to the 1979 El Camino Design Guidelines and South El Camino Real Guidelines. The proposal meets these guidelines as summarized in the previous staff report. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The design of the new buildings will provide connectivity between El Camino Way and El Camino Real. The entrance to the underground parking utilizes the existing curb cut on El Camino Real, and the at-grade spaces are accessed by the existing curb cut on El Camino Way. 4.b Packet Pg. 126 Additionally, there will be 17 bike lockers and four bike rack spaces. There are both public and private open spaces available, including private decks for each of the residences. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: The project will provide a variety of drought-tolerant planting. Some of the plantings were selected from a California native palette. The selected varieties of trees would provide appropriate habitat for wildlife as a part of a bigger neighborhood and community wide system. Additional landscaping is provided on the terraces of the building. 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 project will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. This is demonstrated on the GB sheets in the plan set. 4.b Packet Pg. 127 Performance Criteria 4115 El Camino Real 17PLN-00280 Pursuant to PAMC 18.23, the following performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. Performance Criteria Project Consistency 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. The project provides an enclosed trash facility that will be shared between each of the uses occupying the building. The trash facility is located away from residential units, fully enclosed and out of clear sight from any public right-of-way or neighboring lots. 18.23.030 Lighting To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The applicant will provide cut sheets of the proposed lighting to ensure adequate illumination is provided for safe circulation and are directed downward to reduce glare and impacts to the project’s residents. 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting (either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage pick- up. The current project proposal does not include late night uses or activities. Future commercial tenants that would like this will need to file for a Conditional Use Permit, as required per the Zoning Code. 4.b Packet Pg. 128 Performance Criteria Project Consistency 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. While the project does not abut any residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within non-residential zones, the project is consistent with the stated performance criteria in that the proposed landscape plan provides adequate screens mechanical equipment areas and integrates the project within the surrounding neighborhood. 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are intended to protect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residential properties. New equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be subject to these requirements. The stated performance criteria is not applicable to this residential development project as the subject lot is located in a residential zone (RM-15) that does not abut an industrial or commercially zoned property. 18.23.070 Parking The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. The project is consistent with the stated performance criteria in that the proposed parking layout places the majority of the project’s parking in the below- grade parking garage and at most, only three vehicles could be parked at-grade in uncovered spaces. Those at-grade spaces would also be partially screened 4.b Packet Pg. 129 Performance Criteria Project Consistency by landscaping from the public right-of-way. 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project site. The project is consistent with the stated performance criteria in that the proposed site places the driveway access to the commercial uses along El Camino Real and maintains the existing curb cut to access the residential units at the intersection of El Camino Way and West Meadow Drive. Bicycle and pedestrian connectivity is enhanced with the proposed breezeway that will provide a convenient “short cut” to either El Camino Real or El Camino Way. 18.23.090 Air Quality The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. No proposed uses on the project site would produce odor or toxic air. Future uses are required to comply with these performance standards. 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. This is not applicable to the proposed uses associated with the project. 4.b Packet Pg. 130 ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 4115 El Camino Real 17PLN-00280 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "4115 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, California, ARB Resubmittal” stamped as received by the City on November 5, 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 Architectural Review (AR) approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall automatically expire after two years from the original date of approval, if within such two-year period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings has not commenced pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the permit or approval. Application for a one year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the expiration. (PAMC 18.77.090(a)) 6. STUCCO FINISH: The owner or designee prior to issuance of building permits shall demonstrate on the construction plans in elevations and in details that the project’s stucco surfaces shall be 20/30 or smoother finish. 7. PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT. The owner or designee shall indicate and provide a public access easement on the subdivision map for the project for the purpose of allowing public access between El Camino Real and El Camino Way (breezeway within the building on the first floor) to the satisfaction of the City. 4.c Packet Pg. 131 8. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 9. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Development Impact Fees, currently estimated in the amount of $200,923 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit and affordable housing in-lieu fee. 10. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90- day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 11. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us to schedule this inspection. 12. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) associated with the project and attached here as Exhibit A is incorporated by reference and all mitigation measures shall be implemented as described in said document. Prior to requesting issuance of any related demolition and/or construction permits, the applicant shall meet with the Project Planner to review and ensure compliance with the MMRP, subject to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning of Planning and Community Environment. 4.c Packet Pg. 132 PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 13. SUBDIVISION: If condominium units are proposed, a Preliminary Parcel Map and a Parcel Map, or Tentative Map and a Final Map, are required for the proposed development. Map types and review procedures vary depending on the number of units proposed. Depending on the number of units proposed, the applicant shall submit a minor or major subdivision application to the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Show all existing and proposed dedications and easements on the map submitted as part of the application. Please be advised that the Parcel or Tentative map shall be recorded with the Santa Clara County Clerk Recorder prior to Building or Grading and Excavation Permit issuance. A digital copy of the Parcel Map, in AutoCAD format, shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering and shall conform to North American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NGVD88 for vertical survey controls. 14. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property that are broken, badly cracked, displaced, or non-standard, and must remove any unpermitted pavement in the planter strip. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650- 496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the inspector can determine the extent of replacement work. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work or include a note that Public Works’ inspector has determined no work is required. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 15. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’ arborist at 650-496- 5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’ arborist (650- 496-5953). 16. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a 4.c Packet Pg. 133 waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 17. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. 18. DEWATERING: Proposed underground garage excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April 1 through October 31 due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level; if the proposed project will encounter groundwater, the applicant must provide all required dewatering submittals for Public Works review and approval prior to grading permit issuance. Public Works has dewatering submittal requirements and guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 19. GRADING PERMIT: The site plan must include an earthworks table showing cut and fill volumes. If the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. An application and plans for a grading permit are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 20. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 21. 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. 22. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 23. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge 4.c Packet Pg. 134 compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to the grading or building permit issuance. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. 24. SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the site plan that says, “The contractor using the city sidewalk to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians using the sidewalk. Pedestrian protection must be provided per the 2007 California Building Code Chapter 33 requirements. If the height of construction is 8 feet or less, the contractor must place construction railings sufficient to direct pedestrians around construction areas. If the height of construction is more than 8 feet, the contractor must obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works at the Development Center in order to provide a barrier and covered walkway or to close the sidewalk.” 25. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. The plan will be attached to a street work permit. 26. 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. 27. PAVEMENT: West Meadow was resurfaced in 2015 this street is under a moratorium. Any cutting into the pavement will trigger additional pavement requirements. Add the following note to the Site Plan: “Applicant and contractor will be responsible for resurfacing portions of West Meadow based the roadway surface condition after project completion and limits of trench work. At a minimum pavement resurfacing of the full width of the street along the project frontage may be required.” Plot and label the area to be resurfaced as hatched on the site plan. 28. Abandoned driveway approaches will need to be replaced with sidewalk, curb and gutter to match adjacent. Please show this on Civil plans and include City standard details for such work in the plan set. 29. The applicant shall include an offer of dedication for a public access easement for the additional dimension of sidewalk between the property line and back of walk and/or building edge that meets the El Camino Real Master Plan requirements. 30. STORM WATER HYDRAULICS AND HYDROLOGY: Existing site drainage does not have a direct discharge into the existing system. Provide an analysis that compares the existing and proposed 4.c Packet Pg. 135 site runoff from the project site. Runoff shall be based on City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards for 10-year storm event with HGL’s 0.5 foot below inlet grates elevations and 100-year storm with HGL not exceeding the street right-of-way. As described on the City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards. Please provide the tabulated calculations directly on the conceptual grading and drainage plan. This project may be required to replace and upsize the existing storm drain system to handle the added flows and/or depending on the current pipe condition. The IDF tables and Precipitation Map for Palo Alto is available County of Santa Clara County Drainage Manual dated October 2007. The proposed project shall not increase runoff to the public storm drain system. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 37. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b)* verified all his/her updated TPR mitigation measures and changes are incorporated in the plan set, (c) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (d) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. * (b above) Other information. The Building Permit submittal set shall be accompanied by the project site arborist’s typed certification letter that the plans have incorporated said design changes for consistency with City Standards, Regulations and information: a. Applicant/project arborist’s final revised Tree Protection Report (TPR) with said design changes and corresponding mitigation measures. (e.g.: if Pier/grade beam=soils report w/ specs required by Bldg. Div.; if Standard foundation= mitigation for linear 24” cut to all roots in proximity) b. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual Construction Standards, Section 2.00 and PAMC 8.10.080. c. Specialty items. Itemized list of any activity impact--quantified and mitigated, in the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for each tree. d. Oaks, if present. That landscape and irrigation plans are consistent with CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.45 and Appendix L, Landscaping under Native Oaks and PAMC 18.40.130. 38. BUILDING PERMIT CORRECTIONS/REVISIONS--COVER LETTER. During plan check review, provide a separate cover letter with Correction List along with the revised drawings when resubmitting. State where the significant tree impacts notes occur (bubble) and indicate the sheet number and/or detail where the correction has been made. Provide: 1) corresponding revision number and 2) bubble or highlights for easy reference. Responses such as “see plans or report” or “plans comply” are not acceptable. Your response should be clear and complete to assist the re-check and approval process for your project. 4.c Packet Pg. 136 39. TREE APPRAISAL & SECURITY DEPOSIT AGREEMENT. (Reference: CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.25). Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall prepare and secure a tree appraisal and security deposit agreement stipulating the duration and monitoring program. The appraisal of the condition and replacement value of all trees to remain shall recognize the location of each tree in the proposed development. Listed separately, the appraisal may be part of the Tree Survey Report. For the purposes of a security deposit agreement, the monetary market or replacement value shall be determined using the most recent version of the “Guide for Plan Appraisal”, in conjunction with the Species and Classification Guide for Northern California. The appraisal shall be performed at the applicant’s expense, and the appraiser shall be subject to the Director’s approval. a. SECURITY DEPOSIT AGREEMENT. Prior to grading or building permit issuance, the applicant shall post a security deposit for the 150% of the appraised replacement value of the Designated Trees: (ID numbers to be determined), to be retained and protected.. The total amount for this project is: $__To Be Determined with Urban Forestry staff. The security may be a cash deposit, letter of credit, or surety bond and shall be filed with the Revenue Collections/Finance Department or in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney. b. SECURITY DEPOSIT & MONITORING PROGRAM. The project sponsor shall provide to the City of Palo Alto an annual tree evaluation report prepared by the project arborist or other qualified certified arborist, assessing the condition and recommendations to correct potential tree decline for trees remain and trees planted as part of the mitigation program. The monitoring program shall end two years from date of final occupancy, unless extended due to tree mortality and replacement, in which case a new two-year monitoring program and annual evaluation report for the replacement tree shall begin. Prior to occupancy, a final report and assessment shall be submitted for City review and approval. The final report shall summarize the Tree Resources program, documenting tree or site changes to the approved plans, update status of tree health and recommend specific tree care maintenance practices for the property owner(s). The owner or project sponsor shall call for a final inspection by the Planning Division Arborist. c. SECURITY DEPOSIT DURATION. The security deposit duration period shall be two years (or five years if determined by the Director) from the date of final occupancy. Return of the security guarantee shall be subject to City approval of the final monitoring report. A tree shall be considered dead when the main leader has died back, 25% of the crown is dead or if major trunk or root damage is evident. A new tree of equal or greater appraised value shall be planted in the same area by the property owner. Landscape area and irrigation shall be readapted to provide optimum growing conditions for the replacement tree. The replacement tree that is planted shall be subject to a new two-year establishment and monitoring program. The project sponsor shall provide an annual tree evaluation report as originally required. 40. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include 4.c Packet Pg. 137 a. SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full-sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban Forestry/Contractor is mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: Insp. #2-6 applies; with landscape plan: Insp. #7 applies.) b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor, ArborResources, Inc., shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc) and added to the sheet index. 41. PLANS--SHOW PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show Type I or Type II fencing around each Regulated Trees, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone as shown on Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T-1, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans; or using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. 42. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS: Plans with Public Trees shall show (a) Type II street tree fencing enclosing the entire parkway strip or, (b) Type I protection to the outer branch dripline (for rolled curb & sidewalk or no-sidewalk situations.) a. Add Site Plan Notes.) i. Note #1. Apply to the site plan stating, "All tree protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations, watering and construction scheduling shall be implemented in full by owner and contractor, as stated on Sheet T-1, in the Tree Protection Report and the approved plans”. ii. Note #2. All civil plans, grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans and relevant sheets shall add a note applying to the trees to be protected, including neighboring trees stating: "Regulated Tree--before working in this area contact the Project Site Arborist at 650-654-3351 "; iii. Note #3. Utility (sanitary sewer/gas/water/backflow/electric/storm drain) plan sheets shall include the following note: “Utility trenching shall not occur within the TPZ of the protected tree. Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that no trenching occurs within the TPZ of the protected tree by contractors, City crews or final landscape workers. See sheet T-1 for instructions.” iv. Note #4. “Basement or foundation plan. Soils Report and Excavation for basement construction within the TPZ of a protected tree shall specify a vertical cut (stitch piers may be necessary) in order to avoid over-excavating into the tree root zone. Any variance from this procedure requires Urban Forestry approval, please call (650) 496- 5953.” v. Note #5. “Pruning Restrictions. No pruning or clearance cutting of branches is permitted on City trees. Contractor shall obtain a Public Tree Permit from Urban Forestry (650-496-5953) for any work on Public Trees” 4.c Packet Pg. 138 43. TREE REMOVAL—PROTECTED & RIGHT-OF-WAY TREES. Existing trees (Publicly-owned or Protected) to be removed, as shown accurately located on all site plans, require approval by the Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit prior to issuance of any building, demolition or grading permit. Must also be referenced in the required Street Work Permit from Public Works Engineering. a. Add plan note for each tree to be removed, “Tree Removal. Contractor shall obtain a completed Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit # _____________ (contractor to complete) separate from the Building or Street Work Permit. Permit notice hanger and conditions apply. Contact (650-496-5953).” b. Copy the approval. The completed Tree Care Permit shall be printed on Sheet T-2, or specific approval communication from staff clearly copied directly on the relevant plan sheet. The same Form is used for public or private Protected tree removal requests available from the Urban Forestry webpage: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/trees/default.asp 44. LANDSCAPE PLANS a. Include all changes recommended from civil engineer, architect and staff, including planting specifications if called for by the project arborist, b. Provide a detailed landscape and irrigation plan encompassing on-and off-site plantable areas out to the curb as approved by the Architectural Review Board. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for the project. A licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant will prepare these plans, to include: i. All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including street trees. ii. Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations. iii. Irrigation schedule and plan. iv. Fence locations. v. Lighting plan with photometric data. vi. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. vii. All new trees planted within the public right-of-way shall be installed per Public Works (PW) Standard Planting Diagram #603 or 604 (include on plans), and shall have a tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. viii. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. ix. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees. For trees, Standard Dwg. #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. Bubblers shall not be mounted inside an aeration tube. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Irrigation in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards. 4.c Packet Pg. 139 x. Landscape Plan shall ensure the backflow device is adequately obscured with the appropriate screening to minimize visibility (planted shrubbery is preferred, painted dark green, decorative boulder covering acceptable; wire cages are discouraged). c. Add Planting notes to include the following mandatory criteria: i. Prior to any planting, all plantable areas shall be tilled to 12” depth, and all construction rubble and stones over 1” or larger shall be removed from the site. ii. Note a turf-free zone around trees 36” diameter (18” radius) for best tree performance. d. Add note for Mandatory Landscape Architect (LA) Inspections and Verification to the City. The LA of record shall verify the performance measurements are achieved with a separate letters of verification to City Planning staff, in addition to owner’s representative for each of the following: i. All the above landscape plan and tree requirements are in the Building Permit set of plans. ii. Percolation & drainage checks have been performed and are acceptable. iii. Fine grading inspection of all plantable areas has been personally inspected for tilling depth, rubble removal, soil test amendments are mixed and irrigation trenching will not cut through any tree roots. iv. Tree and Shrub Planting Specifications, including delivered stock, meets Standards in the CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.30-3.50. Girdling roots and previously topped trees are subject to rejection. 45. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to demolition, grading or building permit issuance, a written verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Building Inspections Division. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. DURING CONSTRUCTION 46. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 47. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, ArborResources, (650-496-5953, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 48. CONDITIONS. All Planning Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4.c Packet Pg. 140 49. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 50. 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. 51. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY 52. URBAN FORESTRY DIGITAL FILE & INSPECTION. The applicant or architect shall provide a digital file of the landscape plan, including new off-site trees in the publicly owned right-of-way. A USB Flash Drive, with CAD or other files that show species, size and exact scaled location of each tree on public property, shall be delivered to Urban Forestry at a tree and landscape inspection scheduled by Urban Forestry (650-496-5953). 53. LANDSCAPE CERTIFICATION LETTER. The Planning Department shall be in receipt of a verification letter that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. 54. PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to written request for temporary or final occupancy, the contractor shall provide to the Planning Department and property owner a final inspection letter by the Project Arborist. The inspection shall evaluate the success or needs of Regulated tree protection, including new landscape trees, as indicated on the approved plans. The written acceptance of successful tree preservation shall include a photograph record and/or recommendations for the health, welfare, mitigation remedies for injuries (if any). The final report may be used to navigate any outstanding issues, concerns or security guarantee return process, when applicable. 55. PLANNING INSPECTION. Prior to final sign off, contractor or owner shall contact the city planner (650-329-2441) to inspect and verify Special Conditions relating to the conditions for structures, fixtures, colors and site plan accessories. 4.c Packet Pg. 141 POST CONSTRUCTION 56. MAINTENANCE. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2008 or current version) and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.00. Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. UTILITILES - WATER, GAS, WASTEWATER PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 57. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. FOR BUILDING PERMIT: 58. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). 59. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, backwater valve, sewer ejector pumps and any other required utilities. The plans must include complete profiles for the design of all gravity lines clearly identifying the minimum vertical clearances from existing underground facilities. 60. Per SB7 (Water Code, Division 1, Chapter 8, Article 5, Section 537-537.5) requires new multi-family residential building to include a water submeter for each dwelling unit and to bill tenants accordingly for their water use per CPA Utilities rules and Regulations. Submeters shall comply with all laws and regulations governing their installation, maintenance, reading billing, and testing. Due to the extend of the frontage area along the streets, assuming a space constraint does not exist with the total number of meters, these dwelling units could be evaluated for the installation of individual City-owned meters in the Public City Right of Way and not on private property to avoid potential exposure in the event of leaks. 61. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. 62. New HDPE water service and meter installation are required to furnish customer's demand for domestic. The water meter will be sized based on the water loads demands. Show the location of the new service and meter on the plans. 63. A separate water meter and backflow preventer is required to irrigate the approved landscape plan. Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. 4.c Packet Pg. 142 64. New HDPE water service installation is required to furnish customer's demand for fire sprinkler system. The water service and connection will be sized based on the water fire protection load demands. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including all fire department's requirements prior to the actual approval of the service. 65. The existing unused water services and sewer lateral (s) will be disconnected and abandoned at the main per utilities standards by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. 66. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5’ (feet) of the property line or City Right of Way. 67. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. 68. A new gas service line installation is required to furnish customer's demand specified in the load sheet or new approved gas meter location presented with this project. The work will be performed by CPA Utilities. The gas service and meters will be sized based on the gas loads demands. Show the location of the gas meters on the plans. 69. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility services and meters as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility services and meters. 70. Per City of Palo Alto Ordinance 16.08.130 Amendment to CPC 710.1. Sewer backflow protection shall be installed for all new construction, remodels, sewer line repairs/ modifications, structures with sewer ejectors pumps and building floors. Where the elevation is at or below the invert of the city sanitary sewer main. Show the location of the backwater valve on the plans. 71. Sewer ejector pumps shall meet the CPA Utilities conditions limiting the wastewater discharge flow rate to the wastewater collection. Sewage ejector pumps shall meet the following conditions: The pump(s) shall be limited to a total 100 GPM capacity or The sewage line changes to a 4” gravity flow line at least 20’ from the City clean out. The tank and float is set up such that the pump run time not exceed 20 seconds each cycle. 72. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 4.c Packet Pg. 143 73. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 74. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the latest edition of C.P.A. Utility Standards for Water, Gas & Wastewater. FIRE DEPARTMENT 75. The owner or designee prior to issuance of building permits shall demonstrate installation of a fixed ladder and 4'x4' roof hatch at the top of the stairwell. 76. The owner or designee prior to issuance of building permits shall demonstrate that the project provides Fire department ground ladder access to bedroom emergency escape windows. 77. Install one new public fire hydrant on El Camino Real at a location to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. PWD RECYCLING 78. The owner or designee shall prior to building permit issuance provide room in the trash area for a minimum of two two-cubic-yard bins and one four-cubic-yard bin to allow for garbage, recycling, and compost service. 79. The owner or designee shall prior to building permit issuance demonstrate in the construction plans that the door to the trash area shall be a minimum of six feet wide to accommodate the bins. The current door is not wide enough to get the bins out. BUILDING DIVISION Include in plans submitted for a building permit: 80. The permit application shall be accompanied by all plans and related documents necessary to construct a complete project. 81. Separate submittals and permits are required for the following systems and components if utilized: E.V., P.V., and Solar Hot Water systems. 82. Deferred submittals shall be limited to as few items as possible. 83. A written outline/plan needs to be provide prior to building permit issuance to demonstrate compliance with CBC Section 3302 (Construction Safeguards) and Section 3306 (Protection of Pedestrians) during construction. 84. A demolition permit shall be required for the removal of the existing building on site. 4.c Packet Pg. 144 85. The plans submitted for the building permit shall include an allowable floor area calculation that relates the mixed occupancies to type of construction. BELOW MARKET RATE HOUSING 86. Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Requirement: This project’s total BMR requirement is 1.05 units. When the BMR requirement results in a fractional unit, an in-lieu payment to the Residential Housing Fund may be made for the fractional unit instead of providing an actual BMR unit, except that larger projects of 30 or more units must provide a whole BMR unit for any fractional unit of one-half (0.50) or larger. To satisfy this requirement, the applicant shall provide 1 BMR for-sale housing unit affordable to households making 80 to 100 percent of the Santa Clara County median income within the project in accordance with the requirements set forth in Program H3.1.2 of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 16.65 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and the BMR Program rules and regulations. The applicant shall also provide in lieu payment as specified in Section 16.65.060. The fractional in-lieu fee shall be paid prior to issuance of any building permits for the project; provided, however, that prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project, the applicant may elect to provide one additional inclusionary unit instead of paying the fractional in lieu payment. 87. All BMR units constructed under this condition shall be in conformance with the City’s BMR Program rules and regulations. A BMR Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney for the 1.05 BMR units shall be executed and recorded prior to final map approval or building permit issuance, whichever occurs first. Failure to comply with the timing of this condition and any adopted BMR Program rules and regulations shall not waive its later enforcement. The applicant is hereby notified, as required by Government Code § 66020, that the approved plans, these conditions of approval, and the adopted City fee schedule set forth in Program H3.1.2 of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan constitute written notice of the description of the dedications, reservations, amount of fees and other exactions related to the project. As of the date of project approval, the 90-day period has begun in which the applicant may protest any dedications, reservations, fees or other exactions imposed by the City. Failure to file a protest in compliance with all of the requirements of Government Code § 66020 will result in a legal bar to challenging the dedications, reservations, fees or other exactions. PUBLIC ART 88. The owner or designee shall pay into the public art fund in – lieu of commissioning art on site, the funds must be received prior to the issuance of a building permit. GREEN BUILDING 89. Green Building Requirements for Non-Residential Projects. For design and construction of non- residential projects, the City requires compliance with the mandatory measures of Chapter 5, in addition to use of the Voluntary Tiers. (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The following are required for Building Approval: 4.c Packet Pg. 145 90. The project is a new nonresidential construction project greater than 1,000 square feet and therefore must comply with California Green Building Standards Code Mandatory plus Tier 2 requirements, as applicable to the scope of work. PAMC 6.14.180 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. The submittal requirements are outlined here: www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp. 91. The project is a new building over 10,000 square feet and therefore must meet the commissioning requirements outlined in the California Energy Code section. The project team shall submit the Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR), and Basis of Design (BOD), and Commissioning Plan in accordance with 5.410.2.3. 92. The project is a nonresidential projects exceeding $100,000 valuation and therefore must acquire an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Rating and submit the rating to the City of Palo Alto once the project has been occupied after 12 months. PAMC 16.14.250 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The Energy Star Project Profile shall be submitted to the Building Department prior to permit issuance. Submittal info can be found at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/benchmarking_your_building.asp. 93. The project is a nonresidential new construction projects with a landscape of any size included in the project scope and therefore must comply with Potable water reduction Tier 2. Documentation is required to demonstrate that the Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) falls within a Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) using the appropriate evapotranspiration adjustment factor (ETAF) designated by the prescribed potable water reduction tier. PAMC 16.14.220 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. The submittal requirements are outlined on the following site: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/residents/resrebate/landscape.asp. 94. The project is outside the boundaries of the recycled water project area and is greater than 1,000 square feet and therefore must install recycled water infrastructure for irrigation systems. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 95. The project is either new construction or a rehabilitated landscape and is greater than 1,000 square feet and therefore must install a dedicated irrigation meter related to the recycled water infrastructure. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 96. The project includes a new or altered irrigation system and therefore must be designed and installed to prevent water waste due to overspray, low head drainage, or other conditions where water flows onto adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, walks, roadways, parking lots, or structures. PA 16.14.300 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). 97. The project includes a new or altered irrigation system and therefore the irrigation must be scheduled between 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. unless weather conditions prevent it. Operation of 4.c Packet Pg. 146 the irrigation system outside the normal watering window is allowed for auditing and system maintenance. Total annual applied water shall be less than or equal to maximum applied water allowance (MAWA) as calculated per the potable water use reduction tier. PAMC 16.14.310 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). ). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 98. The project is a nonresidential new construction project and has a value exceeding $25,000 and therefore must meet Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction Tier 2. PAMC 16.14.240 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. 99. The project includes non-residential demolition and therefore must meet the Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction - Tier 2. PAMC 16.14.270 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. 100. The project is a new non-residential structure and therefore must comply with the City of Palo Alto Electric Vehicle Charging Ordinance 5263. The project shall provide Conduit Only, EVSE-Ready Outlet, or EVSE Installed for at least 25% of parking spaces, among which at least 5% (and no fewer than one) shall be EVSE Installed. The requirements shall be applied separately to accessible parking spaces. See Ordinance 5263 for EVSE definitions, minimum circuit capacity, and design detail requirements. PAMC 16.14.380 (Ord. 5263 § 1 (part), 2013) See https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/43818 for additional details. The following are required at Post-Construction after 12 months of occupancy. 101. The project is a nonresidential projects exceeding $100,000 valuation and therefore must acquire an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Rating and submit the rating to the City of Palo Alto once the project has been occupied after 12 months. PAMC 16.14.250 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). Submittal info can be found at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/benchmarking_your_building.asp. 4.c Packet Pg. 147 Exhibit A: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program PROJECT NAME 4115 El Camino Real Mixed-Use Project Application Number 17PLN-00280 Applicant Date November 2018 The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 4115 El Camino Real Mixed-use Project identifies the mitigation measures that will be implemented to reduce the impacts associated with the project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was amended in 1989 to add Section 21081.6, which requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to proposed development. As stated in section 21081.6(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code, “... the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” Section 21081.6 also provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring programs and indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be enforced during project implementation, shall be defined as part of adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The mitigation monitoring table lists those mitigation measures that would be included as conditions of approval for the project. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been devised which identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoring each measure. 4.c Packet Pg. 148 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIO-1: Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance. Construction of the project, shall be prohibited during the general avian nesting season (February 1 – August 31), if feasible. If nesting season avoidance is not feasible, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist, as approved by the City of Palo Alto, to conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey of adjacent street trees to determine the presence/absence, location, and activity status of any active nests. The extent of the survey buffer area surrounding the site shall be established by the qualified biologist to ensure that direct and indirect effects to nesting birds are avoided. To avoid the destruction of active nests and to protect the reproductive success of birds protected by the MBTA and CFGC, nesting bird surveys shall be performed not more than 14 days prior to scheduled vegetation clearance and structure demolition. In the event that active nests are discovered, a suitable buffer (typically a minimum buffer of 50 feet for passerines and a minimum buffer of 250 feet for raptors) shall be established around such active nests and no construction shall be allowed within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined that the nest is no longer active (i.e., the nestlings have fledged and are no longer reliant on the nest). No ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the qualified biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Nesting bird surveys are not required for construction activities occurring between August 31 and February 1. Applicant or designee/Construction contractor Prior to and during Construction CPA Planning Department CULTURAL RESOURCES CR-1: Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). A qualified archaeologist shall be retained to conduct WEAP training for archaeological and paleontological sensitivity for all construction personnel prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activities. Archaeological and paleontological sensitivity training should include a description of the types of cultural or paleontological material that may be encountered, cultural sensitivity issues, regulatory issues, and the proper protocol for treatment of the materials in the event of a find. Applicant or designee/Construction contractor During Construction CPA Planning Department CR-2: Resource Recovery Procedures. Resource Recovery Procedures. In the event that archaeological or paleontological resources are unearthed during project construction, all earth- disturbing work in the vicinity of the find must be Applicant or designee/Construction contractor During Construction CPA Planning Department 4.c Packet Pg. 149 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation temporarily suspended or redirected until an archaeologist or paleontologist has evaluated the nature and significance of the find. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA, additional work such as preservation in place, archaeological data recovery, and/or paleontological salvage shall occur as required by the archeologist or paleontologist in coordination with City staff and descendants and/or stakeholder groups, as warranted. After the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume. A Native American representative shall be retained to monitor any mitigation work associated with Native American cultural material. CR-3: Unanticipated Discovery Procedures Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources. In the event that cultural resources of Native American origin are identified during construction, the City shall consult with a qualified archaeologist and begin or continue Native American consultation procedures. If the City determines that the resource is a tribal cultural resource and thus significant under CEQA, a mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented in accordance with state guidelines and in consultation with Native American groups. The plan would include avoidance of the resource or, if avoidance of the resource is infeasible, the plan would outline the appropriate treatment of the resource in coordination with the archeologist and the appropriate Native American tribal representative. Applicant or designee/Construction contractor During Construction CPA Planning Department GEOLOGY AND SOILS GEO-1: Geotechnical Design Considerations Geotechnical Design Considerations. The project plans submitted for building permit approval shall incorporate the design recommendations outlined in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Stevens, Ferrone & Bailey Engineering Company, Inc. in November 2017 or any other design feature or measure shown to equivalently reduce impacts associated with liquefaction to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. These include: The foundation shall consists of a mat slab and be designed to resist two inches of differential settlement of the supporting soils. Underground pipelines shall be designed to compensate for the settlement caused by the liquefaction of the underlying supporting soils. Applicant or designee Prior to building permit CPA Planning Department GEO-2: Unstable and Expansive Soils Unstable and Expansive Soils. During construction the applicant or its designee shall Applicant or designee/Construction Prior to building CPA Planning Department 4.c Packet Pg. 150 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation incorporate the design recommendation outlined in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Stevens, Ferrone & Bailey Engineering Company, Inc. in November 2017 or any other design feature or measure shown to equivalently reduce impacts associated with unstable or expansive soil to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. This includes over-excavation to 2 feet, scarifying and re-compacting the bottom 12 inches in place, and replacing the excavation with compacted fill materials. The over-excavation shall extend to depths where competent soil is encountered. The over-excavation and re- compaction shall also extend at least 5 feet beyond building footprints and at least 3 feet beyond exterior flatwork (including driveways). Over-excavation shall be performed so that no more than 5 feet of differential fill thickness exists below the proposed building foundations. The removed soil materials can be used as new fill provided it is placed and compacted in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Geotechnical Investigation. In addition, to reduce the potential for post-construction distress to the proposed structure resulting from swelling and shrinkage of these materials, the project plans submitted for building permit approval shall incorporate the design recommendations for at-grade structures (if planned) to be supported on a foundation system that is designed to reduce the impact of the expansive soils. Contractor permit and during construction NOISE N-2: Construction- Related Vibration Reduction Measures Construction-Related Vibration Reduction Measures. The applicant shall apply the following measures during construction of the project. Avoid using vibratory rollers and tampers if feasible. Notify Acme Children’s Center staff of construction schedule. Coordinate with Acme Children’s Center staff to schedule use of vibratory rollers during less sensitive hours as defined by staff. Construction contractor During construction CPA Planning Department N-2: Construction- Related Noise Reduction Measures Construction-Related Noise Reduction Measures. The applicant shall apply the following measures during construction of the project. Mufflers. Construction equipment shall be properly maintained and all internal combustion engine driven machinery with intake and exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds, as applicable, shall be Construction contractor During construction CPA Planning Department 4.c Packet Pg. 151 Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Responsible for Implementation Timing of Compliance Oversight of Implementation in good condition and appropriate for the equipment. During construction, all equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards. Electrical Power. Electrical power, rather than diesel equipment, shall be used to run compressors and similar power tools and to power any temporary structures, such as construction trailers or caretaker facilities. Equipment Staging. All stationary equipment shall be staged as far away from the adjacent senior living center and multi-family residential development as feasible. Equipment Idling. Construction vehicles and equipment shall not be left idling for longer than five minutes when not in use. Workers’ Radios. All noise from workers’ radios shall be controlled to a point that they are not audible at sensitive receptors near construction activity. Smart Back-up Alarms. Mobile construction equipment shall have smart back-up alarms that automatically adjust the sound level of the alarm in response to ambient noise levels. Alternatively, back-up alarms shall be disabled and replaced with human spotters to ensure safety when mobile construction equipment is moving in the reverse direction. Disturbance Coordinator. The applicant shall designate a disturbance coordinator who shall be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The noise disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler, etc.) and shall require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be implemented. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site. 4.c Packet Pg. 152 ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 4115 El Camino Real, 17PLN-00280 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CN DISTRICT) Mixed Use Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None 15,696 sf (0.36 acres); 136.54’ to 178.04’ by 99.99’ same Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1)(5) ~7 feet Minimum of 4 feet 5 inches to provide a 12 foot effective sidewalk width along ECR Rear Yard 10 feet required for residential portion N/A 52 feet 8 inches Interior Side Yards No setback when not abutting a residential zoning district 0 setback (west side yard); ~20 (east side yard) 6 inches (west); 3 feet 9 inches (east) Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback on El Camino Real(2) N/A 51% (or 55 feet 3 inches) Max. Site Coverage 50% (7,848 sf) 5,554 sf 49.7% (7,808 sf) Landscape/Open Space Coverage 35% N/A 50% (7,863 sf) Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit for 6 units or more (7 units = 1,050 sf) N/A >1,050 sf Max. Building Height 40 feet(3) N/A 39 feet 6 inches Total Mixed Use FAR 1.0:1(3) (0.5:1 (7,848 sf) Residential/0.5:1 (7,848 sf) Commercial) 5,554 sf of non- residential 7,847 + 1,030 sf BMR(4) residential / 7,848 sf non-residential Daylight Plane No daylight plane requirement when not abutting a residential zoning district N/A N/A Residential Density 15 or 20(6) (0.36 acres = 7 units) N/A 7 units (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) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage. (3) For CN sites on El Camino Real, height may increase to a maximum of 40 feet and the FAR may increase to a maximum of 1.0:1 (0.5:1 for nonresidential, 0.5:1 for residential). (4) PAMC Section 18.15.50 (d)(iv) allows an increase in FAR up to 25 percent or up to the square footage of the restricted affordable unit, whichever is less. (5) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage (6) Residential densities up to 20 units/acre only on CN zoned housing inventory sites identified in the Housing Element. 4.d Packet Pg. 153 Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Commercial Land Use Off-Street Vehicle Parking and Loading Requirements) Land Use (project sf and required parking) Vehicle Bike Office (2,958 sf) 1 space/250 sf and 1 bike space per 2,500 sf 12 spaces 1 ST / 0 LT Retail (4,890 sf) 1 space /200 sf and 1 bike space per 2,000 sf 24 spaces 1 ST / 1 LT Residential(7) 1 BD Unit = 1 space and 1 long-term bike space 3 spaces 0 ST / 3 LT 2 BD Unit = 2 spaces and 1 long-term bike space 4 spaces 0 ST / 2 LT 3 BD Unit = 2 spaces and 1 long-term bike space 4 spaces 0 ST / 2 LT Loading Space Requirements Retail (4,890 sf) 0-4,999 sf = No space required - Office (2,958 sf) 0-9,999 sf = No space required - Residential (N/A) N/A - Total Required 47 spaces 2 ST / 8 LT Total proposed parking 47 spaces 4 ST / 17 LT (7) Modified parking ratio per PAMC Section 18.15.050 (a) 4.d Packet Pg. 154 4.e Packet Pg. 155 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8826) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/7/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 4115 El Camino Real: 7 Unit Mixed-Use (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4115 El Camino Real (17PLN-00280): Consideration of a Major Architectural Review of a Proposed Three-Story, 16,726 Square Foot Mixed-Use Development Comprised of Ground Floor Retail, Second Floor Office and Residential, Third Floor Residential (Seven Residential Units in Total) and Below-Grade Parking. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study is Being Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Phillip Brennan at phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) provide direction regarding the proposed project’s overall design and its consistency with applicable design guidelines and continue the project to a date uncertain. No formal action is requested. Report Summary The application is a request for architectural review of a proposed mixed-use development located between El Camino Real and El Camino Way. The project proposes to replace an existing restaurant with a three-story development comprised of ground-floor retail space, a mix of office and residential at the second-story and residential units on the third-story. The project includes a below-grade parking garage and surface parking for residents. The project as proposed will require a Director’s Adjustment to allow a nine (9) space parking reduction (19 percent) from the required parking. Although the project is still under staff review to determine 3 Packet Pg. 36 4.f Packet Pg. 156 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 compliance with zoning requirements and applicable design guidelines, the applicant has requested ARB review to obtain initial feedback on the project. Background Project Information Owner: 4115 ECR LLC Architect: SDG Architects, Inc. Representative: Jeffrey Potts Legal Counsel: Not applicable Property Information Address: 4115 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Ventura Lot Dimensions & Area: 136.54’ to 178.04’ by 99.99’; 15,696 sf Housing Inventory Site: Yes, realistic capacity of 7 units Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes, three (3) protected street trees; one (1) sycamore and (1) maidenhair along El Camino Real and one (1) Chinese elm along El Camino Way Historic Resource(s): No Existing Improvement(s): 5,231 sf; one-story; 1965 Existing Land Use(s): Retail Use (eating & drinking establishment) Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: CN (Goodwill); PC-5116 (Palo Alto Commons) West: RM-30 (Emek Beracha religious institution) East: RM-15 (Barclay Apartments); RM-30 (Camino Court Apartments) South: PC-4511 (residential multi-family; PC-3023 (residential multifamily) Aerial View of Property: 3 Packet Pg. 37 4.f Packet Pg. 157 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Comp. Plan Designation: Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Context-Based Design Criteria: Yes; see discussion in report 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 in report Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not applicable Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None 3 Packet Pg. 38 4.f Packet Pg. 158 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 HRB: None ARB: Preliminary Architectural Review on June 15, 2017; staff report - https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58265; no formal action taken Project Description The proposed project would demolish an existing 5,554 square foot (sf) building currently occupied by Pizz’a Chicago restaurant and construct a three-story, mixed-use development with underground parking on a 15,696 sf lot in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) zoning district. The building is proposed at the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0:1 (0.5:1 residential and 0.5:1 non-residential) permitted for mixed-use development along El Camino Real in the CN zoning district. The project also includes an additional 1,030 sf in excess of the FAR maximum as a concession for the provision of a below market rate (BMR) unit, resulting in 16,726 sf of total floor area for the site. The mixed-use building is proposed at a height of 39 feet 6 inches, as measured to the top of the parapet. Rooftop screening for the building’s mechanical equipment would extend the overall height to 42 feet 6 inches as permitted in the CN zoning district. The site provides 38 total parking spaces; 31 spaces in the sub-grade parking garage accessed off El Camino Real and seven at-grade surface parking spaces (including four covered one-car garages) to serve the residential units accessed off El Camino Way. The project proposes the maximum residential density prescribed for the CN zoning district of seven (7) total residential units including one BMR unit; four (4) units on the second floor and three (3) units on the third floor. A previous iteration of the proposed project was reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on June 15, 2017. During the meeting, the ARB provided the applicant constructive non- binding feedback to which the applicant has responded to in the formal application. A summary of those comments and the applicant’s responses is provided in the following table: ARB Prescreening Feedback Applicant Response Screening Along Third-Story Frontage: The large screened third-story open space area along El Camino Real visually increases building volume. The screened area and supporting beam have been removed and replaced with a glass railing system. Architectural Beams & Columns. The originally proposed design featured robust beams and columns that added unnecessary mass to the building along both frontages. Many of the beams and columns have been selectively removed from the design, particularly at the third-story, resulting in reduced building mass and a more articulated profile. Soften Building Frontage Along El Camino Way. Landscaping should help screen the residential garage spaces and soften the At-grade residential garage layout has been modified and landscaping increased to better screen and incorporate the building 3 Packet Pg. 39 4.f Packet Pg. 159 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 frontage of the building. into the surrounding neighborhood aesthetic along El Camino Way. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested: Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B; the specific project analysis is not included at this time since no action is taking place. Director’s Parking Adjustment: The project is providing nine (9) spaces fewer than required for the proposed site development in accordance with PAMC Chapter 18.52, Parking and Loading Requirements. To address this 19 percent reduction in the total required parking, the applicant has requested a Director’s Adjustment in accordance with PAMC Section 18.52.080. The Director’s approval of the adjustment would require that the applicant prepare and submit a Transit Demand Management (TDM) Plan proving that the reduction would be commensurate with the permanence, effectiveness, and the demonstrated reduction of off-street parking demand effectuated by the alternative programs presented in the plan. This request is within the Director’s purview. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The subject site is part of the “Triangle” area identified in the South El Camino Real Guidelines (South ECR Guidelines) as further described below. This triangular development area is bordered by El Camino Real and El Camino Way and is unique in that it features parcels that provide access off both streets and features one- and two-story buildings with more than one street face. The development pattern of the area provides a village-like setting which the Comprehensive Plan calls to be further cultivated with future development. The subject lot is centrally located within the Triangle with the north property line fronting the intersection at El Camino Way and West Meadow Drive. The lot abuts a vacant one-story retail 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. 40 4.f Packet Pg. 160 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 space directionally to the east (4117 El Camino Real) and the two-story Honeybaked Ham building to the west (4113 El Camino Real). There is no existing defined pattern of development in the Triangle area, which creates a disjointed streetscape with some buildings built close to build-to lines along either street, while others are deeply setback in the middle of the lot or positioned near either side lot line. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Neighborhood Commercial (CN). Neighborhood Commercial is intended to create and maintain neighborhood shopping areas primarily accommodating retail sales, personal service, eating and drinking, and office uses of moderate size serving the immediate neighborhood, under regulations that will assure maximum compatibility with surrounding residential areas. The subject lot is identified in the Housing Element as a housing inventory site with a realistic capacity of seven (7) housing units. The findings to approve an Architectural Review application include conformance with the Comprehensive Plan as outlined in Attachment B; the specific project analysis is not included at this time as no formal action is being requested from the ARB. El Camino Design Guidelines The project is subject to the 1979 El Camino Design Guidelines (ECR) with respect to trees, signage, architecture and building colors. The ECR Guidelines were intended in part to encourage landscaping along the El Camino Real extending from Page Mill Road to the southern city limits. The project’s preliminary landscape plan includes extensive plantings in the common open space areas located in the rear of the lot along El Camino Way, and in select areas of the frontage along El Camino Real. Additional landscaping (e.g. planters) could be provided in the offset portions of the building adjacent to the public right-of-way along El Camino Real. The site does provide a number of pedestrian friendly amenities including bike racks, benches (and seating areas), tables, a plaza area, and more than 3,600 sf of landscaped open space areas. The shared trash area is enclosed and separated from the residential uses as instructed by the ECR Guidelines. South ECR Guidelines The project site is located in the Triangle area that extends from Los Robles Avenue to Arastradero and West Charleston Roads and is bordered by El Camino Real and El Camino Way. The South ECR Guidelines state new development should support the Triangle Area District Vision, emphasizing appropriate scale for new buildings along El Camino Real with street level 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 3 Packet Pg. 41 4.f Packet Pg. 161 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 façades that provide pedestrian amenities and design that creates a coherent streetscape. The proposed design along El Camino Real features large display windows and pedestrian oriented features such as a plaza, connecting breezeway, and 12 foot wide sidewalk which is consistent with the design guidance. Specific guidance is provided for buildings with more than one streetface, calling for each frontage to be designed with equal care and attention to detail appropriate relative to the scale and character of each street. The proposed development features a prominent façade fronting El Camino Real that is taller than the adjacent building on the abutting lots but comparable with similar mixed-use developments in close proximity to the subject site (e.g. 4073 & 4131 El Camino Real). The El Camino Way frontage is deeply setback more than 50 feet from the rear property line and tiered structurally which aids in reducing the building’s mass and profile from street level. Zoning Compliance3 The proposed project complies with all applicable codes, or is seeking through the requested permits permission to deviate from certain code standards, in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Consistency with Application Findings Draft findings will be prepared when a formal action is requested. Performance Criteria The proposed project is located within a CN zoning district and would therefore be subject to the performance criteria outlined in PAMC Section 18.23. A review has been performed to ensure the project’s general compliance with the applicable performance criteria. That draft evaluation has been provided in Attachment C. Context-Based Design Criteria The project is subject to the context-based design criteria specified for the CN zoning district as outlined in PAMC Section 18.16.090(b). A review has been performed to ensure the applicable design considerations and required criteria have been met. That draft evaluation has been provided in Attachment D. Parking Requirement The proposed mixed-use residential and commercial building provides both at-grade surface parking and a below-grade garage. The required parking for the project if based on standard office, retail and residential ratios would result in 51 total required parking spaces. However, the project proposes seven (7) residential units with one of the units (Unit 4) provided as a below market rate (BMR) unit as required by the Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements outlined in PAMC Chapter 16.65. The provision of the BMR unit results in eligibility for development concessions or incentives pursuant to Government Code Section 65915 (p), including a by-right parking incentive which modifies the standard parking ratio for residential. The modified parking ratio results in reducing the required parking to 47 total spaces, including 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3 Packet Pg. 42 4.f Packet Pg. 162 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 three accessible stalls. The project as proposed provides 38 total spaces comprised of 31 spaces located in the below-grade garage and seven (7) at-grade parking spaces provided as three uncovered stalls and four single-car garages. As proposed, the project would provide fewer parking spaces (38 spaces) on-site than required (47 spaces) per Municipal Code. As such, the applicant has requested a 19 percent parking reduction to reduce the required parking count by nine (9) spaces. PAMC Section 18.52.050 allows the Planning Director to approve a parking adjustment when effective transportation and parking alternatives are provided such as a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program or other innovative strategies intended to site specific reduce parking demand. The applicant has submitted a TDM plan which has been reviewed by the Transportation Division. While the Director is generally supportive of the requested parking reduction, given the sites location along a transportation corridor, significant changes will be required prior to approval of the TDM plan which may result in the need for additional parking. Should additional parking be required the applicant may need to explore lift or pit system options to accommodate any additional required parking. A review of the project’s consistency with the applicable zoning standards is provided in a summary table found in Attachment E. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The proposed project incorporates design aspects meant to enhance the pedestrian and bicycle environment. The project scope includes 21 Class I and Class II secure bicycle parking facilities on-site in the form bike racks, bicycle storage room and individual lockers which supports multi- modal transportation options for potential retail visitors, office employees and residents of the building. The proposed breezeway may provide a safe and convenient connecting “shortcut” to either street. A 12 foot wide sidewalk runs the entire length of the lot along El Camino Real, providing a clear and inviting pathway for pedestrians. Architectural Design The proposed architectural style is contemporary, incorporating wood siding that accents the light, three-coat stucco exterior finish. Transparent glass rail barriers are utilized along the second and third-floor balconies on all sides of the building and vertical slated wood panels provide a screened divide for the outdoor balconies of the residential units facing El Camino Way. The overall structure is located on the lot closest to El Camino Real. The predominance of the building frontage is placed on the build-to front setback line between 0-10 feet and the rear of the building (facing El Camino Way) is setback 52 feet 8 inches to the rear property line. The building extends nearly the width of the lot, with structure built between 0-5 feet along the west side property line and approximately five feet to the east property line. The building floor plan organizes the residential units toward the north side of the structure, with five of the seven residences facing-out toward El Camino Way. 3 Packet Pg. 43 4.f Packet Pg. 163 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 A breezeway is provided at the ground-level between the retail space and the main stair and elevator, providing a pedestrian pathway between El Camino Real and El Camino Way. The breezeway will provide protection from the elements and feature pedestrian amenities such as bike racks and benches. Unfortunately, this breezeway may need to be closed in to meet the required building and fire standards. While the breezeway is not fully enclosed, the covered portion runs approximately 55 feet in length, posing a risk to occupants by potentially leading them to exit into a smoke filled area. Both departments have requested the entry be relocated to exit out to an uncovered area facing El Camino Real. The applicant has provided a revised design that will require review from the aforementioned commenting departments. It is anticipated these issues will be resolved prior to the scheduling of the second formal hearing. Environmental Review An Initial Study is being prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on May 25, 2018, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on May 24, 2018, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Phillip Brennan, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2493 (650) 329-2575 phillip.brennan@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: ARB Draft Findings (DOCX) Attachment C: Performance Criteria (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 44 4.f Packet Pg. 164 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 Attachment D: Context-Based Criteria (DOCX) Attachment E: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) Attachment F: Applicant's Project Description (PDF) Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) 3 Packet Pg. 45 4.f Packet Pg. 165 ATTACHMENT G Project Plans and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hardcopies of project plans and the Initial Study are provided to Board members. These plans and environmental documents 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 to find “4115 El Camino Real” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the Project Plans, Initial Study and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4266 4.g Packet Pg. 166 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9350) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/6/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Crown Castle/Verizon Cluster 2 (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. Crown Castle/Verizon Cluster 2, University South Multiple Addresses [17PLN-00433 File Uses 250 Hamilton Avenue Address]: Request by Sure Site (on behalf of Crown Castle to Lease to Verizon) for Seven Small Cell Node Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permits in the Public Right of Way, Including Six Streetlight Nodes and One New Streetlight Node. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study is Being Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning of Node Locations is Public Facilities, Adjacent to These Zones: Public Facilities (275 Forest); Commercial Downtown CD-C (P): 345 Forest; Residential Transition (SOFA) RT-35: 248 Homer, 190 Channing; DHS (SOFA) - 385 Homer, 905 Waverley (formerly 400 Channing), 845 Ramona. For further background information, please refer to the City’s website under the project file number 17PLN-00433). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Rebecca Atkinson at Rebecca.atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) conduct a public hearing and take the following action(s): 1. Recommend conditional approval of Nodes 27, 29, 30, and 31, incorporating a design with wireless equipment incorporated inside the streetlight poles or pole-mounted (rather than concealed in faux mailboxes), or in an underground vault, if technically and logistically feasible. 5 Packet Pg. 167 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 2. Recommend denial of Node 25, which would require construction in conflict with the City Hall podium, and comment on any alternative location presented at the hearing. 3. Recommend denial of Node 26, which currently interferes with views of a Category 2 historic resource, and comment on any alternative location presented at the hearing. 4. Recommend denial of Node 28m1, which is a new streetlight pole node proposed in an underground utility district rather than utilization of an existing streetlight, and comment on any alternative location presented at the hearing. Report Summary This report provides background information for the first formal ARB meeting on Crown Castle’s “Cluster” of seven wireless communication facilities (WCF) ‘small cell nodes’ in the University South neighborhood (aka Crown Castle Cluster 2). The proposed locations are within public street rights-of-way (ROW): six existing streetlight poles and one new streetlight pole (application file 17PLN-00433). More WCF-related information and links to project status can be found here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/wireless_communication_facilities/default.asp. Interested parties may also sign up for updates at the aforementioned website. Background Project Information Owner: City of Palo Alto (Owner, Wood Utility Poles and Streetlight Poles in the ROW) Architect: Crown Castle Representative: Rochelle Swanson (Sure Site) and Sharon James (Crown Castle) Legal Counsel: Michael Shonafelt, Newmeyer & Dillon LLP Property Information Address: Public rights-of-way frontages at 200 Forest (AKA 275 Forest, City Hall Police Building); 345 Forest (Staller Court [Laning Chateau]), 248 Homer; 385 Homer, 190 Channing, 905/905A Waverley (formerly 400 Channing), 845 Ramona (Oak Court Apts) corner of Channing and Bryant Neighborhood: University South Neighborhood Lot Dimensions & Area: Not Applicable Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes Historic Resource(s): Poles: No; Adjacent to Laning Chateau (Cat. 2 local inventory) 248 Homer (Cat 3 local inventory) Existing Improvement(s): Six existing streetlight poles Existing Land Use(s): Residential, Commercial, Park Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: Public Facilities: 275 Forest (City Hall); Commercial Downtown CD- C(P): 345 Forest (multifamily residential and office ground floor, Staller Court [Laning Chateau]); Residential Transition (SOFA) RT-35: 248 Homer, 190 Channing (vacant lot); DHS (SOFA) - 385 Homer 5 Packet Pg. 168 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 (office), 905 Waverley (formerly 400 Channing) – approved single family home with second unit 905A; 845 Ramona (multifamily residential) Location Map: File #17PLN-00433 – to see zoning map please see Attachment A Source: Crown Castle/Verizon Project Plans, November 19, 2018 Node 26 (near 245 Forest Av, a Category 2 historic resource) is proposed instead of the previously proposed new pole (Node 26m1 near 332 Forest Av reviewed as part of the Preliminary AR application). Node 28m1 (near “400 Channing”, now addressed as 905 Waverley) is proposed instead of Node 28 (near 370 Channing Av, considered in the Preliminary AR application). Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Public rights-of-way within multiple zoning districts: CD-C(P), PF, R-2, DHS, and RT-35 Comp. Plan Designation: Major Institutions/Special Facilities; Regional Community Commercial; Service Commercial; Multiple Family Residential; Single Family Residential Context-Based Design Criteria: Applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Near residential uses or districts Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: On July 25, 2011, the Council approved, and NextG Networks 5 Packet Pg. 169 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 subsequently executed, a Master License Agreement (the “MLA”) and Exhibits for third party access to and use of City-controlled spaces on utility poles and streetlight poles and in conduits for the purpose of providing wireless communications facilities services in Palo Alto: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/28100. Crown Castle then acquired NextG Networks, Inc. through a merger with its subsidiary Crown Castle NG Acquisitions Corp in 2012. PTC: None HRB: None ARB: September 21, 2017: Preliminary Review (application 17PLN-00193) of conceptual siting criteria and project design. The agenda, staff report, minutes, and video of the ARB meeting are found at the following weblinks: Agenda: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61859 Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61856 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-70/ Minutes:https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61851 Administrative Review: None Project Description The proposed “Cluster” is comprised of seven (7) WCF small cell nodes located within the University South neighborhood, as shown in the map on the previous page and Attachment A.1 The nodes would operate together within a larger network of nodes and would generally interface with an existing macro site at 525 University Avenue. Each node requires its own ‘Tier 3’ Wireless Communication Facility permit. The Tier 3 classification is defined under the City of Palo Alto’s Municipal Code (PAMC). The proposed node locations are grouped together into a cluster for processing to allow coordinated City review and transparency to members of the public about what is proposed in their neighborhoods. This group of applications is referred to as “Crown Castle Cluster 2.” The applicant has provided a detailed project description (Attachment B). Crown Castle/Verizon has two other pending applications: “Cluster 3” (file 17PLN-00450) in the Downtown North neighborhood, and “Cluster 1” (file 17PLN-00416) for three nodes along Alma Street next to Caltrain right of way and on City sidewalk fronting 63 Encina Avenue. Shot Clock and Extension Process Wireless Communication Facility Permit applications have a unique application process involving a “shot clock” timeline, whereby a final decision on each node must take place within a specified period of time (150 days for Tier 3 applications), unless the City and applicant 1 The address for this application 17PLN-00433 is listed in the City’s permit tracking system under 250 Hamilton Avenue because the existing street light poles and one new pole proposed to host the small cell deployment nodes are identified by unique pole numbers and do not have specific property addresses. 5 Packet Pg. 170 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 mutually agree to a longer time. For the nodes in 17PLN-00433, the parties have agreed that the City will take final actions within 100 days from October 30, 2018, which is the date of the latest resubmittal. Unless a further extension were agreed upon, that timeframe would include the need to make a decision on each node regarding entitlement, as well as process any street work and encroachment permit(s) if a node was conditionally approved. Crown Castle Cluster 2 Node Locations The application includes a deployment of seven (7) small cell node locations listed in Table 1. Table 1 shows one design configuration proposed and Figure 2 shows a simplified image of that design. Figure 3 shows visual simulations of the proposed nodes. Table 1: Seven (7) Small Cell Deployment Node Locations in Crown Castle/Verizon Cluster 2 Node Address of Closest Adjacent APN Proposed Pole Type Design Configuration Source for Power & Fiber Pole Replacement Proposed (YES/NO) Node 25 275 Forest Avenue Scalloped Aluminum Streetlight Pole Config 1 Trenching YES Node 26 345 Forest Avenue Scalloped Aluminum Streetlight Pole Config 1 Trenching YES Node 27 248 Homer Avenue Scalloped Aluminum Streetlight Pole Config 1 Trenching YES Node 28m1 400 Channing Avenue Scalloped Aluminum Streetlight Pole Config 1 Trenching NO – New Location Node 29 385 Homer Avenue Scalloped Aluminum Streetlight Pole Config 1 Trenching YES Node 30 845 Ramona Street (West corner of Channing Avenue and Bryant Street) Scalloped Aluminum Streetlight Pole Config 1 Trenching YES Node 31 190 Channing Avenue Scalloped Aluminum Streetlight Pole Config 1 Trenching YES Figure 1: Images of Existing Conditions at Proposed Crown Castle/Verizon Node Locations Node 25 Node 26 Node 30 5 Packet Pg. 171 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Node 27 Node 28 (no pole) Node 29 Node 31 Figure 2: Example of Proposed Crown Castle/Verizon Streetlight Design Configuration Figure 3: Visual Simulations of Proposed Crown Castle/Verizon Project Nodes 25-31 5 Packet Pg. 172 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Formal Review Project Plans and Changes Post Preliminary Review Since their preliminary presentation on September 21, 2017, the applicant team adjusted two node locations and made one minor change to the design configuration; the design now uses a green scalloped replacement streetlight pole in a manner consistent with the design guidelines created by Public Works for the Downtown area. The applicant indicated to staff during a Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting that they wanted to hear feedback from the ARB, the public, and the City’s subconsultants prior to further adjusting their plans to respond to staff comments already presented during the review process regarding node locations and facility design configurations. The project plans (Attachment C) show the proposed node locations and show the following above ground equipment within the design configuration: 1 antenna with azimuths facing one or multiple directions, 1 antenna shroud, Safety signage, Cabling (within streetlight pole), 1 scalloped streetlight pole with light mast, 5 Packet Pg. 173 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 2 Remote Radio Units, 1 fuse box, 1 disconnect box, and 1 faux mailbox. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview The applicant requests the following discretionary approvals for each node location: A Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility (Tier 3 WCF) Permit as outlined in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.42.110(h). Each small cell node must comply with or meet: Development Standards, subsection (i) of PAMC Section 18.42.110 (Attachment C) Conditions of Approval in PAMC Section 18.42.110(j), Architectural Review findings in PAMC Section 18.76.020(d), Conditional Use Permit (CUP) findings in PAMC Section 18.76.010(c), All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve each Tier 3 WCF permit. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. Staff requests the ARB’s recommendations with respect to the Development Standards in PAMC Section 18.42.110(i) (Attachment D), Architectural Review findings in PAMC Section 18.76.020(d) (Attachment E), as well as consistency review with the following plans, guidelines, and requirements to the extent that they are applicable to one or all nodes: Comprehensive Plan (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62915) Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31928) Urban Forest Master Plan (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/36187) South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan Phase 1 and Phase 2 (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/advance/area/sofa.asp) Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/6514) Pedestrian Shopping (P) Combining District Regulations in PAMC Chapter 18.30(B), and Context-Based Design Criteria in PAMC Section 18.18.110. 5 Packet Pg. 174 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Analysis2, 3 Staff recommends that the ARB recommend an alternative design configuration that does not include the faux mailbox, for the reasons discussed below. Staff also recommends that the ARB recommend alternative locations for at least some of the proposed nodes. Staff scheduled this Architectural Review Board meeting to facilitate timely processing of the application and to provide the public an opportunity to provide comments in a public meeting. Analysis will continue after the ARB meeting taking into account the feedback provided by the public and the ARB’s recommendations. Federal Preemption & Radio Frequency (RF) Emissions Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, federal regulations preempt the state and local governments from regulating RF emissions generated by wireless communications facilities. The City’s authority in this area is limited to ensuring that a proposed installation complies with comprehensive emissions standards established by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). To this end, the city hired an Independent Consultant, CTC, to evaluate the applicant team’s radio frequency safety engineering reports for each site produced by the applicant’s consultant, Jerrold Bushberg of Health and Medical Physics Consulting. Noise The ambient noise environment is noted in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan EIR, and Municipal Code; it is referenced therein in goals, policies, requirements, and thresholds to address potential noise impacts from new development. As currently designed, the proposed seven nodes would not be a source of new ambient noise, since the configurations include equipment that can be passively cooled. If configurations were designed to place all equipment in an underground vault, except for the antenna, it would be necessary to analyze the design for consistency with all noise-related Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and thresholds and compliance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 9.10 regarding noise. Maximum Buildout Once a wireless facility is placed on a given pole, the Federal Spectrum Act allows for a streamlined process should a second carrier apply to collocate on an expedited basis, so long as the proposed collocation does not substantially increase the size of the facility or defeat and stealth/camouflage elements of the design. For small cell projects like the subject applications, staff does not believe it is feasible to add equipment without defeating the stealth/camouflage elements of a design. 2 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 3 The Palo Alto Municipal Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 5 Packet Pg. 175 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 Wireless Communication Facility Development Standards and Architectural Review Findings Staff is reviewing the proposed nodes with respect to the Development Standards in PAMC Section 18.42.110, particularly in regard to the utilization of the smallest footprint possible, minimization of overall, mass, and size of the cabinet and equipment enclosure, minimization of visibility, utilization of stealth or camouflage design, and architectural compatibility. The proposed scalloped streetlight pole design can be understood by looking at existing poles. However, staff seeks ARB input on the cohesiveness and integration of the design, color, and materiality of the antenna shroud relative to the scalloped decorative pole design and light mast. Staff also recommends a condition of approval to ensure that no cabling would be visible and that all would be housed within the pole and antenna shroud. Regarding landscaping compliance and further screening nodes from public view, there may be opportunities to plant ornamental trees in some locations. Such plantings could be placed outside of site visibility triangles in a manner that could possibly help to interrupt direct views of the node, contribute to a more cohesive site specific design, and help maintain neighborhood character. The applicant has not yet coordinated with Urban Forestry staff to propose screen trees in the near vicinity of some nodes. During the review process, City staff from Utilities-WGW, Utilities-Electrical, Public Works- Engineering and Urban Forestry Divisions remained open in theory to vaulting of equipment. Site specific constraints might exist, however, that would make vaulting infeasible. The applicant is in the process of providing more information on existing underground utilities relative to the proposed project design to City staff from Utilities-WGW, Utilities-Electrical, and Public Works. Alternative Design Configurations Staff has engaged CTC to prepare a report with information on potential alternative design configurations. Staff is currently working with its consultant to complete a draft of this report to share with the ARB. Staff has raised concerns with the applicant during the review process regarding placement of ground-mounted equipment in the right-of-way. Although the City has previously approved faux mailboxes for WCF projects, staff believes, based on practical experience with these deployments over the past several years, that additional placement of ground-mounted equipment would be inconsistent with current City standards and policies and would not be in the best interests of the public. For example, at least one of the existing faux mailboxes (on Florence Street) was hit, presumably by a vehicle. Staff observed the damage on June 26, 2018, and reported the damage to the applicant team on August 1, 2018. The faux mailbox has not been repaired as of the writing of this staff report. Specific concerns associated with the faux mailboxes include: Lack of maintenance and hazards to passers-by when damaged. 5 Packet Pg. 176 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 Obstructions to pedestrian flow in general and especially on narrow sidewalks. Maintaining clear pedestrian and vehicle sight lines at intersection street corners, including at least a minimum of three foot horizontal clearance distance from corners to address visibility, safety, and intersection operational considerations. Maintaining the minimum horizontal clearance requirements for both ADA and at least 1.5 feet horizontal clearance from curblines for safety (which is important for the operation of bicycle lanes, red curb zones, on-street parking spaces, etc.). Cabinets are oversized relative to the volume of wireless equipment. Maintaining clear access to residential front doors/courtyards and commercial front doors. Overall increase in visual elements in the right of way and aesthetic clutter at ground level. Regarding placement of wireless equipment, there are other possible alternative design configurations: First, other wireless carriers have created designs for streetlights that incorporate the concealment of equipment in a shroud underneath the proposed antenna. An example is from the current AT&T Preliminary Architectural Review application 17PLN-00398, as shown in Figure 4. Second, Crown Castle/Verizon incorporated pole mounted equipment on decorative streetlights in Crown Castle’s nodes at 158 Hamilton Avenue (Node P10m) and 220 Hamilton Avenue (Node P19m), as shown in Figure 5. Crown Castle has also presented use of pole mounted equipment on decorative streetlights in other cities (although visual simulations do not afford a comparison between the equipment proposed for nodes therein and the present application; http://www.crowncastle.com/Communities/easset_upload_file30489_11431_e.pdf). Overall, important considerations for placement of wireless equipment include maintaining minimum horizontal and vertical clearances, as well as materiality, color, screening of cabling, and other aesthetic cohesiveness factors. Placing wireless equipment in underground vaults or mounting it underneath the antenna within shrouding might be more effective ways to meet the current development standards in PAMC Section 18.42.110 and the goals and policies in the current Comprehensive Plan regarding promotion of a bicycle and pedestrian friendly environment in Downtown, having a cohesive streetscape design, and compatibility with surrounding contexts. 5 Packet Pg. 177 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 Figure 4: Example from AT&T Preliminary Architectural Review Application 17PLN-00398 5 Packet Pg. 178 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13 Figure 5: Photos of Crown Castle Downtown Project Node P10m and Node P19m 158 Hamilton Avenue (Node P10m): 220 Hamilton Avenue (Node P19m): Alternative Locations Staff recommends that the ARB recommend alternative locations for Nodes 25, 26, and 28m1 (at a minimum) and clarify recommendations on the use of street lights at street corners. Node 25 Node 25 is located immediately adjacent to City Hall. The garage and building podium extends underneath the sidewalk on Forest Avenue. Public Works-Engineering staff has discouraged the location of this node due to the immediate proximity of the City Hall building podium. Concerns include inaccuracies in the project plans, clearance, excavation, and waterproofing. Transportation and Planning staff have concerns regarding clearances, aesthetics, and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan policies. Node 26 5 Packet Pg. 179 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 14 Node 26 is located immediately adjacent to 345 Forest Avenue whose courtyard and building are regularly viewed and photographed from the right of way. According to the City’s former historic planner, “The node and ground cabinet is [proposed] immediately adjacent to the historic Staller Court [Laning Chateau], 345 Forest Avenue. The building is a Category 2 resource and occupies a prominent corner location. The building and its accompanying plaza/entry garden with special landscaping are fine examples of urban form. The plaza itself enriches both the building and streetscape. The node alone would not be detrimental; however, the faux mailbox ground cabinet creates a false sense of place and clutters the otherwise careful siting of the corner…”. Transportation and Planning staff also have concerns regarding clearances, aesthetics, reduction of view to Staller Court [Laning Chateau] and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan policies. Node 28m1 Node 28m1 represents a proposal for an entirely new streetlight. There are a number of factors that suggest an alternative location with an existing streetlight or other structure are more appropriate, including: Utilities-Electrical would not pay for power for the illumination component, nor did the applicant submit photometrics and other information necessary to publicly evaluate the merits of additional lighting at that location. Additionally, the applicant did not clarify the proposed ownership of the pole and Utilities-Electrical and Public Works- Engineering are not in support of City-ownership of a new pole structure for the purposes of attaching to and leasing for a new facility. Regarding promotion of a cohesive streetscape, compatibility with surrounding context, and other aesthetic considerations, Planning staff do not support the placement of new structures (pole structure and faux mailbox) for private use in an underground utility district when streetlight poles anticipated by the Master License Agreement are in the area. Intersection Street Corners In addition to the specific nodes discussed above, the ARB may wish to consider recommending alternative locations for the other four nodes also currently proposed at street corners (Node 27, Node 29, Node 30 and Node 31). During the review of previous wireless applications, the ARB indicated that street corners were disfavored. At the Preliminary Architectural Review meeting for 17PLN-00193, some ARB members indicated that this could possibly be revisited for metal streetlights, given the possibility of the cabling being inside the streetlight pole (rather than in exterior conduits) and if the antenna shrouding could be designed in a way that had color, design, and materiality that was integrated with the pole design. Staff has identified the following potential issues with using corner streetlight locations: maintaining clear pedestrian and vehicle sight lines, maintaining horizontal and vertical clearances, and potential distraction from existing traffic control and navigation information through placement of additional wireless safety signage. Most of the street corner concerns might be alleviated if either the equipment was vaulted or pole-mounted underneath the antenna. 5 Packet Pg. 180 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 15 Environmental Review The project is under review in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The City’s consultant is currently preparing the requisite CEQA documentation. It is likely the project will qualify for a Categorical Exemption under CEQA Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures (Class 3) because the project is considered a minor change to existing light poles or installation of small new equipment, though some nodes may present exceptions to the exemption. Class 3 consists of “construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure.” The Director of Planning and Community Environment, or City Council, would make the CEQA determination prior to making a decision 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 the 23rd of November, 2018, which is 14 days in advance of the ARB meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on November 26th, 2018, which is 11 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments Staff received a significant number of public comments and inquiries by telephone and email. Similar to inquiries in other neighborhoods, multiple members of the public have noted their preference to gather more information before commenting. Staff received comments of support and opposition. Supporters generally cited a desire for improved wireless coverage. Opposed persons generally cited concerns regarding alternatives analysis, aesthetics, noise, compatibility with nearby historic resources, consistency with the City’s undergrounding district policies, and radio frequency emissions/health and safety. Public correspondence received through November 28, 2018 has been compiled and is available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4120&TargetID=319 Additional correspondence received after this time will be provided at ARB member places at the December 6, 2018 meeting. Alternative Actions and Appeals of PCE Decisions Instead of the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may recommend: 1. Continue the project to a hearing on a date certain or uncertain. The hearing would need to occur prior to the expiration of the existing or a new tolling agreement, in order for the Crown Castle/Verizon applicant to respond to public, ARB, and staff feedback, or 5 Packet Pg. 181 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 16 2. Recommend denial of the project based on findings suggested via an ARB motion and affirmative vote, or 3. Recommend approval of the project based on findings suggested via an ARB motion and affirmative vote. Following an ARB recommendation of either approval or denial of these nodes, the PCE Director may make a decision on the application. Director decisions on Tier 3 WCFs are appealable to City Council. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison Amy French Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2442 (650) 329-2575 Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Project Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Applicant Project Description (Dated 11-02-18) (PDF) Attachment C: Applicant Project Plans (Dated 11-19-18) (DOCX) Attachment D: Palo Alto Municipal Code Section Wireless Communication Facilities (DOC) Attachment E: Palo Alto Municipal Code Section Architectural Review Findings (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 5 Packet Pg. 182 KINGSLEY AVENUE A ALMA STREET HIG H STREET RAM ONA STREET LINCOLN AVENUE LINCOLN AVENUE RAM ONA STREET E M ERSON STREETHIGH STREET E M BAR CAD E RO R O A D EMERSO N STREET EMERSON STREET H OMER AVENUE T RAM ONA STREETLYTTON AVENUE UNIVERSITY AVENUE RAM ONA STREET BRYANT STREET G H STREET EMERSO N STREET ALMA STREET E M ERS ON STREET HIGH STREET HIGH STREETHAMILTON AVENUE HAMILTON AVENUE EMERSON STREET HAMILTO N AVEN UE GILMAN STREET W AVERLEY STREET BRYANT STREET FOREST AVENUE FOREST AVEN UE BRYANT STREET RA MO NA STREET RAM ONA STREET BRYANT STREET FLORENCE STREET LYTTON WAVERLEY STREET ERLEY STREET EVERETT AVENUE M ONA STREET BRYANT STREET LYTTON AVENUE U NIVERSITY AVENUE EET KIPLIN G STREET UNIVERSITY AVENUE CO W PER STREET W AVERLEY STREET HA MILTON AVENUE M ELVILLE AVENUE EMERSO N STREET LLOG G AVENUE E M ER KELLO BRYA E WAVE EMBA RCA DER O RO AD EM ERSON STREET KINGSLEY AVENUE BRYANT STREET BRYANT STREET SC OTT STREET ADDISON AVENUEBRYANT STREET BRYANT STREET ADDISON AVENUE LINCOLN AVENUE HAMILTO N AVENUE C O W PER STREET FO REST AVEN UE FOREST AVENUE W AVERLEY STREET BRYANT STREET HO MER AVENUE WAVERLEY STREET CHANNING AVENUE RA M ONA STREET RAM ONA STREET EBSTER STREET WEBSTER STREET CO W PER STREET HO MER AVENUE HO M ER AVENUE CO WPER STREETKIPLING STREET CHANNIN G AVENUE W AVERLEY STREET ADDISON AVENUE FO REST AV W AVERLEY STREET KIN GS KIN GSLEY AVENUE W AVERLEY STREET LINCOLN AVENUE C LINC ADDI WEBS MIDDLE C HANNIN ADDISO N AVENUE C O W PER STREET WEBSTER STREET AD HO MER AVENUE MID DLEFIELD ROAD WEBSTER STREET CHANNING AVENUE CHANNING AVENUE CO W PER STREET Y CI LANE 39 LANE B EAST LANE 7 EAST LANE 5 EAST LANE 6 EAST LANE 20 EAST LA NE 30 LA NE 20 WEST LANE 21 ANT CO PAULSEN LANE LANE 12 WEST LANE 11 WEST CENTENNIAL W ALK LANE D EAST LANE D W EST LANE 59 EAST W HITMAN COU RT DO WNING LANE LA NE 56 ALM A S TREET PENIN SULA C ORRIDOR JOIN T P O WERS BOARD T R E E T EMERSON STREET EM ERSO N STREET HIG H STREET HIG H STREET HIG H STREET ALM A S TREET ALMA STREET ALM A STREET ALMA STREET ALMA STREET FOREST AVENUE CHANNING AVENUE H OMER AVENUE ADDISO N AVENUE O R E ALR E A L E L C A MIN O R E A L EL C A MIN O R E A L E L C A MIN O R EA L E L C A MIN O R E A L E M B ARC AD E RO R OAD WEL L S AVE NU E URBAN LANE U RBAN L ANE ENCI NA AVEN UE ENC IN A AV E NU E MED I CA L FO UNDATION WAY LANE 7 W EST LANE 8 W EST LANE A W EST LANE B W EST CHANNING AVENUE CS CC R-2 R M-15 R-2 R-1 PC-2967 PF RM-15 R-1 PC- 4182 PC-3707 PC-4283 PF RT-35 PC- 4389 CS CS PC-4465 CS CD-C (P)R-1(10000 RM-30 AMF (MUO) DHS R-2 CD-S(P)AMF PC-4612 PF PFPF PC-4063 PC-3872 PF PF PC-2130 PFCD-C (P) PF PF CD-C (P) CD-C (P) PF PC-3111 PC-3007 PC-3974 PF PF PC-4195 RM- 40 429 CD-C(GF)(P) RM-40 CD-C (P) PFAMF DHS DHS PF PC-4611 PC-4053 NP) PF PC-4339 R M-30 PC-4052PF PC- 2545 PC 3995 PC-4782 CS RT-50 CD-S(P) RT-50 RT-35 RT-35 R-2 RT-50 RT-50 PC-4779 PC-4296 PC-4436 RM-15 PC-8659 PC- 2836 PC RM-15 RM-30 CD-C(GF)(P) PC-4973 R-2 CD-C (P)CD-C(GF)(P) CD-S(GF)(P) This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend 7 Proposed Nodes Application (17PLN-00433) Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels City Jurisdictional Limits 0' 500' 17PLN-00433 Location Map and Zoning Districts Area Map v20181121 CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto RRivera, 2018-11-21 12:30:20Cell Application Noticing 17PLN 00433 COI LocZoneMap 2018Nov (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) 5.a Packet Pg. 183 ARB Submittal for Major Project PROJECT DESCRIPTION 17PLN‐00433 RE: Crown Castle – Cluster 2 of 3 for 16 Small Cell Node Expansion Project in Downtown Palo Alto. Cluster 2: Six (6) small cell nodes on new highly decorative replacement street lights at existing streetlight locations and one (1) proposed small cell node on a highly decorative streetlight at a location with accessory radio equipment within the University South Neighborhood. Introduction Crown Castle (formerly NextG Networks) is seeking approval of a Crown Castle node expansion project in the core area of Palo Alto. This project will utilize the similar designs as approved in the previous project in 2015 (15PLN‐00140). As with the 2015 small cell project, the 2017 expansion project proposes sixteen (16) nodes overall to provide capacity coverage to the macro cell at 525 University Avenue. This application seeks approval for seven nodes within the University South Neighborhood. Crown Castle has a Master License Agreement with the City of Palo Alto that allows for use of city‐controlled space on utility poles and streetlight poles and in conduits owned by CPAU. This Crown Castle project small cell project is designed to be installed in the public right of way on existing utility poles, including wood poles and streetlights. The small cell wireless sites provide capacity coverage to the larger cell site or cell tower in the area. Verizon Wireless is the carrier identified to be the tenant in these expansion nodes. As stated above, this application requests approval for Cluster 2 consisting of seven (7) nodes of the 16 nodes in proposed expansion project. To summarize the overall expansion 16 node project, Verizon Wireless and Crown Castle Radio Frequency (RF) engineers have identified locations throughout the city that require service. Sixteen (16) installations are currently planned to be co‐located on wood utility poles and metal streetlights. Six (6) of these small cells are proposed to be co‐located on existing city street light poles (poles to be replaced with new highly decorative octaflute aluminum poles), one (1) on a new streetlight, and the remaining six (9) small cells are proposed to be installed on existing wood utility poles. These small cells will provide the City of Palo Alto much needed improvements in network capacity and coverage. Small cells are currently proposed in three (3) configurations that are dependent on the design opportunities and constraints of 5.b Packet Pg. 184 specific pole locations within the City of Palo Alto. The seven (7) nodes in this application are distributed within the University South Neighborhood. Please see Vicinity Map. Coverage Needs The unprecedented current and future demand for wireless service requires the densification of existing cellular networks. More people are using a wireless connection for personal and professional needs, both in home and in transit. As a result, wireless communication facilities are diminishing in height and being located closer to the user to meet both daily needs as well as provide essential coverage for emergency personnel. The coverage map below demonstrates the current need. Intermittent dots indicates poor coverage and solid green indicates good coverage for capacity. Diagram 1 shows the area identified for the 16 nodes is predominately intermittent dots. On the following page, Diagram 2 shows the improvement in capacity is achieved where the green line is solid. 5.b Packet Pg. 185 Diagram 1 ‐ Current level of coverage for 1900 MHz: Diagram 2 ‐ Proposed Improvement in coverage for 1900 MHz: 5.b Packet Pg. 186 Diagram 3 ‐ Current level of coverage for 2100 MHz: Diagram 4 ‐ Proposed Improvement in coverage for 2100 MHz: 5.b Packet Pg. 187 Site Locations The process for site selection by Crown Castle aim to meet the need for service coverage, while at the same time locating poles that will have the least impact. With high demand of wireless services, the small facilities need to be located within a relatively narrow area as compared to a ‘macro’ or traditional larger wireless facility. The sites were initially chosen based upon the greatest needs in coverage in the area identified. Each site was walked by a team that included RF (radio frequency) engineers, a construction manager, A&E (architectural and engineering) professionals and government relations consultants in order to make on the spot decisions of the best pole in the neighborhood that could accommodate the wireless equipment within the City’s criteria and with sensitivity to the neighborhood. Pole location proximity to a residence and sidewalk, orientation of the placement of the equipment on the pole and general visibility were taken into account as to which pole in any given area was finally chosen. There are typically only one or two poles that are viable candidates due to the small size design of the sites and limited range of the signal. Pole selection in determined in the field ensuring the RF need for the facility and constructability are met while meeting zoning and other requirements by the City, including sensitivity to the community needs. The team also walked the sites with staff from Compliance to confirm which locations were feasible. Two new alternative streetlights installations were proposed to accommodate requests from staff, the ARB and community members for Nodes 26 and 28. Currently the only new proposed streetlight is Node 28 as Node 26 has moved back to the original location on an existing streetlight as requested by the neighbors to utilize existing infrastructure, rather than add a new light in this particular neighborhood. The alternative location for Node 26 near 332 Forest Avenue has been removed due to feedback from CPAU staff that it will not be supported, as well as feedback from the nearby residents. Crown has returned to the original Node 26 was proposed at the corner of Gilbert and Forest Avenue as it was the only existing streetlight in the immediate area that worked with the RF network design. This streetlight is located in front of the historic Staller Court at 345 Forest Avenue. The RF engineer did a review of the streetlights in the area and confirmed no other existing streetlight would provide a feasible alternative. At the Design Review Committee meeting, the Historic Preservation Planner confirmed there is concern that this location would have an aesthetic impact, thereby requiring the Node be located to another pole. Despite multiple efforts to find an alternative, no other existing pole is feasible. Comments from the neighborhood also reflect a desire to utilize the existing pole at the corner of Gilbert and Forest, as opposed to a new streetlight or pole. The original Node 28 was proposed in front of 370 Channing as the only existing streetlight in that area that could accommodate the RF need. At the Preliminary ARB hearing, the commissioners discussed a possibility of locating a site near the corner as the residents at 370 Channing raised concerns on the impacts in front of their home. The existing poles on the corner are traffic signals, which are not allowed to be used for collocation. The Crown team did an RF analysis and determined a site at the corner would be feasible and a new streetlight was submitted for review of feasibility. The new location was reviewed and allowed to be submitted with this location. 5.b Packet Pg. 188 Site information on each node Node Closest address for identity purposes Assessor's address based on location in plans Adjacent APN Pole # Adjacent Zone Overlay Zone 25 275 Forest Ave (corner of Ramona St & Forest Ave) 250 Hamilton Ave 12027011 23 PF MISP 26 Row across from 675 Gilbert St aka 345 Forest Ave 345 Forest Ave 12016033 32 RM‐40 SOFA I CAP 27 248 Homer (across from 819 Ramona St) 248 Homer Ave 12028012 82 RT‐35 SOFA II CAP/ HE Corr SOFA II 28m1 near 400 Channing Ave 400 Channing Ave 12017043 new R‐2 SOFA I CAP 29 751 Waverley St (near 760 Waverley) 385 Homer Ave 12016066 76 DHS SOFA I CAP 30 411 Bryant St (corner of Channing Ave and Bryant St) 845 Ramona St 12028109 86 AMF SOFA I CAP 31 190 Channing Ave (across from 913 Emerson St) 190 Channing Ave 12028051 16 RT‐35 SOFA II CAP/ HIS 5 5.b Packet Pg. 189 Elevation of example of the installation. Please see site plans for specific elevation of each Node and accompanying radio equipment cabinet. 5.b Packet Pg. 190 Minimizing Visual Impacts To minimize visual impacts the 24” antenna is located on the pole on the top. All equipment will be painted to match the proscribed color of the pole. At the Preliminary ARB meeting, the option of using art wrapped boxes and the mail utility box were discussed, along with other potential options. For ground equipment, the faux mailbox styled radio equipment cabinet painted green continues to be proposed as it continues the consistency of the existing faux mailboxes and appears to have the least visual impact and least disturbance to the existing sidewalk and street. No concerns have been raised by community members as to the color and design of the mailboxes. Node 25 Photo simulation is on the following page. Photo simulations for each node can be found within the site plans in the planning packet. 5.b Packet Pg. 191 5.b Packet Pg. 192 Scope of Work The scope of work includes replacing six (6) existing streetlights and adding one (1) new streetlight (Node 28). The final design of the new streetlight is pending final direction from staff. The equipment will be added to these poles, includes adding a 24” antenna on the top with additional radio equipment to be located in a 24.75” x 48.63” mailbox styled mailbox cabinet. Conduit for fiber will be installed inside the pole. Where trenching is required for the conduit, the trench will use a bore pit at each end of the conduit run and bore from one point to the other or a trench will be dug. See SP‐2 for specific depths for each installation of the seven proposed sites. In order to trench, segments of the sidewalk will be removed in squares and will replaced after trenching is complete. Any disturbance to the asphalt in the street to accommodate the work will also be completely repaired and restored. Project information can be found at http://www.crowncastle.com/projects/palo‐alto_ca.aspx Respectfully submitted, Rochelle Swanson Government Relations Consultant for Crown Castle r.swanson@sure‐site.com 916‐801‐3178 5.b Packet Pg. 193 ATTACHMENT C PROJECT PLANS File No. 17PLN-00433 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: Project Webpage https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4120&TargetID=319 Permit Tracking System 1. Go to Citizen Portal: https://aca.accela.com/PALOALTO/Cap/CapHome.aspx?module=Planning&TabN ame=Planning&TabList=Home%7C0%7CBuilding%7C1%7CPlanning%7C2%7CFire %7C3%7CPublicWorks%7C4%7CCurrentTabIndex%7C2 2. Go to the Planning tab within Palo Alto Citizen Portal and type in the application number 17PLN-00433. 3. Both current and superseded files are listed under Record Info and Attachments 4. The current and latest project plans are named: “17PLN-00433 Cluster 2 Resubmittal Plans 11-19-18 PART 1of2” “17PLN-00433 Cluster 2 Resubmittal Plans 11-19-18 PART 1of2” Note: The address for this application 17PLN-00433 is listed in the City’s permit tracking system under 250 Hamilton Avenue because the utility poles and streetlights that are proposed to host the small cell deployment nodes are identified by unique pole numbers and do not have specific property addresses. 5.c Packet Pg. 194 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 1 of 7 ATTACHMENT D PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 18.42.110 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES File No. 17PLN-00433 18.42.110 Wireless Communication Facilities (a) Purpose and Interpretation The purpose of this section is two-fold: (A) to implement within the jurisdictional boundaries of the city the applicable zoning, land use and other laws, rules, regulations and policies and procedures applicable to siting applications filed with the city by wireless communications facilities infrastructure owners and operators and wireless communications service providers, which seek to install or attach their facilities at locations in Palo Alto; and (B) to accommodate new wireless technologies and continued improvements to existing wireless communications facilities while minimizing their adverse visual and structural health and safety impacts. Consistent with that purpose, the provisions of this section are to be construed in a manner that is consistent with (1) the interest of consumers in receiving the benefits of the deployment of ultra-high-speed and -capacity broadband wireless communication facilities technology and innovations and the delivery of ultra-high-speed and -capacity broadband wireless communications facilities services, (2) the interest in safeguarding the environment, preserving historic properties, and addressing aesthetics and other local values, and (3) the interest in promoting the public health, safety and welfare in Palo Alto. A wireless communications facility is permitted to be sited in Palo Alto subject to applicable requirements imposed by this chapter, which may include an architectural review process, a conditional use permit application process, or both. These processes are intended to permit wireless communications facilities that blend with their existing surroundings and do not negatively impact the environment, historic properties, or public safety. The procedures prescribed by this chapter are tailored to the type of wireless communication facility that is sought. Building-mounted wireless communications facilities and collocation of facilities are preferred and encouraged, subject to all other provisions of this section. (b) Definitions The following abbreviations, phrases, terms and words shall have the meanings assigned in this section or, as appropriate, in Section 18.04.030 and Section 1.04.050 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as may be amended from time to time, unless the context indicates otherwise. Words that are not defined in this section or other chapters or sections of the Palo Alto Municipal Code shall have the meanings as set forth in Chapter 6 of Title 47 of the United States Code, Part 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and, if not defined therein, their common and ordinary meaning. (1) "Antenna" means a wireless antenna and its associated equipment. The term includes a macrocell antenna and a microcell antenna. (2) "Associated equipment" means any and all on-site equipment, including, without limitation, back- up generators and power supply units, cabinets, coaxial and fiber optic cables, connections, shelters, radio transceivers, regular power supply units, and wiring, to which a wireless antenna is attached in order to facilitate mobile broadband service and personal wireless service delivered on mobile broadband devices. 5.d Packet Pg. 195 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 2 of 7 (3) "Base Station" means a structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communications between user equipment and a communications network. The term does not encompass a tower as defined herein or any equipment associated with a tower. Base Station includes, without limitation: (i) Equipment associated with wireless communications services such as private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul. (ii) Radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and backup power supplies, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration (including Distributed Antenna Systems ("DAS") and small-cell networks). (iii) Any structure other than a tower that, at the time the relevant application is filed with the city under this section, supports or houses equipment described in paragraphs (i)-(ii) above and has been previously reviewed and approved by the city. (4) "Collocation" means the mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes. (5) "Eligible Facilities Request" means any request for modification of an existing tower or base station that, within the meaning of the Spectrum Act, does not substantially change the physical dimensions of that tower or base station, and involves (a) the collocation of new transmission equipment, (b) the removal of transmission equipment, or (c) the replacement of transmission equipment. (6) "Eligible Support Structure" means any existing tower or base station that exists at the time the application is filed with the city. (7) "Existing" for a constructed tower or base station, means that the tower or base station has been previously reviewed and approved under the applicable city zoning or siting process, or under another applicable state or local regulatory review process, provided that a tower that has not been reviewed and approved because it was not in a zoned area when it was built, but was lawfully constructed, is "Existing" for purposes of this definition. (8) "FCC" means the Federal Communications Commission or successor agency. (9) "Project" means a WCF to be located in Palo Alto for which a permit is required by the city. (10) "RF" means radio frequency on the radio spectrum. (11) "Spectrum Act" means Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief Act and Job Creation Act of 2012, 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a) (providing, in part, "… a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any Eligible Facilities Request for a modification of any existing wireless Tower or Base Station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such Tower or Base Station."). (12) "Substantially Changes" means, in the context of an eligible support structure, a modification of an existing tower or base station where any of the following criteria is met: (i) For a tower not located in the public rights-of-way: (a) The height of the tower is increased by (I) more than ten (10) percent, or (II) by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty (20) feet, whichever is greater; or (b) There is added an appurtenance to the body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower by (I) more than twenty (20) feet, or (II) more than the width of the tower at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater. (ii) For a tower located in the public rights-of-way and for all base stations: (a) The height of the tower or base station is increased by more than ten (10) percent or ten (10) feet, whichever is greater; or 5.d Packet Pg. 196 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 3 of 7 (b) There is added an appurtenance to the body of that structure that would protrude from the edge of that structure by more than six (6) feet; or (c) It involves the installation of ground cabinets that are more than ten (10) percent larger in height or overall volume than any other ground cabinets associated with the structure; or (d) It involves the installation of any new equipment cabinets on the ground if there is no pre- existing ground cabinet associated with that structure. (iii) For any eligible support structure: (a) It involves the installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed four (4) cabinets; or (b) There is entailed in the proposed modification any excavation or deployment outside of the current site of the tower or base station; or (c) The proposed modification would cause the concealment/camouflage elements of the tower or base station to be defeated; or (d) The proposed modification would not comply with the conditions associated with the prior siting approval of construction or modification of the tower or base station, unless the non-compliance is due to an increase in height, increase in width, addition of cabinets, or new excavation that does not exceed the corresponding thresholds in this section. (iv) To measure changes in height for the purposes of this section, the baseline is: (a) For deployments that are or will be separated horizontally, measured from the original support structure; (b) For all others, measured from the dimensions of the tower or base station, inclusive of originally approved appurtenances and any modifications that were approved by the city prior to February 22, 2012. (v) To measure changes for the purposes of this section, the baseline is the dimensions that were approved by the city prior to February 22, 2012. (13) "Tower" means any structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting any FCC- licensed or -authorized antenna, including any structure that is constructed for wireless communications service. This term does not include a base station. (14) "Transmission Equipment" means equipment that facilitates transmission of any FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communication service. (15) "Wireless Communications Facility" or "WCF" means any antenna, associated equipment, base station, small cell system, tower, and/or transmission equipment located in Palo Alto. (16) "Wireless Communications Service" means, without limitation, all FCC-licensed back-haul and other fixed wireless services, broadcast, private, and public safety communication services, and unlicensed wireless services. (c) Types of WCF Permits Required (1) A Tier 1 WCF Permit shall be required for an eligible facilities request, as defined in this section. (2) A Tier 2 WCF Permit shall be required for: (i) Any modification of an eligible support structure, including the collocation of new equipment, that substantially changes the physical dimensions of the eligible support structure on which it is mounted; or (ii) Any collocation not eligible for a Tier 1 WCF Permit. (3) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be required for the siting of any WCF that is not a collocation subject to a Tier 1 or 2 WCF Permit. (d) WCF Application Requirements All applications for a WCF Permit shall include the following items: 5.d Packet Pg. 197 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 4 of 7 (1) Any applicant for a WCF Permit shall participate in an intake meeting with the Planning and Community Environment Department to file an application; (2) The applicant must specify in writing whether the applicant believes the application is for an eligible facilities request subject to the Spectrum Act, and if so, provide a detailed written explanation as to why the applicant believes that the application qualifies as an eligible facilities request; (3) The applicant shall complete the city's standard application form, as may be amended from time to time; (4) The applicant shall include a completed and signed application checklist available from the city, including all information required by the application checklist; (5) Payment of the fee prescribed by the Municipal Fee Schedule; (6) The application must be accompanied by all permit applications with all required application materials for each separate permit required by the city for the proposed WCF, including a building permit, an encroachment permit (if applicable) and an electrical permit (if applicable); (7) For Tier 2 and 3 WCF Permits, the applicant must host a community meeting at a time and location designed to maximize attendance by persons receiving notice under this subparagraph to provide outreach to the neighborhood around the project site. The applicant shall give notice of the community meeting to all residents and property owners within 600 feet of the project site at least 14 days in advance of the community meeting. The applicant shall provide a proof of notice affidavit to the city that contains: (i) Proof that the applicant noticed and hosted the community meeting before filing the application; (ii) A summary of comments received at the community meeting and what, if any, changes were made to the application as a result of the meeting; (8) For Tier 3 WCF Permits, the plans shall include a scaled depiction of the maximum permitted increase in the physical dimensions of the proposed project that would be permitted by the Spectrum Act, using the proposed project as a baseline; and (9) Satisfy other such requirements as may be, from time to time, required by the Planning and Community Environment Department Director ("Director"), as publically stated in the application checklist. (e) Permit Review ("Shot Clock") Time Periods (1) City review of application materials. The timeframe for review of an application shall begin to run when the application is submitted, but shall be tolled if the city finds the application incomplete and provides notice of incompleteness that delineates the missing information in writing. Such requests shall be made within 30 days of submission of the application. After submission of additional information, the city will notify the applicant within 10 days of this submission if the additional information failed to complete the application. If the city makes a determination pursuant to Section 18.42.110(e)(2)(i) that an application submitted as a Tier 1 eligible facilities request should be processed as a Tier 2 or Tier 3, then the Tier 2 or Tier 3 processing time, as applicable, shall begin to run when the city issues this decision. (2) Tier 1 processing time. For Tier 1 WCF Permit applications, the city will act on the WCF application, together with any other city permits required for a proposed WCF modification, within 60 days, adjusted for any tolling due to requests for additional information or mutually agreed upon extensions of time. (i) If the city determines that the application does not qualify as a Tier 1 eligible facilities request, the city will notify the applicant of that determination in writing and will process the application as a Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF Permit application, as applicable. (ii) To the extent federal law provides a "deemed granted" remedy for Tier 1 WCF Permit applications not timely acted upon by the city, no such application shall be deemed granted until the applicant provides notice to the city, in writing, that the application has been deemed granted after the 5.d Packet Pg. 198 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 5 of 7 time period provided in Section (e)(2) above has expired. (iii) Any Tier 1 WCF Permit application that the city grants or that is deemed granted by operation of federal law shall be subject to all requirements of Section 18.42.110(i)(3), (5), (6) and (7) and 18.42.110(j)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6). (3) Tier 2 processing time. For Tier 2 WCF Permit applications, the city will act on the application within 90 days, adjusted for any tolling due to requests for additional information or mutually agreed upon extensions of time. (4) Tier 3 processing time. For Tier 3 WCF Permit applications, the city will act on the application within 150 days, adjusted for any tolling due to requests for additional information or mutually agreed upon extensions of time. (5) Denial of application. If the city denies a WCF application, the city will notify the applicant of the denial in writing of the reasons for the denial. (f) Tier 1 WCF Permit Process and Findings (1) A Tier 1 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be final and shall not be appealable pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapters 18.77 or 18.78; (2) The Director shall grant a Tier 1 WCF Permit provided that the Director finds that the applicant proposes an eligible facilities request; (3) The Director shall impose the following conditions on the grant of a Tier 1 WCF Permit: (i) The proposed collocation or modification shall not defeat any existing concealment elements of the support structure; and (ii) The proposed WCF shall comply with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i)(3), (5), (6) and (7), and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j). (g) Tier 2 WCF Permit Process and Findings (1) A Tier 2 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070. (2) The Director, or Council on appeal, shall grant a Tier 2 WCF Permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i) and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) can be made. (3) The Director, or Council on appeal, shall deny a Tier 2 WCF Permit if the above findings cannot be made. (h) Tier 3 WCF Permit Process and Findings (1) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070 and the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060. (2) The Director or Council on appeal shall grant a Tier 3 WCF Permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i) and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) and the conditional use permit findings in Section18.76.010(c) can be made. (3) The Director, or Council on appeal, shall deny a Tier 3 WCF Permit if the above findings cannot be made. 5.d Packet Pg. 199 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 6 of 7 (i) Development Standards Except as otherwise provided in this section, a proposed WCF Project shall comply with the following standards: (1) Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible; (2) Shall be designed to minimize the overall height, mass, and size of the cabinet and enclosure structure; (3) Shall be screened from public view; (4) Shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site; (5) Shall be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the Zoning Code; (6) An antenna, base station, or tower shall be designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area; (7) A building-mounted antenna, base station, or tower shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building on which the antenna, base station, or tower is attached; (8) For any Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF proposed to be attached on an historic structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49, historic review shall also be required; (9) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend fifteen (15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the zone district; (10) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF Project shall not exceed sixty-five (65) feet in height; and (11) A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. (j) Conditions of Approval In addition to any other conditions of approval permitted under federal and state law and this Code that the Director deems appropriate or required under this Code, all WCF Projects approved under this chapter, whether approved by the Director or deemed granted by operation of law, shall be subject to the following conditions of approval: (1) Permit conditions. The grant or approval of a WCF Tier 1 Permit shall be subject to the conditions of approval of the underlying permit, except as may be preempted by the Spectrum Act. (2) As-built plans. The applicant shall submit to the Director an as-built set of plans and photographs depicting the entire WCF as modified, including all transmission equipment and all utilities, within ninety (90) days after the completion of construction. (3) Applicant shall hire a radio engineer licensed by the State of California to measure the actual radio frequency emission of the WCF and determine if it meets FCC's standards. A report, certified by the engineer, of all calculations, required measurements, and the engineer's findings with respect to compliance with the FCC's radio frequency emission standards shall be submitted to the Planning Division within one year of commencement of operation. (4) Indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the city, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties") from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the city for its actual attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The city may, in its sole discretion and at Applicant's expense, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 5.d Packet Pg. 200 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 7 of 7 (5) Compliance with applicable laws. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Code, any permit issued under this Code, and all other applicable federal, state and local laws (including without limitation all building code, electrical code and other public safety requirements). Any failure by the City to enforce compliance with any applicable laws shall not relieve any applicant of its obligations under this code, any permit issued under this code, or all other applicable laws and regulations. (6) Compliance with approved plans. The proposed Project shall be built in compliance with the approved plans on file with the Planning Division. (k) Removal of Abandoned Equipment A WCF (Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3) or a component of that WCF that ceases to be in use for more than ninety (90) days shall be removed by the applicant, wireless communications service provider, or property owner within ninety (90) days of the cessation of use of that WCF. A new conditional use permit shall not be issued to an owner or operator of a WCF or a wireless communications service provider until the abandoned WCF or its component is removed. (l) Revocation The Director may revoke any WCF Permit if the permit holder fails to comply with any condition of the permit. The Director's decision to revoke a Permit shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070 and the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060. (Ord. 5340 § 1 (part), 2015) 5.d Packet Pg. 201 ATTACHMENT E PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 18.76.020(d) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FINDINGS The below approval findings must be made with approval of Architectural Review applications: 1. The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility criteria), and any relevant design guides. 2. The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass, and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, and e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. 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. 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.). 5. The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes regional indigenous drought-resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat, and that can be appropriately maintained. 6. The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. 5.e Packet Pg. 202 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9351) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/6/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Crown Castle/Verizon - Cluster 3 (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. Crown Castle/Verizon Cluster 3, Downtown North Multiple Addresses [17PLN-00450 File Uses 250 Hamilton Address]: Request by Sure Site (on behalf of Crown Castle to Lease to Verizon) for Six Small Cell Node Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permits Poles in the Public Right of Way on Six (6) Wood Utility Poles. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study is Being Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning of Node Locations is Public Facilities, Adjacent to These Zones: RM-30 (205 Everett/251 Emerson, 243 Hawthorne and 258 Waverley); RM-D (NP) 482 Everett and 301 Bryant; RM-15 (201 High). For further background information, please refer to the City’s website under the project file number 17PLN-00450). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Rebecca Atkinson at Rebecca.atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) conduct a public hearing and take the following action(s): 1.Recommend conditional approval of six Wireless Communication Facilities proposed by Crown Castle for deployment in the Downtown North neighborhood (known as ‘Cluster 3’). More specifically, “small cell nodes” comprised of pole top antennas and equipment mounted onto six existing wood utility poles adjacent to the following addresses: Node 20 (pole #6474) adjacent to 205 Everett Av (also near 251 Emerson St), Node 21m1 (pole #6263 adjacent to 301 Bryant St (also near 311 Everett Av), Node 22m2 (pole #6288) adjacent to 258 Waverley St, Node 23 (pole #6350) adjacent to 482 Everett Av, 6 Packet Pg. 203 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Node 24 (pole #6378) adjacent to 243 Hawthorne Av, and Node 32 (pole #6492) adjacent to 201 High St. Report Summary This report provides background information for the first formal ARB meeting on Crown Castle’s “Cluster” of six wireless communication facilities (WCF), ‘small cell nodes’ in the Downtown North neighborhood (aka Crown Castle Cluster 3). The proposed locations are six wood utility poles within public street rights-of-way (application file 17PLN-00450). More WCF-related information and links to project status can be found here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/wireless_communication_facilities/default.asp. Interested parties may also sign up for updates at the aforementioned website. Background Project Information Owner: City of Palo Alto (Owner of Wood Utility Poles and Streetlight Poles in the Right-of-Way) Architect: Crown Castle Representative: Rochelle Swanson (Sure Site) and Sharon James (Crown Castle) Legal Counsel: Michael Shonafelt, Newmeyer & Dillon LLP Property Information Address: Public rights-of-way frontages at 205 Everett, 243 Hawthorne, 258 Waverley, 482 Everett, 301 Bryant, and 201 High (ca 1906 deemed potentially eligible California Register) Neighborhood: Downtown North Neighborhood Lot Dimensions & Area: Not Applicable Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes Historic Resource(s): Poles, no; Adjacent properties are eligible for National and California Registers (205 & 482 Everett); or potentially eligible for listing (301 Bryant). Existing Improvement(s): Six existing wood utility poles Existing Land Use(s): Residential, Commercial, Park Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: Multiple-Family Residential Zones: RM-30: 205 Everett/251 Emerson, 243 Hawthorne and 258 Waverley; RM-D (NP): 482 Everett and 301 Bryant; and RM-15: 201 High. Location Map: File #17PLN-00450 – – to see zoning map please see Attachment A 6 Packet Pg. 204 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Crown Castle/Verizon Project Plans, October 30, 2018 Note that Node 22m2 (next to 258 Waverley) replaced previously proposed Node 22 (near 386 Everett). Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Public rights of way within multiple residential zoning districts: RMD (NP), RM15, RM30 Comp. Plan Designation: Multiple Family Residential Context-Based Design Criteria: Not Applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Near residential uses or districts Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: On July 25, 2011 Council approved, and NextG Networks subsequently executed, a Master License Agreement (the “MLA”) and Exhibits for third party access to and use of City-controlled spaces on utility poles and streetlight poles and in conduits for the purpose of providing wireless communications facilities services in Palo Alto: 6 Packet Pg. 205 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/28100. Crown Castle then acquired NextG Networks, Inc. through a merger with its subsidiary Crown Castle NG Acquisitions Corp in 2012. PTC: None HRB: None ARB: September 21, 2017: Preliminary Review (application 17PLN-00193) of conceptual siting criteria and project design. The agenda, staff report, minutes, and video of the ARB meeting can be found at the following weblinks: Agenda: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61859 Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61856 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-70/ Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61851 Administrative Review: None Project Description The proposed “Cluster” is comprised of six (6) WCF small cell nodes located in the Downtown North neighborhood, as shown on the map on the previous page and Attachment A.1 The nodes would operate together within a larger network of nodes and would generally interface with an existing macro site at 525 University Avenue. Each node requires its own ‘Tier 3’ Wireless Communication Facility permit. The Tier 3 classification is defined under the City of Palo Alto’s Municipal Code (PAMC). The proposed node locations are grouped together into a cluster for processing to allow coordinated City review and transparency to members of the public about what is proposed in their neighborhoods. The applicant has provided a detailed project description (Attachment B). Crown Castle has two other pending applications: “Cluster 2” (file 17PLN-00433) in the University South neighborhood, and “Cluster 1” (file 17PLN-00416) for three nodes previously proposed near Town and Country Shopping Center. The three Cluster 1 node locations, pole types, and equipment were recently modified with a resubmittal on November 6, 2018, showing two locations along Alma Street next to Caltrain right of way (across Alma from 103 Kellogg Avenue (node 033m2) and 102 Kingsley Avenue (node 035m2)) and one location on City sidewalk fronting 63 Encina Avenue (node 034m1)). Shot Clock and Extension Process Wireless Communication Facility Permit applications have a unique application process involving a “shot clock” timeline, whereby a final decision on each node must take place within 1 The address for this application 17PLN-00450 is listed in the City’s permit tracking system under 250 Hamilton Avenue because the existing streetlight poles and one new pole proposed to host the small cell deployment nodes are identified by unique pole numbers and do not have specific property addresses. 6 Packet Pg. 206 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 a specified period of time (150 days for Tier 3 applications), unless the City and applicant mutually agree to a longer time. For the nodes in 17PLN-00450, the parties have agreed that the City will take final actions within 100 days from October 30, 2018, which is the date of the latest resubmittal. Unless a further extension were agreed upon, that timeframe would include the need to make a decision on each node regarding entitlement, as well as process any street work and encroachment permit(s) if a node was conditionally approved. Crown Castle Cluster 3 Six Node Locations The application includes a deployment of six (6) small cell node locations listed in Table 1. Table 1 shows only one design configuration is proposed (with no shrouding of pole side-mounted equipment) and shows which nodes are on street intersections. Images below the table are of each node with respect to existing trees in the planter strip. Figure 1 shows a simplified image of the node design. Figure 2 is a visual simulation of one node, showing the combination of the wooden bayonet extension and the new antenna. Table 1: Six (6) Small Cell Deployment Node Locations in Crown Castle/Verizon Cluster 3 Node Address of Closest Adjacent APN Proposed Pole Type Design Configuration Source for Power & Fiber Corner Site? (YES/NO) Pole Replacement Proposed (YES/NO) Node 20 205 Everett Street Wood Utility Pole #6474 Config 1 Currently Unclear, Presumed Aerial Drop Yes No Node 21m1 301 Bryant Street (on Everett Avenue) Wood Utility Pole #6263 Config 1 No No Node 22m2 258 Waverley Street Wood Utility Pole pole #6288 Config 1 Yes No Node 23 482 Everett Avenue Wood Utility Pole #6350 Config 1 Yes No Node 24 243 Hawthorne Avenue Wood Utility Pole #6378 Config 1 No No Node 32 201 High Street Wood Utility Pole #6492 Config 1 No No Existing Street Tree Screening and Planting Opportunities: Trees in the public right of way can help screen unattractive equipment and utility poles in the right of way. Crown Castle Cluster 3 plans note street tree locations relative to utility poles proposed for nodes (and state in many instances that tree protection is not required). Below are pole-by-pole images (left) and tree proximity diagrams (right). The applicant did not propose adding trees. Tree planting opportunities are noted below for each node. Below: Node 20 (aka Pole #6474) Node 20 Tree Proximity is 10’ 6 Packet Pg. 207 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Node 20 planter strip existing tree could be replaced with larger tree for better screening. A non-fruiting Arbutus Marina in 24” box size is recommended to replace the small tree approximately 12 feet from the pole. Below: Node 21m1 (aka Pole #6263) Node 21m1 Tree Proximity is 16’ Node 21m1 planter strip existing small tree (Zelkova) can remain but a new 24” box Catalina Ironwood is recommended to replace the rose bush existing on the left side of the pole (as seen from the roadway) for better screening. Below: Node 22m2 (aka Pole #6288) Node 22m2 Tree Proximity is about 23’ 6 Packet Pg. 208 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Node 22m2 planter strip existing tree is mature and would remain to provide screening. The sign to the left of the pole is not a stop sign and could be relocated to between the magnolias to allow an additional tree of a species to be identified by Urban Forestry staff. Below: Node 23 (aka Pole #6350) Node 23 Tree Proximity is 23’ Node 23 planter strip existing trees are mature. The existing shorter pole would be removed. No additional tree is recommended due to sightlines, though a replacement tree for the Camphor tree is a possibility. Below: Node 24 (aka Pole #6378) Node 24 Tree Proximity is 10’ 6 Packet Pg. 209 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Node 23 planter strip existing trees are mature. The small Holly tree to the right could be recommended for replacement. Below Node 32 (aka Pole #6492) Node 32 Tree Proximity is 23’ Node 32 planter strip existing tree is mature. See the Figure 2 image of Node 32 with equipment. The utility boxes in the area would make it difficult to plant an amenity tree near this node. 6 Packet Pg. 210 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Figure 1: Example of Proposed Crown Castle/Verizon Wood Utility Pole Design Configuration 6 Packet Pg. 211 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 Figure 2: Wood Utility Pole Node Simulation (Node 32) Formal Review Project Plans and Changes Post Preliminary Review Since their preliminary presentation on September 21, 2017, the applicant team adjusted the location of one node, but has arrived upon the locations presented on the project plans and listed in this staff report. The applicant team made one minor change to the design configuration; the design now includes a shroud design for the wood bayonet. The applicant indicated to staff during a Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting that they wanted to hear feedback from the ARB, the public, and the City’s subconsultants prior to adjusting their plans to respond to staff comments already presented during the review process regarding node locations and facility design configurations. The project plans (Attachment C) show the proposed node locations and show the following above ground equipment within the design configuration: 1 antenna with azimuths facing one or multiple directions, 1 antenna shroud, 1 wooden bayonet extension, 6 Packet Pg. 212 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 Safety signage, Cabling in external conduit with a standoff spacer from the wood pole, Standoff bracket kit for mounting equipment to side of pole 2 Remote Radio Units, 1 fuse box, 1 disconnect box. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview The applicant requests the following discretionary approvals for each node location: A Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility (Tier 3 WCF) Permit as outlined in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.42.110(h). Each small cell node must comply with or meet: Development Standards, item (i) of PAMC Section 18.42.110 (Attachment D) Conditions of Approval in PAMC Section 18.42.110(j), Architectural Review findings in PAMC Section 18.76.020(d), Conditional Use Permit (CUP) findings in PAMC Section 18.76.010(c). All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve each Tier 3 WCF permit. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. Staff requests the ARB’s recommendations with respect to the Development Standards in PAMC Section 18.42.110(i) (Attachment D), Architectural Review findings in PAMC Section 18.76.020(d) (Attachment E), as well as consistency review with the following plans, guidelines, and requirements to the extent that they are applicable to one or all nodes: Comprehensive Plan (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62915) Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31928) Urban Forest Master Plan (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/36187) Analysis2, 3 Staff scheduled this Architectural Review Board meeting to facilitate timely processing of the application and to provide the public an opportunity to provide comments in a public meeting. 2 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 3 The Palo Alto Municipal Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 6 Packet Pg. 213 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 Analysis will continue after the ARB meeting taking into account the feedback provided by the public and the ARB’s recommendation. Staff believes it is possible for the project design to offer improved “stealth” and concealment strategies. Consequently, staff recommends conditions of approval that address these concerns, as discussed below. Federal Preemption & Radio Frequency (RF) Emissions Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, federal regulations preempt the state and local governments from regulating RF emissions generated by wireless communications facilities. The City’s authority in this area is limited to ensuring that a proposed installation complies with comprehensive emissions standards established by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). To this end, the city hired an Independent Consultant, CTC, to evaluate the applicant team’s radio frequency safety engineering reports for each site produced by the applicant’s consultant, Jerrold Bushberg of Health and Medical Physics Consulting. Noise The ambient noise environment is noted in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan EIR, and Municipal Code; it is referenced therein in goals, policies, requirements, and thresholds to address potential noise impacts from new development. As currently designed, the proposed six nodes would not be a source of new ambient noise, since the configurations include equipment that can be passively cooled. If configurations were designed to place all equipment in an underground vault, except for the antenna, it would be necessary to analyze the design for consistency with all noise-related Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and thresholds and compliance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 9.10 regarding noise. Maximum Buildout Once a wireless facility is placed on a given pole, the Federal Spectrum Act allows for a streamlined process should a second carrier apply to collocate on an expedited basis, so long as the proposed collocation does not substantially increase the size of the facility or defeat and stealth/camouflage elements of the design. For small cell projects like the subject applications, staff does not believe it is feasible to add equipment without defeating the stealth/camouflage elements of a design. Adjacency to Historic Properties Nodes 20 and 23 are adjacent to historic properties – found to be eligible for National and California Register listing, and on file with the State Office of Historic Preservation. Node 32 is adjacent to a property viewed in 1998 as potentially eligible but not further evaluated to determine if truly eligible for listing on these Registers. The addition of equipment onto existing wood poles would not cause irreversible impacts to the identified historic resources, given proposed conditions requiring either vaulting of equipment or the provision of a shroud to conceal pole-mounted equipment, and improved vegetative screening. Wireless Communication Facility Development Standards and Architectural Review Findings 6 Packet Pg. 214 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13 Staff is reviewing the proposed nodes with respect to the Development Standards in PAMC Section 18.42.110, particularly in regard to the utilization of the smallest footprint possible, minimization of overall, mass, and size of the cabinet and equipment enclosure, minimization of visibility, utilization of stealth or camouflage design, and architectural compatibility. Although the applicant has followed along with the discussions for other wireless projects in the City and has resubmitted twice since the City Council applied relevant conditions of approval to Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 1 (17PLN-00169), the applicant has not yet addressed the following design concepts: Discussion of vaulting of equipment Ensuring that no sky shall be seen through the mounting and attachment equipment for the antennas and the conduits. Reducing the standoff distance for pole mounted equipment Utilization of shrouding for pole mounted equipment Reducing the volume of pole mounted equipment Maintaining required climbing space while also not having pole mounted equipment face directly toward adjacent private property or extend over sidewalks Maintaining minimum horizontal and vertical clearances: o At least 1.5-feet horizontal clearance between any new or relocated equipment and the adjacent face of curb or edge of traveled way for any public roadway, driveway, or alley, unless 16-feet vertical clearance is provided between equipment and the top of adjacent travel way. o At least 3-feet of horizontal clearance from driveways or corners. o At least 10-feet vertical clearance between the adjacent sidewalk, path, or walkway grade. The photo simulations might not clearly show the visual impact of the proposed nodes, as they are fairly dark, blurry, and do not clearly show materiality. The applicant has not yet provided a photograph of an example installation that utilizes the proposed design and there are no examples of the design within the City to refer to. Staff questions the cohesiveness and integration of: the shape, design, color, and materiality of the antenna shroud, as well as how far it extends from the base of the antenna to the top of the existing pole, the cables in the conduit into the bottom of the antenna shroud, and any separation of the conduit from the top and mid-section of the pole, given that the pole has some tapering. Staff recommends adding conditions of approval to address the design of the shroud, cables, and conduit. The City has an example of these specific concerns being successfully addressed in the Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 1 application (17PLN-00169). Staff recommends the conditions of approval require either: (1) modification of the proposed pole-mounted equipment design for all nodes to address equipment orientation; or 6 Packet Pg. 215 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 14 (2) vaulting of the equipment if technically and logistically feasible. Any pole-mounted equipment must: not face the street or adjacent properties, not extend over the sidewalk, be positioned to ensure the equipment meets minimum horizontal and vertical clearances relative to driveways, corners, and curblines, be screened by a painted metal shroud, be arranged to form a slim profile - using vertical alignment of the equipment rather than the current proposal which shows the equipment ‘sandwiching’ the bracket. Similar conditions of approval were required of the pole-mounted equipment Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 1 (17PLN-00169). Regarding landscaping compliance and the further screening nodes from public view, there are opportunities to plant ornamental trees at four nodes as discussed earlier in this report. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring planting of additional vegetation (“amenity” trees) in the right of way planter strips or in some cases, replacement of smaller planter strip trees with larger, more robust trees and watering of the trees for a specific time period to ensure trees become established and improve screening of the proposed nodes. Such plantings would help to interrupt direct views of the node, contribute to a more cohesive site specific design, and help maintain neighborhood character. Similar conditions of approval were required of Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 1 (17PLN-00169). The equipment mounting proposed for Node 23 and Node 24 are near and/or face existing short transfer poles. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring removal of the transfer poles adjacent to Node 23 and Node 24. Alternatives Alternative Design Configurations Staff has engaged CTC to prepare a report with information on potential alternative design configurations. Staff is currently working with its consultant to complete a draft of this report to share with the ARB. The applicant has not presented an exploration of vaulting technologies for their facility equipment, nor explored how using a smaller antenna size could minimize facility height impacts. As discussed above, staff raised concerns with the applicant during the review process, including in regard to the antenna shroud, conduits, cabling, the design of the pole mounted equipment, and vaulting. Placing equipment in underground vaults or use of pole-mounted equipment within shrouding might be more effective ways to meet the current development 6 Packet Pg. 216 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 15 standards in PAMC Section 18.42.110, the goals and policies in the current Comprehensive Plan regarding promotion of a bicycle and pedestrian friendly environment, having a cohesive streetscape design, and compatibility with surrounding contexts. Alternative Locations During the review of previous wireless applications, the ARB indicated that street corners were disfavored. At the Preliminary Architectural Review meeting for 17PLN-00193, some ARB members indicated that this could possibly be revisited for metal streetlights, but not necessarily for wood utility poles. Staff would prefer mid-block alternatives and use of street corners remain generally dis-favored by staff. Environmental Review The project is under review in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The City’s environmental consultant is currently preparing the requisite CEQA documentation. It is likely the project will qualify for a Categorical Exemption under CEQA Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures (Class 3) because the project is considered a minor change to existing wood utility poles, and no exceptions to the exemption are present in the project area. Class 3 consists of “construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure.” The Director of Planning and Community Environment, or City Council, would make the CEQA determination prior to making a decision 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 the 23rd of November, 2018, which is 14 days in advance of the ARB meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on November 26th, 2018, which is 11 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments Staff received a significant number of public comments and inquiries by telephone and email. Similar to inquiries in other neighborhoods, multiple members of the public have noted their preference to gather more information before commenting. Staff received comments of support and opposition. Supporters generally cited a desire for improved wireless coverage. Opposed persons generally cited concerns regarding alternatives analysis, aesthetics, noise, compatibility with nearby historic resources, consistency with the City’s undergrounding district policies, and radio frequency emissions/health and safety. 6 Packet Pg. 217 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 16 Public correspondence received through November 28, 2018 has been compiled and is available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4192. Additional correspondence received after this time will be provided at ARB member places at the December 6, 2018 meeting. Alternative Actions and Appeals of PCE Decisions Instead of the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may recommend: 1. Continue the project to a hearing on a date certain or uncertain. The hearing would need to occur prior to the expiration of the existing or a new tolling agreement, in order for the Crown Castle/Verizon applicant to respond to public, ARB, and staff feedback, or 2. Recommend denial of the project based on findings suggested via an ARB motion and affirmative vote, or 3. Recommend approval of the project based on findings suggested via an ARB motion and affirmative vote. Following an ARB recommendation of either approval or denial of these nodes, the PCE Director may make a decision on the application. Director decisions on Tier 3 WCFs are appealable to City Council. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2442 (650) 329-2575 Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Project Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Applicant Project Description (Dated 11-02-18) (PDF) Attachment C: Applicant Project Plans (Dated 10-30-18) (DOCX) Attachment D: Palo Alto Municipal Code Section Wireless Communication Facilities (DOC) Attachment E: Palo Alto Municipal Code Section Architectural Review Findings (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 6 Packet Pg. 218 PC-2967PC- 3266 RM PC- PC-37 PF CD-C (P) PC-4612 RM-30 PF RM-30 PC-4063 PC-3872 PF PF PF CD-C (P) PC-4374 PF PF PF CD (P CD-N (P) PF P C-3111 PC-3974 PF PC-4262 PC-4243 PC-4195 RM-15 R M D(NP) P C-3429 CD-N (P) CD-C(GF)(P) CD-C (P) CD-C (P)PF PC-4611 PC-4053 RMD (NP) R M D(NP) RM-30 PF PC-2049 PC-3102 RM-15 R-1 RM-30 PC-4339 RM-30 R M-30 PF PF PC-2145 RT-50 CD-S(P) RT-35RT-50 RM-30 CD-C (P) PC-4296 PC-4436 CD-C(GF)(P) PC-5158 CD-C (P)CD-C(GF)(P) CD-S(GF)(P) A R R Y R O A D QU A R R Y R OA D EM ERS ON S TREET E L C A MIN O R E AL EL C A MIN O R E AL BRYANT STR EET PALO ALTO AVENUE PALO ALTO AVENUE HA WTHORNE AVEN UEEM ERS O N STREET RAM ONA STREET E M ERSO N STREET HA W TH ORNE AVEN U E HIG H STR EET EVERETT AVENUE EVERETT AVENUE HIG H STR EET ALMA STREET ALM A STREET ALMA STREET LYTTO N AVEN UE E L C A MIN O R E A L QU AR R Y R OA D ALM A STREET EM ER S O N STREET R A M O N A STREETLYTTON AVENUE UNIVERSITY AVEN UE R A M O N A STR EET BRYANT STR EET HIGH STREET E M ERSON STREET ALM A STREET E M E RSON STREET HIGH STREET HIG H STR EETHAMILTON AVENUE HAMILTO N AVEN U E EM ERS ON STREET HA MILTO N AVE N UE GILM A BRYA NT STREET FOREST AVEN UE RA M O NA STREET RA M O N BRYANT STREET FLO RENCE STR EET KIPLING STREET LYTTO N AVEN UE W AVERLEY STREET W AVE RLEY STREET EVERETT AVENU E EVERETT AVEN UEB RYANT STREET W AVERLEY STREET HA WTHORNE AVEN UE RA M O NA STREET BRYA NT STREET LYTTO N AVE N UE UNIVE RSITY AVENUE C O W PE R STREET KIPLIN G STREET UNIVERSITY AVENUE W AVE RLEY STREET RUTHVEN AVENUE POE STREETPALO ALTO AVENUE PALO ALTO AVEN UE CO W PER STREET C O W PE R STREET W AVERLEY STREET HA W THORNE AVEN UE HA W TH O KIPLING STREET EVERETT AVEN UE CO W PER STREET ET EVE W EBSTER STREET LYTTON AVEN UE TAS UN I V E R S I T Y CI RCLE EVERETT C OURT LA NE 7 EAST LANE 5 EAST LANE 6 EAST LANE 20 EAST LANE 30 LAN E 20 W EST LANE 21 MITC HELL LA NE LA NE 33 LAN E 15 EAST BRYANT C OURT PAULSEN LANE LANE 12 W EST LANE 11 W EST CENTENNIAL W ALK P E A R LA N E EL C A MIN O R E AL PALO A PENINSULA C O R RID O R JOINT PO W ERS BOAR D SULA C O R RID O R JOINT PO W ERS BO A RD P A HIGH STREET ALM A STREET FOREST AVENUE URBAN LANE LAN E 7 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels 6 Proposed Node Locations (17PLN 00450) City Jurisdictional Limits 0' 400' 17PLN-00450 Location Map and Zoning Districts Area Map v20181121 CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto RRivera, 2018-11-21 13:01:17Cell Application Noticing 17PLN 00450 REV 20180628 ZoneLocMap (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) 6.a Packet Pg. 219 ARB Submittal for Major Project PROJECT DESCRIPTION 17PLN‐00450 RE: Crown Castle – Cluster 3 of 3 for 16 Small Cell Node Expansion Project in Downtown Palo Alto. Cluster 3: Six small cell nodes on wood utility poles within the Downtown North Neighborhood. Introduction Crown Castle (formerly NextG Networks) is seeking approval of a Crown Castle node expansion project in the core area of Palo Alto. This project will utilize the similar designs as approved in the previous project in 2015 (15PLN‐00140). As with the 2015 small cell project, the 2017 expansion project proposes sixteen (16) nodes overall to provide capacity coverage to the macro cell at 525 University Avenue. This application seeks approval for six (6) nodes within the Downtown North Neighborhood. Crown Castle has a Master License Agreement with the City of Palo Alto that allows for use of city‐controlled space on utility poles and streetlight poles and in conduits owned by CPAU. This Crown Castle project small cell project is designed to be installed in the public right of way on existing utility poles, including wood poles and streetlights. The small cell wireless sites provide capacity coverage to the larger cell site or cell tower in the area. Verizon Wireless is the carrier is the identified tenant in these Crown Castle expansion nodes. As stated above, this application requests approval for Cluster 3 consisting of six (6) nodes of the 16 nodes in proposed expansion project. To summarize the overall expansion 16 node project, Verizon Wireless and Crown Castle Radio Frequency (RF) engineers have identified locations throughout the city that require service. Sixteen (16) installations are currently planned to be co‐located on wood utility poles and metal streetlights. Six (6) of these small cells are proposed to be co‐located on new and existing city street light poles, one (1) new streetlight, and the remaining nine (9) small cells are proposed to be installed on existing wood utility poles. These small cells will provide the City of Palo Alto much needed improvements in network capacity and coverage. Small cells are currently proposed in three (3) configurations that are dependent on the design opportunities and constraints of specific pole locations within the City of Palo Alto. The six (6) nodes in this application are distributed within the Downtown North Neighborhood. Please see Vicinity Map. 6.b Packet Pg. 220 Coverage Needs The unprecedented current and future demand for wireless service requires the densification of existing cellular networks. More people are using a wireless connection for personal and professional needs, both in home and in transit. As a result, wireless communication facilities are diminishing in height and being located closer to the user to meet both daily needs as well as provide essential coverage for emergency personnel. The coverage map below demonstrates the current need. Blue indicates poor coverage and green indicates good coverage. Diagram 1 shows the area identified for the six (6) nodes is limited green and yellow. On the following page, Diagram 2 shows the improvement in capacity where green is consistent. 6.b Packet Pg. 221 Diagram 1 ‐ Current level of capacity for 700 MHz: Diagram 2 ‐ Proposed Improvement in capacity for 700 MHz: 6.b Packet Pg. 222 Diagram 3 ‐ Current level of coverage for 1900 MHz: Diagram 4 ‐ Proposed Improvement in coverage for 1900 MHz: 6.b Packet Pg. 223 Diagram 5 – Current level of coverage for 2100 MHz: Diagram 6 – Proposed improvement in coverage for 2100 MHz: 6.b Packet Pg. 224 Site Locations The process for site selection by Crown Castle aim to meet the need for service coverage, while at the same time locating poles that will have the least impact. With high demand of wireless services, the small facilities need to be located within a relatively narrow area as compared to a ‘macro’ or traditional larger wireless facility. The sites were initially chosen based upon the greatest needs in coverage in the area identified. Each site was walked by a team that included RF (radio frequency) engineers, a construction manager, A&E (architectural and engineering) professionals and government relations consultants in order to make on the spot decisions of the best pole in the neighborhood that could accommodate the wireless equipment within the City’s criteria and with sensitivity to the neighborhood. Pole location proximity to a residence and sidewalk, orientation of the placement of the equipment on the pole and general visibility were taken into account as to which pole in any given area was finally chosen. There are typically only one or two poles that are viable candidates due to the small size design of the sites and limited range of the signal. Pole selection in determined in the field ensuring the RF need for the facility and constructability are met while meeting zoning and other requirements by the City, including sensitivity to the community needs. The team also walked the sites with staff from Compliance to confirm which locations were feasible. The pole top design with antenna and extension was determined by staff on joint site walk to be the only allowable space on the specific six (6) nodes in this proposal, as opposed to locating lower on the pole. It is a clean design that accommodates the needs of the utility operations while providing space for the needed small cell equipment. During the application resubmittal process, a new location has been identified for Node 22 (Node 22m2). The new location is at the corner of Bryant Ct and Waverley Street, adjacent to 258 Waverley St. During the process between the original submittal and the Preliminary ARB hearing on September 21, 2017, an alternative location to the original Node 22 (22m1) was included in the original Formal ARB application. The original node was proposed to be collocated on the wood utility pole adjacent to 386 Everett Avenue. The alternative proposed location to the ARB was directly across the street adjacent to 311 Waverley (also identified as 404 Everett). Upon further review, the RF engineer was able to determine that coverage and capacity needs of the network could be accommodated on the alternative pole now identified as Node 22m2, thereby further mitigating visual impacts and concerns of proximity to the units on higher floors. 6.b Packet Pg. 225 Site information on each node: Node Closest address for identity purposes Assessor's address based on location in plans Adjacent APN Pole # Adjacent Zone Overlay Zone 20 251 Emerson St (near 205 Everett St) 205 Everett St 12025024 6474 RM‐30 MF 21 301 Bryant ( across from 311 Everett Ave) 301 Bryant St 12014045 6362 RMD (NP) MF 22m2 258 Waverley (corner of Waverley & Bryant Ct) 258 Waverley St 12013005 6288 RM‐30 MF 23 482 Everett Ave (across from 305 Cowper St) 482 Everett Ave 12014057 6350 RMD (NP) MF 24 243 Hawthorne Ave 221 Hawthorne Ave 12024002 6378 RM‐30 MF 32 201 High St 201 High St 12025049 6492 RM‐15 MF 6.b Packet Pg. 226 Elevation of example of the installation. Please see site plans for specific elevation of each Node and accompanying radio equipment. 6.b Packet Pg. 227 Minimizing Visual Impacts To minimize the visual impact, the antenna and extension bracket will be enclosed within a shroud at the top of the wood utility pole. Where feasible, wood utility poles near trees were chosen to further mitigate visual impacts. The radio equipment will be attached to the side of the wood utility pole in a manner that keeps the distance between the radios and the wooden pole as close as possible. All equipment and shrouds will be painted to match in order to blend with the wood pole. Colors identified at this time are Sherwin Williams Fairfax Brown and Well‐Bred Brown. Final colors choice subject to direction by staff. Example of shroud and equipment on Node 22m2. See site plans for specifics on each node. 6.b Packet Pg. 228 Scope of Work The scope of work includes the installation includes adding a 48” antenna and extension mount enclosed within a shroud on the top of six existing wood utility poles with additional radio equipment to be mounted on the side of the pole. Any disturbance to landscaping or the asphalt in the street to accommodate the work will also be completely repaired and restored. Project information can be found at http://www.crowncastle.com/projects/palo‐alto_ca.aspx Respectfully submitted, Rochelle Swanson Government Relations Consultant for Crown Castle r.swanson@sure‐site.com 916‐801‐3178 6.b Packet Pg. 229 ATTACHMENT C PROJECT PLANS File No. 17PLN-00450 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: Project Webpage https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4192 Permit Tracking System 1. Go to Citizen Portal: https://aca.accela.com/PALOALTO/Cap/CapHome.aspx?module=Planning&TabN ame=Planning&TabList=Home%7C0%7CBuilding%7C1%7CPlanning%7C2%7CFire %7C3%7CPublicWorks%7C4%7CCurrentTabIndex%7C2 2. Go to the Planning tab within Palo Alto Citizen Portal and type in the application number 17PLN-00450. 3. Both current and superseded files are listed under Record Info and Attachments 4. The current and latest project plans are named: “17PLN-00450 Cluster 3 Resubmittal Plans 10-30-18 PART 1of2” “17PLN-00450 Cluster 3 Resubmittal Plans 10-30-18 PART 1of2” Note: The address for this application 17PLN-00450 is listed in the City’s permit tracking system under 250 Hamilton Avenue because the utility poles and streetlights that are proposed to host the small cell deployment nodes are identified by unique pole numbers and do not have specific property addresses. 6.c Packet Pg. 230 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 1 of 7 ATTACHMENT D PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 18.42.110 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES File No. 17PLN-00450 18.42.110 Wireless Communication Facilities (a) Purpose and Interpretation The purpose of this section is two-fold: (A) to implement within the jurisdictional boundaries of the city the applicable zoning, land use and other laws, rules, regulations and policies and procedures applicable to siting applications filed with the city by wireless communications facilities infrastructure owners and operators and wireless communications service providers, which seek to install or attach their facilities at locations in Palo Alto; and (B) to accommodate new wireless technologies and continued improvements to existing wireless communications facilities while minimizing their adverse visual and structural health and safety impacts. Consistent with that purpose, the provisions of this section are to be construed in a manner that is consistent with (1) the interest of consumers in receiving the benefits of the deployment of ultra-high-speed and -capacity broadband wireless communication facilities technology and innovations and the delivery of ultra-high-speed and -capacity broadband wireless communications facilities services, (2) the interest in safeguarding the environment, preserving historic properties, and addressing aesthetics and other local values, and (3) the interest in promoting the public health, safety and welfare in Palo Alto. A wireless communications facility is permitted to be sited in Palo Alto subject to applicable requirements imposed by this chapter, which may include an architectural review process, a conditional use permit application process, or both. These processes are intended to permit wireless communications facilities that blend with their existing surroundings and do not negatively impact the environment, historic properties, or public safety. The procedures prescribed by this chapter are tailored to the type of wireless communication facility that is sought. Building-mounted wireless communications facilities and collocation of facilities are preferred and encouraged, subject to all other provisions of this section. (b) Definitions The following abbreviations, phrases, terms and words shall have the meanings assigned in this section or, as appropriate, in Section 18.04.030 and Section 1.04.050 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as may be amended from time to time, unless the context indicates otherwise. Words that are not defined in this section or other chapters or sections of the Palo Alto Municipal Code shall have the meanings as set forth in Chapter 6 of Title 47 of the United States Code, Part 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and, if not defined therein, their common and ordinary meaning. (1) "Antenna" means a wireless antenna and its associated equipment. The term includes a macrocell antenna and a microcell antenna. (2) "Associated equipment" means any and all on-site equipment, including, without limitation, back- up generators and power supply units, cabinets, coaxial and fiber optic cables, connections, shelters, radio transceivers, regular power supply units, and wiring, to which a wireless antenna is attached in order to facilitate mobile broadband service and personal wireless service delivered on mobile broadband devices. 6.d Packet Pg. 231 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 2 of 7 (3) "Base Station" means a structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communications between user equipment and a communications network. The term does not encompass a tower as defined herein or any equipment associated with a tower. Base Station includes, without limitation: (i) Equipment associated with wireless communications services such as private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul. (ii) Radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and backup power supplies, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration (including Distributed Antenna Systems ("DAS") and small-cell networks). (iii) Any structure other than a tower that, at the time the relevant application is filed with the city under this section, supports or houses equipment described in paragraphs (i)-(ii) above and has been previously reviewed and approved by the city. (4) "Collocation" means the mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes. (5) "Eligible Facilities Request" means any request for modification of an existing tower or base station that, within the meaning of the Spectrum Act, does not substantially change the physical dimensions of that tower or base station, and involves (a) the collocation of new transmission equipment, (b) the removal of transmission equipment, or (c) the replacement of transmission equipment. (6) "Eligible Support Structure" means any existing tower or base station that exists at the time the application is filed with the city. (7) "Existing" for a constructed tower or base station, means that the tower or base station has been previously reviewed and approved under the applicable city zoning or siting process, or under another applicable state or local regulatory review process, provided that a tower that has not been reviewed and approved because it was not in a zoned area when it was built, but was lawfully constructed, is "Existing" for purposes of this definition. (8) "FCC" means the Federal Communications Commission or successor agency. (9) "Project" means a WCF to be located in Palo Alto for which a permit is required by the city. (10) "RF" means radio frequency on the radio spectrum. (11) "Spectrum Act" means Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief Act and Job Creation Act of 2012, 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a) (providing, in part, "… a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any Eligible Facilities Request for a modification of any existing wireless Tower or Base Station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such Tower or Base Station."). (12) "Substantially Changes" means, in the context of an eligible support structure, a modification of an existing tower or base station where any of the following criteria is met: (i) For a tower not located in the public rights-of-way: (a) The height of the tower is increased by (I) more than ten (10) percent, or (II) by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty (20) feet, whichever is greater; or (b) There is added an appurtenance to the body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower by (I) more than twenty (20) feet, or (II) more than the width of the tower at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater. (ii) For a tower located in the public rights-of-way and for all base stations: (a) The height of the tower or base station is increased by more than ten (10) percent or ten (10) feet, whichever is greater; or 6.d Packet Pg. 232 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 3 of 7 (b) There is added an appurtenance to the body of that structure that would protrude from the edge of that structure by more than six (6) feet; or (c) It involves the installation of ground cabinets that are more than ten (10) percent larger in height or overall volume than any other ground cabinets associated with the structure; or (d) It involves the installation of any new equipment cabinets on the ground if there is no pre- existing ground cabinet associated with that structure. (iii) For any eligible support structure: (a) It involves the installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed four (4) cabinets; or (b) There is entailed in the proposed modification any excavation or deployment outside of the current site of the tower or base station; or (c) The proposed modification would cause the concealment/camouflage elements of the tower or base station to be defeated; or (d) The proposed modification would not comply with the conditions associated with the prior siting approval of construction or modification of the tower or base station, unless the non-compliance is due to an increase in height, increase in width, addition of cabinets, or new excavation that does not exceed the corresponding thresholds in this section. (iv) To measure changes in height for the purposes of this section, the baseline is: (a) For deployments that are or will be separated horizontally, measured from the original support structure; (b) For all others, measured from the dimensions of the tower or base station, inclusive of originally approved appurtenances and any modifications that were approved by the city prior to February 22, 2012. (v) To measure changes for the purposes of this section, the baseline is the dimensions that were approved by the city prior to February 22, 2012. (13) "Tower" means any structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting any FCC- licensed or -authorized antenna, including any structure that is constructed for wireless communications service. This term does not include a base station. (14) "Transmission Equipment" means equipment that facilitates transmission of any FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communication service. (15) "Wireless Communications Facility" or "WCF" means any antenna, associated equipment, base station, small cell system, tower, and/or transmission equipment located in Palo Alto. (16) "Wireless Communications Service" means, without limitation, all FCC-licensed back-haul and other fixed wireless services, broadcast, private, and public safety communication services, and unlicensed wireless services. (c) Types of WCF Permits Required (1) A Tier 1 WCF Permit shall be required for an eligible facilities request, as defined in this section. (2) A Tier 2 WCF Permit shall be required for: (i) Any modification of an eligible support structure, including the collocation of new equipment, that substantially changes the physical dimensions of the eligible support structure on which it is mounted; or (ii) Any collocation not eligible for a Tier 1 WCF Permit. (3) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be required for the siting of any WCF that is not a collocation subject to a Tier 1 or 2 WCF Permit. (d) WCF Application Requirements All applications for a WCF Permit shall include the following items: 6.d Packet Pg. 233 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 4 of 7 (1) Any applicant for a WCF Permit shall participate in an intake meeting with the Planning and Community Environment Department to file an application; (2) The applicant must specify in writing whether the applicant believes the application is for an eligible facilities request subject to the Spectrum Act, and if so, provide a detailed written explanation as to why the applicant believes that the application qualifies as an eligible facilities request; (3) The applicant shall complete the city's standard application form, as may be amended from time to time; (4) The applicant shall include a completed and signed application checklist available from the city, including all information required by the application checklist; (5) Payment of the fee prescribed by the Municipal Fee Schedule; (6) The application must be accompanied by all permit applications with all required application materials for each separate permit required by the city for the proposed WCF, including a building permit, an encroachment permit (if applicable) and an electrical permit (if applicable); (7) For Tier 2 and 3 WCF Permits, the applicant must host a community meeting at a time and location designed to maximize attendance by persons receiving notice under this subparagraph to provide outreach to the neighborhood around the project site. The applicant shall give notice of the community meeting to all residents and property owners within 600 feet of the project site at least 14 days in advance of the community meeting. The applicant shall provide a proof of notice affidavit to the city that contains: (i) Proof that the applicant noticed and hosted the community meeting before filing the application; (ii) A summary of comments received at the community meeting and what, if any, changes were made to the application as a result of the meeting; (8) For Tier 3 WCF Permits, the plans shall include a scaled depiction of the maximum permitted increase in the physical dimensions of the proposed project that would be permitted by the Spectrum Act, using the proposed project as a baseline; and (9) Satisfy other such requirements as may be, from time to time, required by the Planning and Community Environment Department Director ("Director"), as publically stated in the application checklist. (e) Permit Review ("Shot Clock") Time Periods (1) City review of application materials. The timeframe for review of an application shall begin to run when the application is submitted, but shall be tolled if the city finds the application incomplete and provides notice of incompleteness that delineates the missing information in writing. Such requests shall be made within 30 days of submission of the application. After submission of additional information, the city will notify the applicant within 10 days of this submission if the additional information failed to complete the application. If the city makes a determination pursuant to Section 18.42.110(e)(2)(i) that an application submitted as a Tier 1 eligible facilities request should be processed as a Tier 2 or Tier 3, then the Tier 2 or Tier 3 processing time, as applicable, shall begin to run when the city issues this decision. (2) Tier 1 processing time. For Tier 1 WCF Permit applications, the city will act on the WCF application, together with any other city permits required for a proposed WCF modification, within 60 days, adjusted for any tolling due to requests for additional information or mutually agreed upon extensions of time. (i) If the city determines that the application does not qualify as a Tier 1 eligible facilities request, the city will notify the applicant of that determination in writing and will process the application as a Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF Permit application, as applicable. (ii) To the extent federal law provides a "deemed granted" remedy for Tier 1 WCF Permit applications not timely acted upon by the city, no such application shall be deemed granted until the applicant provides notice to the city, in writing, that the application has been deemed granted after the 6.d Packet Pg. 234 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 5 of 7 time period provided in Section (e)(2) above has expired. (iii) Any Tier 1 WCF Permit application that the city grants or that is deemed granted by operation of federal law shall be subject to all requirements of Section 18.42.110(i)(3), (5), (6) and (7) and 18.42.110(j)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6). (3) Tier 2 processing time. For Tier 2 WCF Permit applications, the city will act on the application within 90 days, adjusted for any tolling due to requests for additional information or mutually agreed upon extensions of time. (4) Tier 3 processing time. For Tier 3 WCF Permit applications, the city will act on the application within 150 days, adjusted for any tolling due to requests for additional information or mutually agreed upon extensions of time. (5) Denial of application. If the city denies a WCF application, the city will notify the applicant of the denial in writing of the reasons for the denial. (f) Tier 1 WCF Permit Process and Findings (1) A Tier 1 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be final and shall not be appealable pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapters 18.77 or 18.78; (2) The Director shall grant a Tier 1 WCF Permit provided that the Director finds that the applicant proposes an eligible facilities request; (3) The Director shall impose the following conditions on the grant of a Tier 1 WCF Permit: (i) The proposed collocation or modification shall not defeat any existing concealment elements of the support structure; and (ii) The proposed WCF shall comply with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i)(3), (5), (6) and (7), and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j). (g) Tier 2 WCF Permit Process and Findings (1) A Tier 2 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070. (2) The Director, or Council on appeal, shall grant a Tier 2 WCF Permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i) and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) can be made. (3) The Director, or Council on appeal, shall deny a Tier 2 WCF Permit if the above findings cannot be made. (h) Tier 3 WCF Permit Process and Findings (1) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070 and the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060. (2) The Director or Council on appeal shall grant a Tier 3 WCF Permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i) and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) and the conditional use permit findings in Section18.76.010(c) can be made. (3) The Director, or Council on appeal, shall deny a Tier 3 WCF Permit if the above findings cannot be made. 6.d Packet Pg. 235 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 6 of 7 (i) Development Standards Except as otherwise provided in this section, a proposed WCF Project shall comply with the following standards: (1) Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible; (2) Shall be designed to minimize the overall height, mass, and size of the cabinet and enclosure structure; (3) Shall be screened from public view; (4) Shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site; (5) Shall be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the Zoning Code; (6) An antenna, base station, or tower shall be designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area; (7) A building-mounted antenna, base station, or tower shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building on which the antenna, base station, or tower is attached; (8) For any Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF proposed to be attached on an historic structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49, historic review shall also be required; (9) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend fifteen (15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the zone district; (10) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF Project shall not exceed sixty-five (65) feet in height; and (11) A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. (j) Conditions of Approval In addition to any other conditions of approval permitted under federal and state law and this Code that the Director deems appropriate or required under this Code, all WCF Projects approved under this chapter, whether approved by the Director or deemed granted by operation of law, shall be subject to the following conditions of approval: (1) Permit conditions. The grant or approval of a WCF Tier 1 Permit shall be subject to the conditions of approval of the underlying permit, except as may be preempted by the Spectrum Act. (2) As-built plans. The applicant shall submit to the Director an as-built set of plans and photographs depicting the entire WCF as modified, including all transmission equipment and all utilities, within ninety (90) days after the completion of construction. (3) Applicant shall hire a radio engineer licensed by the State of California to measure the actual radio frequency emission of the WCF and determine if it meets FCC's standards. A report, certified by the engineer, of all calculations, required measurements, and the engineer's findings with respect to compliance with the FCC's radio frequency emission standards shall be submitted to the Planning Division within one year of commencement of operation. (4) Indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the city, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties") from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the city for its actual attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The city may, in its sole discretion and at Applicant's expense, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 6.d Packet Pg. 236 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 7 of 7 (5) Compliance with applicable laws. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Code, any permit issued under this Code, and all other applicable federal, state and local laws (including without limitation all building code, electrical code and other public safety requirements). Any failure by the City to enforce compliance with any applicable laws shall not relieve any applicant of its obligations under this code, any permit issued under this code, or all other applicable laws and regulations. (6) Compliance with approved plans. The proposed Project shall be built in compliance with the approved plans on file with the Planning Division. (k) Removal of Abandoned Equipment A WCF (Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3) or a component of that WCF that ceases to be in use for more than ninety (90) days shall be removed by the applicant, wireless communications service provider, or property owner within ninety (90) days of the cessation of use of that WCF. A new conditional use permit shall not be issued to an owner or operator of a WCF or a wireless communications service provider until the abandoned WCF or its component is removed. (l) Revocation The Director may revoke any WCF Permit if the permit holder fails to comply with any condition of the permit. The Director's decision to revoke a Permit shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070 and the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060. (Ord. 5340 § 1 (part), 2015) 6.d Packet Pg. 237 ATTACHMENT E PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 18.76.020(d) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FINDINGS The below approval findings must be made with approval of Architectural Review applications: 1.The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility criteria), and any relevant design guides. 2.The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a.creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b.preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c.is consistent with the context based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d.provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass, and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, and e.enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. 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. 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.). 5.The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes regional indigenous drought-resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat, and that can be appropriately maintained. 6.The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. 6.e Packet Pg. 238 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay [arrived after roll call], Board Members Alexander Lew, Osma Thompson and Robert Gooyer. Absent: None. Chair Furth: Good morning. Welcome to the October 4, 2018, meeting of the Architectural Review Board of the city of Palo Alto. Would the staff please call the roll? [Roll Call] Oral Communications Chair Furth: This is a time for anybody who wishes to speak to a matter not on today's agenda, but within the scope of what the ARB does, speak. I don't have any speaker cards. Is there anybody in the audience who wishes to speak at this point? Seeing none. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Furth: Agenda changes, additions or deletions. Staff? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. We would like to ask that the 429 University project be moved to first on the agenda. It is the third hearing for that project, so we do normally take those first. We have notified the applicants and interested parties as best we know of that time change. I do, however, have a card for 3705 El Camino. A resident would like to speak about that project and I don't know if they can stay if that is the second item. Chair Furth: And what's the name on that? Ms. Gerhardt: Noah? Chair Furth: Noah, are you present? Noah: (inaudible) Chair Furth: Could you wait through the first matter and speak at the second? Noah: I need to go to work by about 9:00 (inaudible). Chair Furth: Well, I would suggest that we open that hearing just for the purposes of receiving your comment. Then we will close it, and then we'll hear the rest of it later. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: October 4, 2018 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3705 El Camino Real [18PLN-00136] Chair Furth: So, with the consent of the Board…This is on 3705 El Camino. Is that right? I'm going to open that hearing for the limited purposes of hearing from Noah Fiedel. If you could pronounce your name properly and spell it for the record before you start, that would be helpful to our transcriber. Noah Fiedel: [Spells name] Thanks very much for letting me speak and get off to work. I appreciate everyone's patience. I'm a local neighbor. I live on Wilton Ave. I'm in favor of this project. I think affordable housing is a great thing. I love having a diverse community. I have two requests for the ARB that I think are kind of mutual in terms of cost to the project. I'm not asking for any major concessions from the developer, but I think will help this project fit in better with the neighborhood, as well as future projects fit in better with the neighborhoods. The first one is regarding parking and parking studies. I've read, I believe it's Fehr & Peers studies in great detail, and I think they are really missing the critical aspect of people who park on the street. The first parking study, I'm not sure if everybody has read this in detail, attempts... Chair Furth: Noah, I should have warned you that you have three minutes. Go ahead. Mr. Fiedel: The first study didn't attempt to count cars on the street. The revised study interviewed seven residents of The Marc in downtown. Only seven residents in terms of attempting to count the cars on the street. If you go over one block from this development on Curtner Ave, the street is 100 percent parked every single evening. And by the methodology of this study, that street is perfectly parked with an abundance of parking. I would simply ask the DMV for the regular records, request (inaudible) for the street, for each of those vehicles parked on the street, where they are registered. It would be very easy for a study to be able to go down the street, collect a bunch of license plates, and see if those cars are registered to residents who live there. I simply ask that we're honest with ourselves about where these cars are registered. Right now, the current parking studies don't make any attempt to actually track parking demand on the street. I don't think that will change the Wilton Court project, but I think it's important for us to have a good energy between residents and developers, that we're honest with those numbers. The second one is regarding the traffic flow specifically at the 3700 Wilton Court project. The traffic study from Fehr & Peers asserted that there was roughly a net eight cars per day increase in traffic. But, what it didn't account for is that currently, 100 percent of the traffic to those two parcels enters and exits on El Camino Real. And this is moving 100 percent of that traffic flow onto Wilton Ave, which is a two-block residential street. If you took 60 residents, that's equivalent to probably 30 or 40 houses. This is going to be a 50-60 percent increase in traffic on Wilton Ave by moving all of that commercial traffic that's currently down on El Camino Real to Wilton. I don't think it would cost anything more to keep the traffic entering/exiting on El Camino Real. There is already a large curb cut there, so I think, especially as we do more and more development along El Camino Real with larger-scale, higher- density development, I think you're going to run into this over and over again. We're not going to be the only ones. I think if you can encourage high-density development to have traffic come in and out of those developments on the high-density street, that will keep the peace, and hopefully keep people in good relations and good neighbors with one another. I think those are main two comments. Please really just go for honest parking studies. I'm a scientist and engineer. If I read a study that did this in an accurate way, I'd be completely happy to take it at face value, and I do take those studies as honest, face value studies. But this study made no attempt until the most recent round to count, again, street parking, and it did that by interviewing seven people at The Marc, one of the most... Chair Furth: Thank you. I think we have your point. I wanted to add -- and thank you very much. We really appreciate you coming. I wanted to add that Board Member Lew is on the committee that's working on the Ventura...What do you call it? Area plan? So, he will be listening to what you say with great interest... Mr. Fiedel: Thank you very much. Chair Furth: ...and thinking about it. Take care. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Mr. Fiedel: Appreciate it. Thank you. Chair Furth: Okay. I'm going to close this hearing on item 3705 and reopen it later in today's meeting. Instead, we will next go to item number...What is it? Four? Right. Which is a public hearing on 429 University Avenue. City Official Reports - NOT ADDRESSED 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items. Action Items 4. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 429 University Avenue [18PLN-00240]: Recommendation on the Applicant's Request for Approval of a Minor Architectural Review Consistent With Condition of Approval #3, for a Previously Approved MixedUse Building (14PLN-00222), Requiring Architectural Review Board Approval for the Proposed West Elevation Wall Design, Landscape Details, and Exterior Building Materials, Colors, and Craftsmanship. Environmental Assessment: Use of Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for 14PLN-00222. Zoning District: CD- C(G)(P) (Downtown Commercial with Ground Floor and Pedestrian Shopping Overlay). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Adam Petersen at apetersen@mgroup.us Chair Furth: I will not participate in this at the request of the applicant, who alleged through her attorney that I was biased with respect to this project. Board Member Baltay has also stepped down on this matter, so we will proceed with the remaining members, who fortunately provide a quorum. [Chair Furth left the meeting.] Board Member Lew: Okay, so, item number 4, which we will hear first, is 429 University Avenue. It's a public hearing for a quasi-judicial item. Recommendation on applicant's request for approval of a minor architectural review consistent with condition of approval #3, for a previously-approved mixed-use building, requiring Architectural Review Board approval for the proposed west elevation wall design, landscape details, and exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship. Environmental assessment is the use of mitigated negative declaration prepared for the parcel. Zoning district is CD-C(G)(P), which is our Downtown Commercial District with Ground Floor and Pedestrian Shopping Overlay. Our project planner is Adam Petersen. Welcome, Adam. Adam Petersen, Project Planner: Good morning, Chair Lew, members of the Architectural Review Board. I'm here today to present the condition compliance for 429 University Avenue. As Chair Lew noted, this project was approved by City Council on February 6, 2017. There is a condition that it come back to the ARB for evaluation of three items. The ARB heard this in August and September and continued it to this hearing, and specifically requested evaluation of four things. The first thing was the building color; the second thing was the landscaping. The Board wanted additional landscaping on the fourth floor. The third item was in regards to the west wall design, to integrate that better with the building. The last item was to provide accurate, higher-quality visual renderings. The applicant has come back in regard to the building color and they have lightened the gray, as well as the beige color. Those colors are on the materials board that has been submitted to the ARB. The top pull-out, if you notice on that materials board, is actually lighter than what's underneath. The colors that are underneath have been previously evaluated by the ARB and the top ones are, in fact, lighter. The other change that the applicant did make is that they made the colors consistent between the floors. The first two floors have the beige color, and then, the upper two floors, the third and the fourth floor, are gray in color. Previously, there were some alternating colors in between the floors, but all the floors are consistent now between the elevations. In regards to the landscaping that came back to the Board, the applicant has proposed 16 new planters on City of Palo Alto Page 4 the fourth story. These planters are located outside of a glass railing that is set back five feet from the edge of the building. The planters are anchored to the building. Those planters, the applicant gave us information on those planters this morning. There are photos that the Board has that shows those planters. The applicant has also included a new trellis at the rear of the building to better support the growing vine that faces the Lane 30 alley. And, they've also increased the size of the planters on the first floor, as well as the diameter of the planters on the third floor, just to enlarge them and make them bigger. Regarding the west wall design, the applicant has come back with an alternative proposal that includes some beige and gray banding on the stucco on the fourth floor. This mimics the color scheme that is found in the rest of the building. You can see here in the elevation. The applicant also included a note that they are retaining their original proposal of having the uplifting tree motif as well, as an option for the ARB to consider. But, again, they've come back with this proposal with gray and beige banding. Regarding the visual renderings, the applicant has come back with visual renderings. This is the rendering from University Avenue. You can see the west wall design that they have included with the beige and gray banding, which reflects the color scheme that's found in the building. Again, this is another rendering with trees and what it looks like with the trees along University Avenue. They've also included a rendering from the alley, from a birds-eye view from the Lane 30 alley, just to give a perspective of what the building would look like from that elevation. With that information, staff's recommendation is that the Board recommend approval with the conditions to the Director of Planning, Community and Environment. Thank you. Board Member Lew: Great, thank you. Now it's time for the applicant's presentation, and you'll have 10 minutes. Laura Roberts, Coe Architects: Good morning, Board members. My name is Laura Roberts. I'm with Coe Architects. I'm here to present the 429 University Avenue project. Thank you for taking the time to review this project one more time. We really appreciate your work to provide recommendations to improve the design of the building. This is how we understand your recommendations. The first item that we have addressed is color. As Adam was expressing earlier, we have differentiated the first two floors that are the commercial and retail portion of this building with a beige color. And then, the third and fourth floor, which are recessed in the façade, with a gray color. In the materials board that we are presenting today, the colors are a little bit lighter. However, it is our preference to keep the original colors that we presented to you last time, as we understand that in an integrated concrete color - which is what we are specifying for this building - there is slag added in replacement of the cement. That would make the concrete pale with time and the tones will lighten with time. If we start with a very light color, we feel like it will lose its continuity with the other columns that are around University Avenue. The other item that we addressed was to increase the area devoted to landscape by increasing the amount of planters on the fourth floor. We have added 16 planters to the terrace, around the perimeter guard rail. We have also increased the size of the planters proposed on the first floor, third floor, and fourth floor, as well. We think these modifications, in terms of the landscape, will help to soften the edges of the building. As Adam showed earlier, we are also proposing a second option for the west wall. In this option, we are bringing the lines that are currently in the other three facades along this fourth façade, and we are using the same colors that we are using in the rest of the building. We're trying to create some depth (inaudible) instead of just being a blank wall. That's an alternative, as we'd still like to present as an option the tree motif. Finally, we have these two renders that are in front of you, showing a view from University Avenue, and another one from Lane 30. We are here with a team. Bill Brown, which is our contractor, is here to answer any questions regarding color or the mix of how that's created. We have Peter Coe and Elizabeth Wong to answer any other questions the Board might have. Please let us know. Thank you. Board Member Lew: Great, thank you. I do have one speaker card for the project, which is Michael Harbour. You will have three minutes, and then we will go back to the applicant. You will have a rebuttal period. Michael Harbour: Please don't start the timer until I can get out of here. [Setting up presentation.] Thank you. As you know, the buildings that are... City of Palo Alto Page 5 Board Member Lew: Please lower the mic. Mr. Harbour: Yeah. I'm Michael Harbour, and I'm one of the appellants for this project. As you know, five buildings are slated for destruction, and they are at the intersection of Kipling Street and University Avenue. Kipling Street is the most narrow street in downtown Palo Alto, and almost half that of Waverly and Bryant. This proposed mammoth four-story building really overshadows that. Of those buildings that are there, despite the applicant telling you falsely that they are not Birge Clark buildings, they are. These are listed in the PaloAltoHeritage.org website. You can go to that site. You should recall that the HRB unanimously - 5-0 - rejected this proposed project. Here are all the addresses that are Birge Clark buildings - 423, 425, 429, 433 and 437. The City Council motion requirements were a little bit gleaned over here by Adam. In addition to what they say is the western wall and design landscaping, which you need to review, they also said that you should review the building materials, colors, craftsmanship-related detailing associated with the project, and then, the motion from the City Council - and I have it in red - the purpose is to ensure - this is what the purpose of the motion was - to ensure the ARB reviews the exterior materials and colors and architectural details to improve design linkages. Please don't forget that when you are evaluating this building. That's the purpose of this. And there was also the strong recommendation that the ARB consider recessed pedestrian entries to improve the pedestrian experience of the building. That's in the motion. It has not continued to be told to you, but you can go to the motion and look at that. This project is subject to actual project matching Option 1, which is the schematic that you are looking at. I took some photos of 102 University Avenue, which shows the planters there. I want you to know that it's just impractical to think that a vine is going to go up multi stories. They've been having trouble with that vine at that site for years. Here's what's there right now, and that building has been there for years. You can see the bottom of the planter right there. It's ugly, it's corroded, it's always wet and moldy. Here's design construction materials for you. The existing building is poor. Look at all the cracking, the cement that's falling apart. It's not aging well. The design construction is poor. Those brackets that are there against the windows are inefficient, I think, and don't look well, and this is what they are proposing there. The submitted plan, which you are looking at, is not Option #1, and that is a requirement here. The applicant fired her original architect, Joe Bellomo, who has disavowed this plan publicly. And the design and landscaping is different than the original submission. Here, you see landscaping on her rendering, on the right-hand side on the fourth floor, and this is what was proposed to the ARB as Option 1 to be approved by the City. This is a mammoth four-story building. It's going from basically a 1.0 FAR to 3.0. It disregards the mandated design linkages that you are obligated to look at. The mass and size is incompatible with neighboring buildings, and it’s not pedestrian friendly. The back side of that building is going to be a solid cement wall, which obscures the alleyway. There is a business there that uses that as its entry, so they have to look at this garage opening and solid wall, and the pedestrian unfriendliness is maintained. Our request is to reject this current design proposal. There has been no significant improvements since the City Council motion was passed over 20 months ago. We ask you to return to the City Council with your comments. The City Council will have the final approval on this. This is going back to the City Council. The director does not approve this project, so it's your specific recommendations which are necessary to go to the City Council. And please don't put your stamp of approval on this design. You guys are much better than this. Thank you. Board Member Lew: Thank you, Mr. Harbour. Applicant, you do have a rebuttal period. Ten minutes. Elizabeth Wong, Applicant: Good morning, members of the ARB. My name is Elizabeth Wong. I am the applicant. I have to say that this project has gone through many people and stages of the City. It started with Curtis Williams, when he was the director of planning. It went through Hilary ___, Amy French, Jonathan Lait, and an enormous amount of work by this staff of planning, as well as external consultants. Due Deck [phonetic], in particular, spent an enormous amount of time making sure that this building conformed with the guidelines of the codes of the City. I have with me Bill Brown. He is the founder of Bill Brown Construction, who does the very exquisite, personalized concrete that you see at 102 University. One-oh-two University has been published in this book, it's called City by Design, and it praises the design, the materials of the building, and I think Joseph Bellomo would have been terribly hurt, appalled, and would refute the comments that Michael Harbour made. I did not fire Joseph Bellomo. We are on very good terms. In fact, we are partners in this 102 University building. The appellant are City of Palo Alto Page 6 bringing up things that are totally irrelevant to this hearing. Bill Brown is here because I would like him to explain to you a little bit about the concrete, which is a feature of this 429 University project. Bill Brown, Bill Brown Construction: Good morning. My name is Bill Brown and I am the owner of Bill Brown Construction Company. Our specialty is concrete work, particularly architectural work. I worked with Joe Bellomo on 102 University. My only rebuttal would be that any concrete building you look at, you can pick apart, you can find flaws, you can find things that are failing. My overall opinion of that, being in concrete for over 40 years, is that it's holding up pretty well. It's a simple design, and simplicity is basically what we are, you know, the building that we're doing at 429 incorporates a lot of the simplicity. Very clean lines. And we are expressing the concrete, which, to me, I'm someone who loves the look of freeway overpasses. But, it has a beauty to it. Just simple, pure concrete has a beauty to it. This is refined. We're using very refined form work and very clean joinery with our form work. We basically build cabinets and pour concrete into it. Regarding the window brackets. The windows on 429 University will not have those brackets. We have a completely different window system. If you want to take building to building, I think we should take relevant issues on the building. We are using two different colors of concrete, which breaks up some of the mass on the building as far as a visual mass. Also, to the point of the fading of the concrete, the sun will tend to burn out the colors over time. And you might get more burn-out on a southwest side in this area than you would on the northeast side. You're going to have a variability in the color, which I think is very attractive. Because concrete is a natural material, all the pigments are natural materials, it will be very attractive. Board Member Lew: Thank you. Any other comments from the applicant side? Okay, we will bring it back to the Board. Let's start. Yes, Osma. Board Member Thompson: Hi, there. Thank you for your updated package. I appreciate the renders that you provided. They were a lot more helpful for me just to understand how this project actually is in the setting. Because before, it was a little unclear how it was acting. I will say, I actually like the massing as it is right now, of the building. I think it's stepped back enough that I think, in that sense, the massing works. But, I think what's interesting that comes out in the render is that there is a disconnect in...I feel like the massing is good on its own. There's a disconnect when you see it in the context. The adjacent building's upper line is lower than the upper line of the second story of the building, so there is a clash of relationships when it comes to the adjacent structure. In terms of considering the context and the lines that are coming out of the context, I don’t think that this massing actually works, even if, on its own, when you're not looking at the context, it looks fine. That's one issue I have with it. Now that I see the renders, I see that. Another thing is that there is so much detail in the adjacent structures. A simple, clean-line building maybe looks great in a highway, but in a neighborhood, that is extremely detailed. I'm just looking at this render here in Option A, and the lower one from University, that you have all this level of detail, and to just break it and have something that is reliant entirely on a single material without undulation, it's really just kind of a flat wall. It's a little bit of a stark contrast, and I think it does a bit of a disservice to the neighborhood character on its own. Neighborhood character is best improved when there is extra detail. There is a lot of pedestrian activity. You want human scale, hand scale levels of detail and this design does not have that. That's another issue I have with it, now that I can see it in context. And it's a little dangerous because I'm worried it would...If more structures take away things that have great amount of detail, replace it with stuff that has less detail, then I think that street suffers because of that. I do appreciate that the planters have been added. I did see in the plan view with the red mark-up. For some reason, the plan, you made it look like it was very lush, but then, when I see the render, it still seems a little lacking in terms of the color. But I still appreciate that more planting was added. I'll say that. Percentage is also a little hard to read in terms of...It's hard to see if the corner detail is actually clean, or no. It looks like, in terms of craftsmanship, there is...I don't know. There's a bit of, it looks like an error on the corner there. Let me see if I have any other comments. Board Member Lew: Also, please comment on the west wall. Board Member Thompson: Yes. For the west wall design, I still like Option A a little bit more because it has more detail than Option B. At the same time, Option A still does not integrate with the rest of the City of Palo Alto Page 7 building, so a bit of a stalemate here. Option B better integrates with the building because it is simpler, but I think that's not the point. I think the point is to have more detail. So, I would still say Option A is my preferred option. At the same time, I still do not see that the applicant has actually integrated it with the rest of the building. In terms of the color, I do see that you chose lighter colors. I noted here that you still prefer the dark colors. I think I could be swayed either way for that. There is a very subtle difference in these colors anyway, so, even though it's minimally lighter, it doesn't feel like they are actually lighter at all. Okay. I think that's all I'll say for now. Board Member Lew: Okay. Robert. Board Member Gooyer: Okay. I've been with this project since it first came to us, so I've seen all kinds of iterations of it. I guess we're down to a point now where I'm supposed to make a decision, whether it's Option A or Option B, right? That's pretty much my limit at...? I can't discuss what I think of the entire project itself. I mean, the problem I have is, for quite a few iterations, I think because the building is so massive, that if you're going to try and make it, to creatively bring the perceived mass down, I think there needs to be a total disconnect between the third and fourth floor and the first and second floor, so it becomes two different entities. Of that, I guess Option A is...Not that I’m a fan of either option because I just don't, I don't think we're helping the community with this design. But, be it as it may, if I have to select one or the other, I would select Option A because it does create that separation, where bringing the beige color up to the third and fourth floor I don't think helps it. It just creates additional massing. Board Member Lew: Thank you, Robert. Okay. Board Member Thompson, I think you mentioned massing, and I think massing is not on the table today. The previous ARB recommendation was a no, and it was appealed, and the Council heard it. They are limiting us to just the materials and colors and landscape. They actually made some changes to the massing directly. Like, they required the railings to be pushed back on the fourth floor. They required one room on the corner to be moved to reduce the perceived mass of the corner. So, they made some adjustments to that, but basically, I think that the massing in general is off the table. They considered it approvable at their level. I want to say thank you for the revised packet. I think it was very useful to do, a very useful exercise to do. I think I do still prefer Option A with the trees motif on the west wall. Even though it's a little bit different than the rest of the building, I think it's sort of an inspired idea there, and I think that can work. On landscape, I do like the larger planters, and the green screen on the back wall I think will help the vines to grow taller. I do appreciate the larger planters. On the colors, I think, Board Member Thompson, you mentioned they were slightly different. I actually think they are pretty different. I think it will be more noticeable out in the field. I think the stucco colors are more different than the concrete colors. And I've done integral color, and I do understand, it's a pretty dramatic fade in the sun in the first year, oftentimes. The painted stucco, I think won't fade quite so much. My main concern, though, was with a dark gray, like a dark gray can help reduce the perceived bulk of the building, and I've seen new buildings out there that have, like, dark charcoal up on the top floor to make them recess. My main fear was that it was going to be so different than the neighboring buildings that it was really going to stand out. That's where I am on this one. I think I could go either way with the concrete color. And then, my hunch is to split the difference on the stucco. It depends on the stucco texture because you get shadow from the stucco and it darkens the perceived color, so, I could go either way on that one. I can recommend approval of this project today. I think the Board's previous decision - which is a no - still stands, and then, we're only looking at these particular items. I will leave it to my fellow Board members to try to come up with a motion. Board Member Thompson: When you said the earlier no stands, what does that mean, exactly? You said the previous no from the ARB. Board Member Lew: Yeah, so, I mean, the Board made a recommendation of no and the Council decided to approve the project. Board Member Thompson: Was it on this design? City of Palo Alto Page 8 Board Member Lew: It was a previous design by Joe Bellomo. Actually, if we go back even farther, the Board approved a Ken Hayes design. That was appealed, right? I mean, this has been going on for so long, I can't remember. The Board has approved one project. It was revised by a different architect, two or three architects. This is where we are today. And the Council was -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- I think the Council was divided, it was like a 5-4 decision, with Councilmember Filseth as the deciding vote, thinking that the project was, if under threat of a lawsuit, it would barely pass. Like, it could pass going through item by item in our context-based criteria. Board Member Thompson: What do you think, Board Member Gooyer? Board Member Gooyer: I mean, if I have to make a decision between Option A and Option B, I can do that. I voted against this project go-around. I have a hard time now saying, yes, you know, some very minor changes were made, but not enough for me to go from a negative vote to a positive vote. It's tough for me to now approve this project because of this. So, if I'm asked to make a selection between Option A and Option B, I can do that. Asking me to approve the project, I can't do that. Board Member Lew: I would put it that the Council has already approved the project. Board Member Gooyer: Pardon me? Board Member Lew: I would say that the Council has approved the project, the overall mass of the project. Board Member Gooyer: Okay. Board Member Lew: And they went through the criteria... Board Member Gooyer: So, if the project...Or, I should say, if the proposal -- whatever you want to call it -- is worded so that we're not discussing anything other than Option A or Option B, I can make a vote. Other than that, I would just vote no. Ms. Gerhardt: Board members, just to confirm what Chair Lew is saying. The City Council has approved the massing of the building, the main parts of the building. We are literally just talking about three items, being the west wall, being landscaping, and being color and materials. Those are the only things that are part of this application and part of this recommendation. Board Member Thompson: Is there detailing as part of that? Ms. Gerhardt: It's exterior building materials, colors and craftsmanship. Board Member Gooyer: Then you get into a situation, craftsmanship or anything like that, it's an overall inclusive...That's not just an item that you can go A or B, as far as I'm concerned. Color, you can go A or B; craftsmanship, you can't go A or B. And that makes it tougher. Board Member Thompson: Because, I mean, one of my main issues as it relates to that is this level of scale and level of detail that, if you're looking at the image that we look at right now, there is a whole lot of detail in the context. And then, that goes away with this building. Is that our jurisdiction to comment on? Because I take a big issue with that in terms of the design. Ms. Gerhardt: If I can have you take a look at packet page 146, the bottom of that, Condition No. 3. Those are the three items that we're discussing today. Board Member Lew: Board Member Thompson, I would say that in previous iterations of this project, we went through items such as the recessed entries, planters, the corner, if there's a cut-out in the corner; we talked about the filigree, we talked about the Birge Clark buildings; we've talked about, there's, like, a City of Palo Alto Page 9 15-foot spacing of the Birge Clark storefronts, and this is completely different; more like 20 feet. And we talked about all of these items. We've talked about awnings, and details, and places for signs. We hashed it all out and voted, the previous Board voted against the project. But, I think that that's all...My understanding is that's all off the table today. I could say that you could still, the Board could still make a...We should vote on this. The Board can still make a recommendation for something else. It may not happen. Right? Typically, in the zoning ordinance, we're allowed to make some sort of comment, so I think if you want to suggest something, I think that's fine. Sometimes it happens after the fact, and sometimes it doesn't. I would say just make your best recommendation, but we should maybe separate that out from the three items that are in the staff report. Board Member Gooyer: The other way to look at it is, is that we voted no as a recommendation. It went to the Council. The Council overruled us, and voted that way. I mean, we could vote no now, and it's going to go to the Council again, and they could overrule us. Right? Board Member Lew: Staff has said that this is actually... Board Member Gooyer: I mean, that's their prerogative. Board Member Lew: Staff has said that this is a minor project, the planning director decision. Anybody could appeal it, and then it would go to the Council. No? Jodie, could you just clarify, too, again -- I think we did this last time -- this is a staff director-level decision. And it's appealable, of course, to the Council. Ms. Gerhardt: Exactly. Board Member Gooyer: So, again, basically, just to beat a dead horse, the project has been approved, basically. This is just a minor detail. It's going to be built. It's just a matter of whether it gets built sort of as per scheme A or scheme B. There's really no decision today about whether it gets built or not. Board Member Lew: Yes, that's my understanding. Ms. Gerhardt: That is correct. Board Member Gooyer: Okay. Ms. Gerhardt: We do have the concrete contractor here, though, if you have questions about craftsmanship and things like that. Give me one second. Ms. Wong: Mr. Brown has another commitment, so if you have any questions for him, could you ask them soon? Thank you. Board Member Lew: I don't have any questions. Board Member Thompson: I don't have any questions. Board Member Lew: But thank you. Board Member Thompson: Thank you. Board Member Thompson: Board Member Lew, we have a list of findings that we have to make, right? We have to believe that the project has a unified and coherent design that creates an internal sense of order, preserves, respects, integrates existing natural features to the site; historic character, including historic resources. So, we are evaluating these things that relate to that finding, correct? Board Member Lew: Yeah, just those...Right. The three items. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Board Member Thompson: The three items. Board Member Lew: Yes. And then, everything else you can disregard. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Board Member Lew: With regard to the detail, if you don't think the detail is integrated with the rest of the building, then that's a legitimate criticism. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Okay, yeah. I mean, so, I would say, in terms of the detail, I do not think it meets Finding #2. In terms of the landscaping, I do think that more could be done, but I’m satisfied with what's there. Maybe we could just go item by item, and then, decide if we believe it meets the findings, or not. Is that the best way to do it? Board Member Lew: Okay, so, would you clarify? When you say the details, are you talking about the west wall? Or are you just saying all of the concrete? Board Member Thompson: I think... Board Member Lew: The [crosstalk] details. Board Member Thompson: I think it's the concrete façade, which I think we are allowed to comment on because I think that is part of the... Board Member Lew: It's material. Board Member Thompson: Where is that number? Exterior building materials, color, craftsmanship- related detailing. I don't see very much craftsmanship-related detailing. I mean, I do see construction details, which are helpful, but as it relates to the context, I don't see that it meets Finding #2. In that sense, I cannot approve that part of it. Board Member Lew: Okay. And you're okay on the planters. And then, on the west wall, you were saying you would prefer Option A, but didn't think it was integrated? Board Member Thompson: Yes. I did prefer Option A. I did not think it was well integrated into the rest of the building. Board Member Lew: I don't have my zoning ordinance with me. We do try to discourage blank walls. I think in our guidelines, we do try to have all the walls designed with the same level of design, with the same level of design. I think that lacks... Board Member Thompson: Same level of detail... Board Member Lew: I don't have the exact wording in front of me... Board Member Thompson: ...and scale. Board Member Lew: ...but I've seen enough times where I think, I think you could...If we're at this level and there's a threat of a lawsuit, I think we should be very specific and have the staff read the actual language of it. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Ms. Gerhardt: And we do have the findings on page 63. And Finding #3 talks about the high quality design and things of that nature. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Board Member Lew: But it does mention in that, on page 63, it's talking about the street building façade, which is a little different than a side property line. Okay, so, I'm hearing that you are a no on two of the three, right? Items? And Robert, you're generally in agreement? Board Member Gooyer: Sure. I mean, at this point, like I said, it's going to get built, from what I understand, so now, it's a matter of, does it get built per Option A or Option B. And at this point, you know... Board Member Lew: Right, but we have to...I'm trying to get you to a motion here. So, it's a no? Board Member Thompson: Yeah. Board Member Lew: Okay. And I think... Ms. Wong: May I make a comment? Board Member Lew: Can you hold a little bit? We're trying to hash this out here. Board Member Gooyer: (inaudible) Board Member Lew: I want you to be specific. Let's assume this is going to the Council, and maybe a lawsuit. I want you to be very specific and pick out exact findings where it's not, where it's not meeting findings. I think Board Member Thompson, you mentioned #2, right? Board Member Thompson: Yeah. Board Member Lew: Finding #2 with regard to details. Board Member Gooyer: (inaudible) Board Member Thompson: One-forty-two. Board Member Gooyer: One-forty-six? Board Member Thompson: One-forty-two. Board Member Gooyer: One-forty-two. Mr. Petersen: Members of the Board, the findings that begin on page 140, 141, 142, those are the old findings for the project that were done as part of the City Council's approval. The findings that are being used to consider this project begin on page 60. Those are the findings that are applicable to the project before you today. Board Member Thompson: Finding #2 is still, it's on page 61. Board Member Lew: Yes. Board Member Thompson: I think even Finding #3 talks about construction techniques, incorporating textures, colors and other details that are compatible with the surrounding area. I think that's another one, too. Board Member Lew: Okay. You're saying that they are not compatible. Board Member Thompson: Yes. City of Palo Alto Page 12 Board Member Lew: Okay. Would you try to put that in a motion? Ms. Wong: May I make a comment? These are the findings that the City officially recorded, and these are the reasons why the project is consistent with Finding #2, and why it is consistent with Finding #3. I don't think that the subject today is to go back and dispute what the project's finding is at this moment. I think the items that are in front of you is for a minor level ARB review of colors, west wall, and materials. The materials were presented to Council, so these materials were approved with the project. It is a concrete building, and it was approved, so, it is not...You know, what we're bringing in today, we didn't have the design of the western wall, we didn't have all the landscaping, but the concrete was an integral part of the approval of the project. Board Member Lew: Yes, thank you, Elizabeth. And I think from my point of view, the concrete is, you know, it's a very (inaudible) material. It can be really anything. If you look at the Leland Stanford Junior University art museum, that's one of the first concrete buildings in California, and it's a classical one. I don't think anybody would think of it as a concrete building. They just think of it as a beautiful little building. It really could be, in my mind, the concrete could be anything. I think that the Council...With regard to style, though, I think the Council has weighed in on the overall aesthetic of the building, so I think we've crossed that bridge already. Ms. Gerhardt: Board members, if I may, the findings starting on page 140, those are the findings for the main building. Those have been approved. The findings that are starting on page 60, those findings are in draft form. Those are the findings that we would appreciate your comments on. Board Member Lew: Board members, if there's something that you disagree with, then I would actually say, like, let's just go line by line and say what you disagree with on them. And I would suggest putting in alternate language. I would say go through Finding #2. All the staff's language is all, is all there. Ms. Gerhardt: Do we maybe need a five-minute break to read through more of this in detail? Board Member Lew: Okay. Why don't we take a five-minute time out? It is...Do we have the time now? It's 9:25. Okay. We will reconvene at 9:30. [The Board took a short break.] Board Member Lew: Okay, I think we are ready to reconvene. Okay, I would like the board members to focus directly on findings, which start on page 61, and try to be very specific about where you think the project does not meet the findings. Board Member Thompson: Okay. In Finding #2, there is a sentence in the second paragraph that says, "This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides a variety of architecture with differing visual elements." I think I take issue with that line because I would say there is not very much of a variety of architecture or visual elements. I would say it's a singular style, and it has...It doesn't have the detail and complexity that I think this is asking for in terms of, as it relates to the neighborhood. And then, there's also a note on page 62, at the top. The first sentence says: "Compatible with adjacent development when apparent scale and mass is consistent..." And I think we're not allowed to talk about mass, but we can talk about scale, because I think that is related to the details. So, I would say that would be incorrect. It is not compatible when it comes to scale. And I'll disagree with mass, as well, but I guess we're not allowed to say that. And then, in Finding #3, the first sentence...Or actually, sorry, the second sentence, add stone and brick, which I don't think exist in the project. It's just concrete, glass. Board Member Lew: I think it's mentioning neighboring buildings. Board Member Thompson: Ah, okay. Board Member Lew: Buildings surrounding the site. City of Palo Alto Page 13 Board Member Thompson: That's right. They have all these things. Board Member Lew: Right. They are the...There's terra cotta, as well. Board Member Thompson: Yes. Okay. Sorry, I misread that. But, the details, it says in the first sentence that the details are compatible with, and I would disagree on that. Anything that you guys discovered when you were reading the finding? Board Member Lew: Yes, Robert? Board Member Gooyer: (inaudible) Board Member Lew: Yes, please. Board Member Gooyer: Okay. Board Member Lew: Let's assume this is going to court. Please be very, very specific. Board Member Gooyer: Okay, all right, no, fine. I think it meets Finding #1, does not meet Finding #2, does not meet Finding #3, meets Finding #4, 5 and 6. Board Member Lew: Thank you. I think that it meets, I think it meets the findings. I would say that the one that is the weakest is #3, where it says: "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." And I think that's the weakest. Of all the elements on the project, that's the weakest. And I think that's one that the Board has been talking about for a long time, that it just doesn't fit in with the neighborhood. Ms. Wong: May I make a comment, Chairman Lew? Board Member Lew: I am thinking...Can you wait until we finish...? We're in the middle of deliberating, and it's... Ms. Wong: Yes, [crosstalk] Board Member Lew: ...and you have... Ms. Wong: ...but I think you are deliberating the wrong item. Detail, scale, compatibility, you know, as it relates to the neighborhood. Those are not items for this hearing, at all. Ms. Gerhardt: Chair... Board Member Lew: With respect to... Ms. Gerhardt: ...we need to close the hearing. Board Member Lew: Yes, I’m going to close the public hearing. The Board is very clear. We're only deliberating the three items, but we have to address those with regard to the findings. And the findings are broad for the whole project, but we're only looking at it in a narrow scope, just for the three items. Okay, so, I think yours are clear on that, on the Board. I think if we put that into a motion, I think I would vote against the motion. MOTION City of Palo Alto Page 14 Board Member Thompson: Okay. I would say that the project...I would agree with Board Member Gooyer, that the project does not meet Finding #2 and #3. Therefore, I move that we do not approve the project...? Board Member Lew: We're making a recommendation to the planning director. Board Member Gooyer: So, what is it exactly that you're moving not to approve? Board Member Thompson: Because it does not meet Finding #2 and #3. Board Member Lew: Which is what you had said, as well. Board Member Gooyer: Right. Okay, I'll second that. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay, can we speak to the three items, how the three items do not meet the findings? Board Member Thompson: Yeah. I think we said it before, so, the west wall, while it is an improvement in the design, it does not integrate well into the building, so, as it relates to Finding #3, which asks for integrated materials, construction techniques, and textures, it does not meet that finding because it does not integrate with the rest of the building. The landscaping...yeah, okay. Sorry, was there...? Board Member Lew: Well, and then, I think it's just...and the materials. Board Member Thompson: Yeah. Board Member Lew: Just in general, the materials. Board Member Thompson: That's right. The detailing and scale of the details, there is not that level of texture that I think is necessary for University Avenue as it relates to the surrounding context. I don't know if there's anything else to add. Board Member Gooyer: You need a second for that? Board Member Lew: I think you've seconded. Board Member Gooyer: Okay. Board Member Lew: Is that clear enough to... Board Member Thompson: Would you like more...? Ms. Gerhardt: Landscaping. Board Member Lew: I think we're saying the landscaping is okay. Board Member Thompson: I think we believe the...Finding #5 is about landscaping, and I think the landscaping as it is meets the criteria. Board Member Lew: Okay. All in favor? Opposed? I'm a nay. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 2-1. Board Member Lew: The Board is recommending not to approve the three items for the project, and we'll see what the Planning Director has to say about that. As the dissenting vote, I would say that, my take on it is that it is passable, and as I mentioned before, I think that the weakness in the project is that the City of Palo Alto Page 15 details, to me, in my mind, aren't really enhancing the neighborhood. If you look at the block, although the balconies, the tile roofs, the generally, the warm colors, are really character-defining of the block, and it's really very distinctive and very unique. And I think that the project is not up to that level. But, I do think that you have come a long way in the project, and I do think it meets, like, a minimum level of standards, so I think it is approvable today. That's where we are on this one. Are we ready to move on to the next item? Board Member Thompson: Yeah. Board Member Lew: Thank you to everybody. We will take a five-minute break to get the other Board members back in the room. We will reconvene at 9:45. [The Board took a short break. Chair Furth and Vice Chair Baltay joined the meeting following the break.] Chair Furth: Good morning. We're back in session. Thanks to our colleagues for dealing with former item #4. 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3705 El Camino Real [18PLN-00136]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow for the Demolition of two Existing Retail Buildings and the Construction of a 100% Affordable Housing Project on the Site Located at 3703-3709 El Camino Real. The Project Consists of a Four Story Building Containing Sixty-Five Residential Units, Two Levels of Garage Parking, and Associated Site Improvements. The Applicant Also Requests a Zone Change to Apply the Affordable Housing Combining District Regulations to the Site. Zoning District: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15194 (Affordable Housing). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at Graham.Owen@CityofPaloAlto.org. Chair Furth: Our next item is a public hearing. It's quasi-judicial, 3705 El Camino Real, consideration of a major architectural review to allow for the demolition of two existing retail buildings and the construction of a 100% Affordable Housing Project on the site located at 3703-3709 El Camino Real, which we will now be referring to as 3705. The project consists of a four-story building containing 65 residential units, two levels of garage parking, and associated site improvements. The applicant also requests a zone change to apply the City's new Affordable Housing Combining District regulations to the site. I'm sure staff will tell us more. The present zoning district is neighborhood commercial. This project is exempt from environmental assessment from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, so what I just said to one of my colleagues about the environmental not being complete is wrong. It is complete because of this exemption. However, we are not being asked to make a recommendation today. Does anybody have any disclosures to make with respect to conversations about this project prior to this meeting? I do. I met with the chairman of the board of the applicant and another board member at the headquarters of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation within the last couple of weeks and saw the same plans that we have before us today. I did talk to them about our process, emphasizing the layer upon layer of guidelines that apply to projects on El Camino Real, and the fact that we apply a set of findings that are unique to the Architectural Review Board, many of which involve the functional operation of the site. And everything else we discussed, I believe, is in the public record, as indeed is that. Staff? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, good morning. Before we get started, my name is Jodie Gerhardt, I'm the manager of current planning. Just for the minutes, I wanted to state that Board Member Baltay has joined us. Thank you very much. Chair Furth: Thank you. Graham Owen, Project Planner: Graham Owen with the Planning staff. I've been working with the applicant on the project that is here before you today. This is... City of Palo Alto Page 16 Chair Furth: I'm sorry, Graham, I can't quite hear you. You might move closer to the mic. Mr. Owen: Oh, excuse me. I'll lean in closer. This is 3703 through 3709 El Camino Real. It is a 100 percent affordable housing project, meaning that all of the units that are going to be contained in this project -- which is a four-story building -- would be deed restricted for households that are under 80 percent of the area median income. Just as a bit of a background on this, the application that is before you today was previously reviewed by the City Council in a pre-screening application. This is a requirement for whenever you're going to be going forward with a major policy implication such as a zone change or a Comprehensive Plan land use designation. They reviewed the pre-screening application last year, and then, as a result of the pre-screening, the Council gave non-binding comments to prepare an Affordable Housing Combining District. Staff worked on that last year and the early part of this year, brought it to the Planning Commission for their consideration, and then, the City Council adopted the Affordable Housing Combining District ordinance this spring. What is it? It's a combining district, or it's an overlay zone -- as it's more commonly referred to -- that incentivizes affordable housing developments by providing more flexible development standards for projects that are proposing 100 percent affordable units that are located also within transit-served area. Also, it has to be applied on commercially-zoned sites, so, we're looking at downtown, the Cal Ave business district, as well as the El Camino Real corridor. This particular site is zoned for neighborhood commercial, currently. It also has a corresponding Comprehensive Plan land use designation of CN Neighborhood Commercial, as well. The site is about a half acre, 20,150 square feet. It is currently used as retail and services. You've got a coin shop, coin and stamps, a bridal shop, and a hair salon, as well as a grocery store. I was going to go through the floor plans, elevations, site planning, but the applicant has updated their plans since yesterday, and they have provided me with additional documentation that they are going to be providing in their own presentation. I'm going to leave this section of my presentation out so that they can pick up on things. With regards to the project, there are a number of key things that staff is looking at currently and will need to be wrapped up before we bring this project back to the Board for a recommendation for a decision. First and foremost is consistency with the various guidelines, as Chair Furth was mentioning, intended to regulate development on the El Camino Real corridor. You have the Comprehensive Plan, of course. You have the context-based design criteria, which are enabled in the zoning code. You also have the El Camino Real design guidelines from 1979, and the South El Camino design guidelines from 2002. These speak to a number of key components for redevelopment of the El Camino Real corridor, with specific guidance for residential-only projects in the South El Camino design guidelines. Generally speaking, they talk about everything from massing, and character, and transitions between, kind of a commercial frontage on El Camino Real corridor, towards the more residential neighborhoods in Ventura, and also on the other side, into Barron Park. Looking at things like street scape, lighting, the width of the sidewalks, but also looking at building articulation, looking at transitions in height, and also looking at things like setbacks. With regard to the setbacks, that's one of the key constraints right now with the project. In the plans, there are some setback issues that need to be addressed before the project can be deemed complete and ready for a decision. The applicant is continuing to work on those and refine the plans accordingly. Of particular interest to the neighborhood and Ventura has been the issues, perceived issues of parking and circulation as they relate to the project. The Affordable Housing Combining District regulations, in addition to allowing for increased heights, floor area ratio, and lot coverage -- these sorts of things that are intended to incentivize affordable housing -- we also reduced the requirement for parking down to .75 per unit. The neighborhood has, in general, expressed some concerns about that. With that, I'll leave it at that, but we are recommending that the application be continued to a date uncertain to allow the applicant to continue to refine the plans, to a point where they can deem the project complete, so that we have a point where we're ready to make a recommendation on this project. Chair Furth: Thank you. Are there any questions of staff before we begin the public hearing process? Board Member Thompson: Yes. Chair Furth: Okay. The first one that I know we have is...Can you put up the site plan and show us what the setbacks are under the existing zoning? I know we have two parcels that they propose to merge. A pretty sketchy one is all I need. City of Palo Alto Page 17 Mr. Owen: Right. It's not a unique situation, but you have a constraint, which is kind of leading to the setback issue that I referred to. Right now, the project site is two parcels, one that's at the corner, and then, one that's kind of an interior lot. The interior lot in particular would have a, kind of a standard front setback on El Camino Real. The corner lot technically has... Chair Furth: Can you take us through the setback on the right hand side, southerly lot first? Under existing zoning. If it were a separate lot. Mr. Owen: Yeah, so... Chair Furth: What I’m getting at is what people could reasonably expect to see develop on these properties absent this proposal. Mr. Owen: Sure. Yeah. I can also refer you to packet page 21, which has the zoning comparison table, kind of shows you. Chair Furth: I think we've all read it, but it's helpful to see it. Mr. Owen: Yeah, sure. Absolutely. In looking at the site now, when you combine the lots, the corner lot in particular, the frontage of the site is technically on Wilton Avenue because it's the narrower street frontage. El Camino Real being the longer block is a street side yard. It's somewhat of a unique situation when you combine the lots. For the interior parcel, if it were to be developed by itself, then that would be reserve. You wouldn't have a... Chair Furth: Let's start there. I really want this on a very basic level. Take that parcel and tell me what the setbacks are on the two interior side lines, and then, the front and back. Mr. Owen: The interior parcel, you'd have a zero-to-ten foot setback for the front. Chair Furth: On El Camino Real. Mr. Owen: El Camino Real. And then you'd have...With the intention of providing an eight-to-12 foot sidewalk. Chair Furth: Okay. Mr. Owen: For the corner lot... Chair Furth: No, I'm still, in the side yard setbacks, on the interior lot? Mr. Owen: Interior side lot lines for that interior lot would be zero lot line. Chair Furth: Right, so, zero setbacks on the two sides. And what about the rear? Mr. Owen: For the residential component. Your question was for the rear? Chair Furth: Mm-hmm. Mr. Owen: The rear would be 10 feet. Chair Furth: Ten feet. Okay. Sidewalk is zero to whatever to get it sufficiently wide. Mr. Owen: Eight to 12 foot sidewalk. Chair Furth: Sidewalk, and zero setbacks on the interior... City of Palo Alto Page 18 Mr. Owen: Interior lot line. Chair Furth: ...lot line, and 10 foot on the back. Okay. Mr. Owen: You got it. Chair Furth: And the other parcel without this one added to it? Mr. Owen: The corner parcel is, fronts on Wilton Avenue because it's got the shorter frontage on Wilton Avenue. That would be zero-to-10, as well, and creating an eight-to-12 foot sidewalk on Wilton Avenue. On El Camino Real, you have a five-foot street side yard. Chair Furth: From the CN District. Mr. Owen: Setback. Yep. Exactly. The alley frontage -- and this is where the code kind of, in a way, is pretty unclear -- the zoning ordinance doesn't define what a street is. It does define what an alley is, but it doesn't define what a street is, so there is some uncertainty about whether we call it a street side yard or an interior side yard. The difference on the alleyway is, if you call it a street side yard, it's a five-foot setback. If you call it an interior lot line, then it's a 10-foot setback. If you combine the lots, the rear lot is technically the lot line that is adjacent to the retail just a little bit further down El Camino Real. If you combine the lots. Yeah. And with the combination of the lots, the frontage is on Wilton Avenue. Chair Furth: At that point, you have the zero-to-10 to get a wider sidewalk requirement on Wilton? Mr. Owen: Correct. Chair Furth: You have a 10-foot setback on the part adjacent to the retail? Mr. Owen: Correct. On the ground floor, the commercial component of a project for mixed use development is zero for the commercial component, and then, 10 for the residential portion of the project. Chair Furth: Okay, and the alley has its complications, and El Camino Real would have...? Mr. Owen: Five. Chair Furth: Five. Mr. Owen: Also with the requirement for an eight to 12-foot setback. Chair Furth: That's an overlaying requirement from the El Camino Real... Mr. Owen: Correct, yeah. Chair Furth: ...guidelines. Mr. Owen: Yep. In addition, you also have build-to requirements, so that's minimum amounts of the building frontage that need to be at each of those corresponding setbacks. In this case, it would be 33 percent on El Camino Real and 50 percent on Wilton Avenue due to the turn, and what's considered the front. Chair Furth: Thank you. Is everybody perfectly clear on this now? Board Member Thompson: I have a question. City of Palo Alto Page 19 Chair Furth: Osma? Board Member Thompson: Yeah. In terms of the bulk plane, in terms of the height, it was a little unclear in the packet. Could you just tell us what the height requirements are, where they are, on an elevation or in plan? Mr. Owen: Sure. With the Affordable Housing Combining District regulations, one of the things that was modified is both height and transitional height. Overall height, when you add the overlay, the total height is 50 feet maximum. One of the things that was modified is also transitional height. Transitional height is a standard that is intended to regulate height when you're adjacent to residential districts. One thing to keep in mind is that components of the site that are within 50 feet of an RM 30 District, which is directly to the north, the limit is 35 feet, so, from the center line of the alleyway, basically. You go in 50 feet from the site and all of that zone, that buffer zone between the center line of the alleyway, and then, 50 feet into the site, the limit is 35 feet. Board Member Thompson: Okay. And that also includes the little flange part of the site, the little L part that goes in? All that has to be 35 until 50 feet...? Mr. Owen: You got it. Board Member Thompson: Got it. Okay. Thank you. Chair Furth: I'm following up on that. This is CN District. How is that different? Or is it the same? Mr. Owen: Yeah, it is different. Under the existing zoning, so, if you don't have the Affordable Housing Combining District regulations, it's a different measurement point, and it's also a different buffer zone. It's measured, instead from the district boundary, it's measured from the property line, and instead of 50 feet, it's 150 feet into the subject property, which, with the application of that CN standard, makes the entire site subject to...virtually the entire site subject to a 35-foot [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: So, it's a 35 foot height limit under the existing... Mr. Owen: For most of the project site. Chair Furth: ...for all the small (inaudible). Mr. Owen: Right. Chair Furth: Okay. Any other questions before we hear from the applicant? Thank you. Is the applicant here? Good morning. If you could introduce yourself and spell your name. Sheryl Klein, Board Chair, Palo Alto Housing: Good morning, board members. Sure. Chair Furth: You have 10 minutes. Ms. Klein: Yeah. I'm Sheryl Klein, I'm the board chair of Palo Alto Housing, and Adrianne from Pyatok Architects is going to be making the presentation. But, I thank you for your consideration this morning. We're excited about this project. In addition to providing affordable housing, 25 percent of the units in this building will be for adults with developmental disabilities. Here is Adrianne. Chair Furth: Thank you. Adrianne, if you could spell your name, as well. Adrianne Steichen, Pyatok Architects: Sure. [spells name] I'm a principal at Pyatok Architects. This is actually the third or fourth project that we have worked with Palo Alto Housing on here in Palo Alto. We completed Oak Court Apartments, and also the Treehouse Apartments with them, and then, have been City of Palo Alto Page 20 studying this project and another project site. You got a nice primer on the varying setbacks for this project. I want to walk you through the steps that we've gone through, briefly, on this project already. Here are the subject parcels and the existing commercial uses. The Euromart, Fashion Family Cuts, and Treasure Island Stamps & Coins, and Nouvelle Bridal. The existing conditions, you can see that the site land use, there is an existing driveway cut separating the two commercial uses, and a pedestrian crossing. As has been discussed, it's a 100 percent affordable project, up to 25 percent for adults with developmental disabilities. Certainly under 80 percent, but probably more likely in the 30 to 60 percent AMI. We've talked about the site area. Current proposal is 59 dwelling units, studios and one-bedrooms, the height varying from 35 feet to 49 feet to the top of the parapets. The structure of the roof more at 42, 43 feet. Forty-one car parking spaces; approximately 70 bike parking. And then, ground floor residential amenities for the residents. Just to locate the site in the context of various parks and transit. Site development, we've actually done a series of round tables with City staff and planning. First did a yield study at 67 units. Through study session, a second round went to 61 units and started shaping the building differently. At that point, the project still had retail in it and the Affordable Housing Combining District did not exist. We did a third round session with the round table, staff, planning staff, and varying departments, including parking, public works, utilities, and the project changed to 65 units. That design was also presented to the neighborhood in a community meeting, in which we got feedback around parking issues and density concerns. At that point, commercial was removed from the project with the anticipation of the Affordable Housing Combining District. Subsequent to that community meeting, we have continued to refine the building, including the application of Wilton as the front yard, and the interior lot line with the commercial property as the rear yard. That has reduced the project from 65 to 59 units. It remains four stories with the 41 parking spaces and meets the conditions of the FAR for both residential and non-residential uses. The ground level, there is basement parking accessed from the alley on the north side of the property. Ramps down to 24 parking stalls, a maintenance space, and then, elevator and stair access, both to street and to the lobby. It is a dead-end garage in the basement. Double-loaded aisles. On the ground floor, we are providing 17 parking stalls, including three accessible, one of them van, parking spaces. Again, with some turnaround space at the end, and also now meeting the parking aisle standards and parking stall standards under the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Lining El Camino Real as the public brought us [phonetic] frontage is management offices, the main entry for the building, a community space with community kitchen, storage and restroom for that facility, as well as a fitness space for the residents. Also here on the ground level is the bike storage access through the garage and additional storage for the project. Working with utilities, those are all coming off of Wilton, so that frontage has all of the utility services. Upstairs is an L-shaped plan with the courtyard on the north side of the project really fronting the mass of the building on the larger street frontage at El Camino Real. You see the 10-foot rear yard setback on the right of the plan. Units are 20 studios and one one- bedroom, and then, a podium courtyard. The podium courtyard would also be accessed from the alley side. There has been some conversations about the little nub at the north being a community garden, and that would then be accessed by the residents through the podium courtyard. Level 4 is where the 35-foot height setback comes into play, so we have stepped down the mass there to the north, and the remaining building is the 16 studios and one one-bedroom. One of the one-bedrooms would be an on- site manager. For the massing here, the front is a corner element that really marks the corner of Wilton Court, and then, a longer mass of the studio units sitting on top of the ground floor spaces. As you may have seen on the ground floor plans, those walls are canted and there will be some shadow play on the storefront at the ground floor. We are also studying varying storefront patterning and glazing options to provide some variety in terms of color of glazing, as well as sort of the patterning of the mullions to add some visual interest. They are set back so that there is also ample opportunity for landscaping. Here is the Wilton Avenue frontage, you can see the setback. We have drawn a line for the 35-foot height. One mistake that we have made is that we measured our 50 feet from the opposite side of the alleyway parcel and not from the centerline of the street. We think that that would push the setback line a couple of feet into the larger mass. If so, we will probably seek a waiver for that, meeting the intent of the setback from the neighboring property. The alley side elevation, ground floor parking with one garage entry, and then, you can see the step down on the mass. Colors, I would like to note, are representative of tones and not necessarily the colors that we've selected. We're still in the process of studying the colors and materials on the project. The orange is intended to be a large format tile or panel system, at least 1x2 in size, that adds some texture to that elevation. And then, the remaining materials would be City of Palo Alto Page 21 stucco. The windows are intended to also be recessed to add shadow interest to the façade. This is the interior property line elevation. With the rear yard setback, we have, probably different from what you have in your pre-packet, have been able to add windows to that façade with the setback, which is an improvement in that exterior façade. Again, the step down on the massing. We've also started to do some schematic perspective renderings to study, again, we haven't decided on colors, so we are missing the color in these renderings, but it is sort of the next step of our study. We also have identified an opportunity for public art on the exterior wall of the stair, and are interested in feedback and sort of ground-floor expression, massing, and the art opportunities on the project site. These are just, what you have in your packet is what I'm calling the previous proposal, in these comparisons. The perspective comparison on El Camino, looking to the southeast, and then, again, on El Camino, looking to the west, another perspective study that we know that the resident community has asked for, Ventura neighborhoods has asked for, is a view from Wilton looking south. That is one of the next studies that we would like to do. This is the elevational comparison between what you have in your packet and where we currently stand. Previous was El Camino. This is Wilton. And the alley, relatively unchanged. One of the major differences is that we don't need the roof deck that is in the proposal document that you have to meet our open space requirements. We have removed that in this next study. I think that's it. Thank you. Chair Furth: You're done? Okay. Thank you. Do we have any speaker cards? Great. I have five of them. I have six. Got it. Ms. Gerhardt: Board members, just as a reminder, we did have one speaker earlier this morning. Okay. Wonderful. That had some concerns about parking and traffic. Chair Furth: Yes, we heard earlier from Noah Fiedel, who was concerned about methodology we use to do parking and transportation studies. The first speaker, Todd Lewis, to be followed by Nicole Ventre. And you will each have three minutes, and when you speak, if you could start by giving us your name and spelling it for our transcriber, we would appreciate it. Todd Lewis: [Introduces self and spells name.] I own the two four-plex's across the street on Wilton, next to the Hong Kong restaurant. I have 17 residents there. Most of the units have two cars. We provide one parking space per unit at our building. We have six additional cars that need to park. They come home from work, they can't find a place to park because of the impact of the residents on Wilton, but more importantly, the Hong Kong restaurant, their employees and their patrons. It's a very successful restaurant. Wilton is a very narrow, narrow street. There's a lot of impact there, and we're going to put a 60 or 59-unit, four-story apartment building on the corner of Wilton and El Camino. Very impactful, very dense for that site. I need to say this for my own sake. I appreciate the effort to increase affordable housing in Palo Alto. I absolutely am for that. I have a disabled brother-in-law who lives in a group home. I'm for the disabled community having some more housing. It's now 15 units, or 14 units, so that's a change that's not in the packet. It says 30 units of developmentally disabled housing; it's now to 14, 25 percent of the total 59. I just want to make that point. Parking is a gigantic issue. Traffic is a gigantic issue. What nobody realizes is the level of emotion in the community at the community meeting, was a, you know, almost a riot. This is the neighbors on Wilton and the Ventura neighborhood, really disturbed and worried about their parking. And it's the opposite of downtown Palo Alto. It's not something where workers come in and park in the community, and then, they leave and the residents come back and park. This is people coming home from work and looking for a place to park on Wilton. Very, very difficult parking situation. So, it bothers me that this project is pushing the lower limits of parking. I think the last time I looked, it was 41 parking spaces for 65 units. Granted, some of those developmentally disabled people -- probably most of them -- will not be driving, but also, the studio units might have two people, because people get married, people have roommates, so this is more pressure on the parking. That's a very important issue. The CN zoning district, which is what El Camino Real has been a part of, had called for a 1.0 FAR until the affordable housing overlay. Now, it's two. That's twice as much density than was allowed before. The height limit has gone from 35 feet to 50 feet along El Camino. Now, the project is at 49 feet, stepping down to 35 feet on the setback. The setbacks are...I hope you all go out and visit that site. The alley is very narrow. One of the residents in the little apartment building right next to it is here, City of Palo Alto Page 22 and will speak, but it's a very, very, very tight little alley. So, that setback issue that you're going to be talking about is very important. It's very impactful to the massing... Chair Furth: Thank you, Mr. Fiedel [sic], you've hit your three minutes. Mr. Lewis: Yeah, my name is Mr. Lewis. Chair Furth: Sorry. Mr. Lewis: Yeah. Chair Furth: I beg your pardon. I'm usually one behind. Mr. Lewis: Okay. Chair Furth: I beg your pardon, Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lewis: For future speakers, if someone is in the middle of a sentence, just wait for the period. Please. Chair Furth: Thank you. I forgot to confirm that everybody has been to visit the site at least once. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. Chair Furth: Yes? Board Member Thompson: I have not been in the last two weeks, but I know the area pretty well. Chair Furth: Okay, so, we do visit the site. We're not using the buzzer today, so when the light starts flashing red, that's when the three minutes actually ends. Nicole Ventre. I'm sorry I'm mispronouncing Miss Ventre. To be followed by Jeff Levinsky. Nicole Ventre: Thank you. Hi, good morning. [Introduces self and spells name.] I am one of the tenants of the adjacent property on Wilton, on the other side. I would love to, if I can pull up the slide that showed my very, very, very tiny apartment building on the back side of the alleyway, between these two buildings. I'm also the manager of that property, from 453 to 467 Wilton Avenue. My biggest concern -- as Todd has already alluded to -- is the distance of that alleyway, is somewhat about 20 feet from my building. My apartment itself, my bedroom, my bathroom, as well as the bedroom and bathroom of three of the tenants on that one building, are about four feet of that 20 feet. We have a push-back on our property. We are very close to the edge of that alleyway, maybe four feet. And you're already in the 20- foot alleyway, not at all accommodating for two-way traffic. My parking spot is actually on the alleyway and is so tight that I have to hug the right side of the alley to make a left into my parking spot, which is on the alleyway, that now, I will have to navigate two-way traffic within 20 feet of my bedroom, and this massive building. That is absolutely unacceptable. Not to mention, this alleyway is used for trash and deliveries. Our mailman parks on here because there is no other parking on Wilton Avenue for him to deliver his mail. When my recycle, my compost and my trash men come, they have to pull in, block all of my parking, my spot as well as three of my tenants, as well as the entrance to the other four parking spots located more centrally inside of our building. He blocks every single person from getting in or out. And he needs to back out of that alleyway because there is no room to turn around. Not to mention, when I pull out of my parking spot, I have to do this to get out because the spot is so tight, so I can actually turn down the alley. And we're going to have two-way traffic with, the most recent I'm heard is 41 spaces, of people getting in and out of the alleyway. My other issue is this is not enough. I know you guys have heard plenty about parking. This is a humongous issue, that we do not have enough parking for every tenant. Not to mention in their proposal, half of that parking was for staff, and for, I believe I saw for the storefronts down below. Which I'm not sure that's even relevant any more. The other issue is sunlight. My building is two stories tall, and this is absolutely going to cast a humongous afternoon sun City of Palo Alto Page 23 shadow on my entire property. No sunlight for us, which is unfair. The only other comment I'll make -- I know I'm running out of time -- is, of course, the dangerous intersection. It is very congested, very narrow, as you've heard before. I'm concerned about the noise. There's a noise even on this property for people to hang out and come together. It overlooks my building, overlooks my bedroom window. Lastly, I have also great concerns about the smoking, and where pet relief areas will be. Chair Furth: Mr. Levinsky, to be followed by Robert Moss. Jeff Levinsky: Good morning, Board members. [Introduces self and spells name.] I've lived on this block for 15 years or so, and I agree with the previous speakers about the parking problems. We heard today that it would be, up to 25 percent of the units would be for people with developmental disabilities, but the parking has been designed as if all that 25 percent was going to be met. I think it's important that it not be "up to," but it be 25 percent, if that's how the parking reductions are going to be dealt with. There's another problem with parking reduction. Our City gives away parking exemptions right and left, all over town. What that does is reduces the number of parking spaces that are accessible because the number of parking spaces that are accessible is based on a table that so many, if you have so many regular spaces, some of those have to be accessible. For this building, if it were using the regular City code, it would be required to have four accessible spaces. Instead, it's only being asked to have two. My question is, where do the people who need accessible parking spaces go? If they have to park way down the street, that's not accessible at all. If this building is really trying to serve its residents, some of whom may be there for the rest of their lives because this is going to be a good deal if you get in, then I think it needs to rethink completely how it deals with the needs of actual residents in terms of accessible parking. I'd like to bring up another issue, and that is, that I think matters to lots of people in this town: What are we doing to El Camino? When you look at all the different projects there are and are going up on El Camino -- you're going to hear another one later this morning -- it's becoming a canyon. It's becoming a row-after-row of large, and I must say unimaginative buildings. You know, you look at the renderings and you go, "Do I really want to see a street full of that?" This is an opportunity, I think, for the ARB to look, you know, take a broader vision of what's going on and try to find ideas that will help create a more livable and viewable city. Anyone who has driven through San Antonio, on San Antonio and seen what's happened near San Antonio Center knows how bad things can look with that growth. There was a question about the parapet. The parapet in earlier drawings was eight feet high, and I’m wondering if that could be reduced or slanted or something, so as to make the building look less massive in that regard. One other thing, the architect mentioned Oak Court. If you contrast the look of Oak Court with this building -- and it's night and day -- and it would be really nice if we could pick up some of the styling and human scale of that kind of design when we do these buildings. Thank you very much. Chair Furth: Thank you. Bob Moss, to be followed by Gary Mahany. Robert Moss: Thank you, Chairman Further, commissioners. Speaking as one of the people who created the CN zone and the El Camino design guidelines, I'd like to emphasize that this project grossly violates both of those. First of all, the CN zone requires that buildings be no more than 30 or 35 feet tall and that they be consistent with nearby residential properties. This is not. Second, it requires that the ground floor only be used for retail, not for storage of bikes or for a management office. Furthermore, as you mentioned in an earlier discussion this morning, it's essential that buildings' mass and scale be consistent with nearby properties. This violates that principle. There are no buildings of this mass or height on either side of El Camino within half a mile of this site, so this project would be a really bad approval. Furthermore, because of the lack of parking -- as you've already heard from the previous speakers -- it's going to create a real overflow problem, and it's going to create traffic problems as people drive around the neighborhood, trying to find where they can hold their car. At the very least, the building should be reduced by at least one floor, which will reduce some of the traffic and parking impacts. It should be scaled down in a mass that you look at from the front. And, it should have more landscaping along El Camino. Right now, the landscaping is trivial, and there have been basic principles for years that when new buildings are built along El Camino, the landscaping be upgraded. This fails that project requirement. Also, it would be good if the building, the structure, the façade of the building, not be uniform and a single color and a single line. You have some kind of change in the color in the structure as you go along, City of Palo Alto Page 24 so it doesn't have a big, massive effect. It has more of a structural effect, which has some changes along it. I think this project needs to go back for an awful lot more work, and I certainly hope you won't approve it as it's being proposed today because it has a lot of problems, and it has a lot of inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan, CN zoning, and the El Camino design guidelines. It's not ready for work. Chair Furth: Thank you, Mr. Moss. Gary Mahany. Gary Mahany: Hello. [Introduces self and spells name.] I live over on Madero Avenue, right by this facility. People have been hit crossing El Camino there at Wilton because there is a little bit of a traffic islands right in that area. The traffic is a complex mix of people making right and left turns out of Barron Park and off of Wilton. If we're putting 50 more units there, it's going to have to have some kind of pedestrian right-of-way issues crossing El Camino. We would like to see a setback on Wilton Avenue that's equivalent to residential area, so as not to crowd that intersection that's already crowded there. People park right along El Camino Real, all along there, so if you're trying to make a right or a left turn onto El Camino -- which personally I don't do, but many other people do -- you can't see. You have to ease out, ease out, keep pushing out until you can see down El Camino, around somebody's SUV that's parked right on the corner. There needs to be some traffic control and mitigation with the traffic in that area. I would like to echo what this man just said. There's a bunch of developments happening and the City of Palo Alto seems to like to look at one thing at a time and not the overall consequence of adding a lot more people along that area. Oh, and by the way, the purported fine transit is a fiction. There isn't adequate, good transit up and down El Camino Real with the buses, certainly no transit east and west. Thank you, for now. Chair Furth: Thank you, Mr. Mahany. Does anybody else wish to speak? The applicant is entitled to respond. That's another 10 minutes. Ms. Klein: I'd like to speak to why we are proposing 59 units in this building. In order for us to get our funding from tax credits and other sources, we need to maximize our building on the property. That's why we are trying to put as many units in as possible. It takes a long time to get these projects through the whole planning entitlement cycle, and that adds to our cost for the projects. When we find a site, we try and really maximize what's there. That's what we've tried to do on this project. We don't have a lot of flexibility in our funding sources to cut down the number of units. The project isn't feasible if we just have 20 units on the site. We can't make our funding work. We're trying to balance all these different constituents. It's like putting pieces of a puzzle together. Go ahead and...yeah. Ms. Steichen: I wanted to address the parking and transportation concerns. We have heard from residents and are listening. We have been waiting for this meeting before we have a subsequent follow- up meeting with CalTran, to speak to them about their right-of-way access. There is that existing driveway, and it's been asked of us if we would consider having our parking enter on El Camino. I think that's a subject that CalTran is going to have a lot of thoughts and feelings about, so we need to have that subsequent meeting with them. I think that we could also request our transportation study to analyze parking entry and exit on El Camino. We're willing to do that as part of understanding better the constraints of the project. I would also like to note, however, that the parking review by City staff has recommended that we use the alley as our parking entrance, so while we are willing to investigate that entrance on El Camino, we also are listening to City staff recommendations at the same time. As far as setbacks, we are currently meeting the 50 percent build-to line on Wilton as our front and are using the front yard setback to improve the sidewalk width along our frontage on Wilton. We are likewise doing the same on El Camino and meeting the build-to minimums, as well as providing the eight to 12 foot sidewalk on El Camino, as well. The new plan also addresses the rear yard setback on the interior property line, and substantially meets the 35-foot setback, but I think that's also something we could discuss. I'm happy to take questions, further. Chair Furth: Thank you. Does anybody have any questions of the applicant? Apparently, people have a bunch of questions. I don't know if you prefer to stand or sit while they raise them. City of Palo Alto Page 25 Vice Chair Baltay: With the Chair's permission, I have questions of some of the speakers, actually. Is that okay? Chair Furth: I have no objection. Vice Chair Baltay: If I could ask Ms. Ventee [sic]... Chair Furth: Ventre. Vice Chair Baltay: Ventre, I'm sorry. I have two questions for you. Thank you for coming out to speak. When I was out, it wasn't clear to me, you say you live in the building on the other side of the alley to this. Which rooms in your building are facing the alley, facing this new project? Are they bathrooms, or...? What type of spaces are inside? Ms. Ventre: Bedrooms and bathrooms. And one living room for the bottom, a living room and a bedroom for the top. All of our bathrooms. And on the very front corner of the building, if the alleyway is here, this is my bedroom. This is the bedroom of another tenant. So, literally, headlights will be just turning into our... Vice Chair Baltay: Those two bedrooms both face across the alley to the new building. Ms. Ventre: No, they face Wilton, but whenever anybody turns in, we are so close to the edge that every headlight goes directly into our bedroom. Vice Chair Baltay: The bedroom has windows on two sides, then? Ms. Ventre: Yeah. Vice Chair Baltay: Is that the case on all of the bedrooms there? Ms. Ventre: One way or the other, yes. Not to mention, we also have a secure...We have a lot of petty crimes and things that happen on that property because the alleyway actually does dead end. We have installed security cameras, we've installed light-activated, activated lights by motion, light up our house like a jetway. Luckily, I only have 10 tenants, so we have 10 cars, but that's 10. And my tenants are working every day. They don't spend all nights of the day going in and out. Chair Furth: I just had a follow-up. I'm trying to...I should take pictures because my visual... Ms. Ventre: I encourage you to go out to the site and see... [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: Oh, I've been to the site. Many times. I'm just trying to remember. On the first building as we enter the alley, that's the building, that's your building, right? To my left as I drive into the alley. Ms. Ventre: Right. Chair Furth: And on the ground floor, are there any windows, or are the up on the higher levels? Ms. Ventre: No. We all have windows. Chair Furth: There's windows all along. Ms. Ventre: Yeah. We have a small piece that might go about... Chair Furth: That's what I couldn't see. City of Palo Alto Page 26 Ms. Ventre: ...about here. Chair Furth: Right. Ms. Ventre: But when you're standing in the apartment, you can still see...I can see over the fence. I can see the Hong Kong Restaurant from my bathroom. I can see the mountains, I can see the trees. Chair Furth: Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay: The other question I had relates to parking, and with the indulgence of the Chair, can you give me a guess, how many bedrooms do you have, and how many parking places do you have in your building? I'm just trying to get a sense of the actual use. How many parking stalls does your building...? Ms. Ventre: I have eight, but I... Vice Chair Baltay: Eight parking spaces. Ms. Ventre: ...I have eight, eight units, eight spots, 10 tenants. We have an open courtyard area that's properly located in our building... Vice Chair Baltay: I need to go quick or I'm going to lose my opportunity to ask your questions. Eight spaces, eight units, 10 tenants? Ms. Ventre: Right. And those extra two cars have to park in non-designated parking spots on our property because there is no more parking on the street. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. If I could ask Mr. Lewis, as well. Did I get your name right, please? Board Member Thompson: Here's a Google map image of the property. Chair Furth: We're circulating a photograph of your building... [crosstalk] Board Member Thompson: Four-eight-six (inaudible)? Mr. Lewis: Yeah, that's me. Yeah. Two four-plexes side by side. Vice Chair Baltay: Mr. Lewis, if I could. Thank you for coming out. Appreciate your feedback. I'm trying to understand the parking situation again. You said your building has 17 units... Mr. Lewis: Nope. Seventeen residents. Vice Chair Baltay: Seventeen residents. Mr. Lewis: Yeah. Eight units. Vice Chair Baltay: Eight units. And how many bedrooms are there in each unit? Mr. Lewis: One bedroom in each unit, just like Nicole's. Vice Chair Baltay: One bedroom in each unit. Mr. Lewis: Yeah. City of Palo Alto Page 27 Vice Chair Baltay: And again, how many units? Mr. Lewis: Eight. Vice Chair Baltay: Eight units. And how many parking places do you provide for those residents? Mr. Lewis: Eight. Vice Chair Baltay: Eight, so it's eight and eight. And that's not adequate as it is, you're saying? Mr. Lewis: No. We have 14 automobiles. Six of the units have two married couples that both work. Vice Chair Baltay: Those are one-bedroom apartments whose tenants have two cars. Mr. Lewis: Yeah, and then, two of the units have young children, single young children. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. Thank you very much for that. Mr. Lewis: I want to make one comment as long as I'm here. I just didn't get a chance to say that I would really love to see this come down one story, one full story, in every way. Thank you very much. Chair Furth: All right, any other questions of the applicant? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, I do, again. Or, am I taking up too much time? Chair Furth: Feel free. It's an important project. Vice Chair Baltay: For the applicant, please. You had shown several studies of this project. Is it possible to see that first inch, the one where you...? I saw something about parking lifts or something in that. I wanted to go back and just ask about that. The very first project study you showed. Ms. Steichen: With the courtyard? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. On my left here. Ms. Steichen: Yeah. Yeah. This was, we have always shown the parking entrance on the alleyway, but this was assuming not a ramp down to a lower level, but just doing parking stackers. They are a significant up front cost and they do contribute to the initial ask that developers go for, from the state tax credit allocation committee, etc., etc. So, we have moved away from stackers on most of our affordable projects. Vice Chair Baltay: Can you elaborate on that? Because that's something that many developers in Palo Alto take advantage of. Is that a feasibility for your project? Ms. Steichen: I think that's actually something that Palo Alto would have to comment on in terms of the construction fees, the cost feasibility. I know that they are doing another construction cost analysis on the latest plan and we would have to ask them if they are... Vice Chair Baltay: Can you address that question? Ms. Klein: I won't have an answer for that question. I know it's very expensive. I don't have an answer for that question. Chair Furth: I'm sorry, you need to be close to the mic... City of Palo Alto Page 28 Ms. Klein: Oh, sorry. Chair Furth: ...so the transcriptionist can pick you up. Ms. Klein: I don't have an answer. I know it's very expensive. I don't think we can afford to do it, but I don't have a definitive answer. Chair Furth: Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, thanks. Go ahead, Osma. Board Member Thompson: Okay. I had a question, I think this is probably for Palo Alto Housing. I just had a question about the program. I saw studios and one-beds. I'm just wondering why not two beds. There's not really an opportunity to have families with just a one-bed, so I was just curious about that choice, and if that's something that is up for discussion. Ms. Klein: When we initially thought about this project, I'm sure that it was studied, what financially we could afford to build there. This is the most, sort of the best use of our resources, is to have studios and to have a few one-bedrooms. Board Member Thompson: And the efficiency or...I don't want to say "efficiency," but, of course, the unit number would go down if you did two bedrooms. Ms. Klein: Right. Board Member Thompson: Is that how you are counting efficiency, by units? Or is it just square footage of livable space? Because the square footage would stay the same, potentially. Ms. Klein: Right. I'm counting by units. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Ms. Steichen: I can add to that. The Affordable Housing Combining District counts parking per bedroom, so, two studios and a two-bedroom, if they are of equivalent square footage -- two studios equals one two-bedroom -- the parking count would not change. If that tracks. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Chair Furth: Anything else, Osma? Board Member Thompson: Those are all my questions of the applicant. Chair Furth: Robert? Any questions? Board Member Gooyer: Nope. Chair Furth: Alex? Let me check my notes here. Oh, one set of plans shows one accessible parking space, but did you say three accessible parking spaces including a van space when you made your presentation today? Ms. Steichen: Yes. They are all contained on the Level 1 plan. You can see them, they are near the community space that fronts El Camino. Two accessible and one van accessible. City of Palo Alto Page 29 Chair Furth: Thank you. And the community space, could you tell me more about the anticipated use of that space? Ms. Steichen: Well, I think Palo Alto should answer that, but we've actually, in many of our community projects, our non-profit, affordable projects, this is a place where the resident can gather for community meetings, for their resident meetings. It's a place where programming takes place. There are opportunities, like at Tree House, there are craft events, and so forth. Chair Furth: This is a communal space for people resident in the building. Ms. Steichen: Correct. But I would believe that if there was a need for the neighborhood to rent it or borrow it for an afternoon, that would be something that folks [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: Thank you. Let the record show that Palo Alto Housing Corporation is nodding. To refer to them as "Palo Alto" is very confusing here. We've got so many Palo Alto actors. Ms. Steichen: Sorry. Palo Alto Housing. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Gooyer: I do have one question. You mentioned that, I think you said there could be up to 25 percent special needs? Ms. Steichen: Mm-hmm. Board Member Gooyer: Okay. Ms. Steichen: For the developmentally disabled population. Board Member Gooyer: Thank you. Ms. Klein: Can I just add one more thing about that? Chair Furth: Yes. Ms. Klein: Those are very high-functioning special needs adults and they generally have jobs, and they use public transport to get to and from those jobs. They just don't drive themselves. And they don't need very many services or people coming onto the site to check on them. They are pretty self-sufficient. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any other questions before we start deliberating? Alex, if you could start us. Board Member Lew: Thank you for your presentation. The drawings were fairly clear and easy to read. I think that for the next meeting on this project, I think that there is some critical stuff that we need, which is the contextual site plan and street elevations to see how the building fits into the neighborhood. At the moment, there's no way, there's nothing in the drawings to see how this fits in. I mean, I did go to the site and looked and sort of (inaudible) things, and I have a fairly good sense for that. But really, it does need to be...You do have to show that in the drawings as part of our view, and it's required in part of our findings, so we really do need that information. On the building design, I'm generally okay with the organization of it. It seems to be well resolved. Issues that I have concerns with is...let's see. You got the...Is it the fourth floor roof deck? Does that need to have its own exit staircase? I've seen it both ways. Yeah, you don't have to answer it today. Ms. Steichen: [off microphone, inaudible] City of Palo Alto Page 30 Board Member Lew: Yeah. I was just commenting (inaudible). And I think it's desirable to have...Generally, I think it's desirable to have open space. When I was at the site, I was concerned about loss of privacy to the neighbors, and also, that your roof terraces on the shady side of the building, which seems less desirable in a way. But, given all the noise of traffic on El Camino, it does seem to have advantages of putting it on the quieter side of the building. Also, on the alley, I was concerned about the back-up space for the neighbors. We do have projects in town that only have, like, 25-foot-wide driveways, and we do get complaints about those. Also, you've got utility poles and lights by the alley there, so, if those are being removed, I do think we need some sort of replacement for that. On El Camino with regards to the street scape and design guidelines, my take on it was to maybe try to emphasize the corner more than what you're doing. I think what you've shown so far is a start, but I would encourage you to try to make more differentiation at the corner. I would also encourage you to try to make the entrance even more, to highlight the entrance even more than it is. It's not that different than the rest of the storefront facades. To my eye, the first floor is too low. Make that too short. I make that comment to a lot of projects, and I understand everybody is trying to work within the height limit, but I’m just saying, just design-wise, we would ideally like...I would like that to be taller. I realize that that probably won't happen on this particular project. If you go to...I've shared with the Board photos of mixed-use projects in Berkeley that are working. They're at, like, 55 feet high with tall, 20-foot-high ground floors. And they get the height limit by including affordable housing in the project. But, having the tall floor is really much more desirable. In this particular case, the neighboring buildings on El Camino have fairly low storefront heights, so I actually think you will be able to meet the contextual findings on this one, on this particular site. I did see the oak tree in the back of the property. I was interested in how you can incorporate that back area into the project to try to make something desirable there. On the outdoor space, I do see that the overlay zone doesn't really require any. I do want to try to encourage you to do as much as possible with regards to providing privacy to the neighbors. I think that's really important. Other people on the council have mentioned that's very desirable. You're trying to foster social activity, healthy lifestyles. We've got some new projects in the works here where they've got, like succulent gardens and edible vegetable gardens up on the first-floor roof. I think that's actually all very desirable, and I do want to encourage you to try to do that as much as feasible. Also, in the next packet, I think we do need to see the lighting, especially if you do have the roof gardens. And then, we did have Mr. Fiedel asking about parking. The Board hasn't seen any parking studies in this initial study, so I'm not going to comment on that yet. I think we do understand that the Ventura neighborhood has lots of parking concerns, and I do bike through there almost every day, and I do understand that there are parking issues there. I do understand there's a retail preservation, potentially retail preservation issue, so we'll see where that goes. Also, I think it would be useful for Ms. Ventre's comments, maybe do a sun study. We have done that before on other projects. It's fairly easy to do in a 3D model, just showing us, maybe like the best-case, maybe summer solstice, and the worst case, winter solstice, and then, the spring and fall. Just get an idea of how the shadows will work on the particular project. That's where I am. I'm generally in support of the project. One last comment on the El Camino things, guidelines, is that I think it was Mr. Levinsky mentioned the unimaginative buildings on El Camino and in the vicinity. We on the Board have been hashing it out, too. We've been talking about that, too. I think that is an issue. I do like the Tree House project, where really the art piece was front and center on the main building. We do have our public art requirement as part of the project. That may help. Or, just having architectural filigree, extra details. I used to work on affordable housing projects. I know that usually a lot of those things get cut from the budget because things are so tight. But, whatever you can, I do want to encourage you to try to make it a really unique and distinctive project. Chair Furth: Thank you, Alex. Robert? Board Member Gooyer: Thank you. I have to agree with a lot of the stuff that my fellow board member indicated. I was happy to hear that on one of the elevations -- for instance, the east elevation -- I was really worried about not having a window. Then, I guess it turns out that your latest version does have windows. That makes me feel a lot better. There is a certain...When you try and make a project pencil out, especially a project like this, you have to put a lot of units in there, which does make it a tight fit. The problem with that is, as we mentioned -- we've struggled with this -- it does become another big shoebox with a flat roof, which it is getting to be every building that gets built on El Camino is turning out City of Palo Alto Page 31 to be a flat-roof shoebox. And I think one of the speakers used the term "unimaginative buildings," and that is a real challenge. I do like, you got a little bit creative with, if nothing else, you know, the window placement. I like that. There's not a whole lot you can do, but at least you gave it a little something. And I think a lot of this is going to make the difference of what the materials are, that sort of thing. I do agree, again, with my board member, that I think the bottom floor should be higher. You've got a 10-foot floor-to-floor, and a lot of that depends on, obviously, what framing you're using. I'm guessing you're using a wood frame. That makes it a little bit more difficult, but, you know, I'd like to see, maybe the upper floors a little tighter. Maybe 9 1/2. That gives you some flexibility of being able to make that ground floor a little higher. I also agree that the, the South El Camino design guidelines make much more, or indicate that they want much more of a statement for the entry. And if you drive by this building, you'd have a hard time realizing where the front door is. And because you do mention that a lot of the people will be using the bus or are pedestrians, I think that probably wouldn't hurt. If it's one of these things where nobody is ever going to use the front door, then I can see it. But here, theoretically, you're also indicating that they will, so I think it's definitely necessary that that needs to be enhanced. Let's see...I do have a bit of a concern. That's why I asked about the special needs. You know, with three accessible parking spaces, I think that's a bit tight. Now, I understand, especially when you start talking about van-accessible parking spaces, that sucks a whole lot of square footage. At this point, I don't know. It's a tough situation. Again...And I agree that the lift system is expensive. I doubt, because you're probably on a fairly tight budget, but it might be one of these things that, if it becomes a more, you know, workable solution, you may need...I'm not saying everything needs to have those, but maybe, you know, pick up a couple of them to give you a few more accessible parking spaces, I think would be helpful. Other than that, I think the layout works well for what you have to work with. The stepping down, I understand, you know, the units in the back, whenever something like this gets built nearby, it's tough to handle. The other way to look at it, it becomes a heck of a barrier for noise from El Camino. That's sort of the positive aspect of this. I think that's it for the moment. Chair Furth: Thank you. Osma. Board Member Thompson: Hi, there. Thank you so much for your presentation. I'll try not to repeat. I'll just try to summarize the impressions I have on this project. I'm going to jump straight around the, um, straight to the "unimaginative" comment Mr. Levinsky had. I mean, I work in multifamily housing, as well, and I understand yield studies, I understand efficiency, and it is sort of a funny crux when you're battling these two things. And at the end of the day, you really want something amazing, right? You don't want something that's just like everything else. And I think this project had a danger, I think, to fall into that, but I think there's some new comments going around. Something that could help is the southern façade, I see you have shading on just the top set of windows. Why not do more shading? Shading is a great way of adding interest to the façade, adding relief, adding depth and interest. Sometimes a really awful project can be made all the better by really good shading. I would just encourage you to use that as a tool more. In terms of the tile and stone stucco, you know, relationship that you're exploring, it would be nice to sort of see what else is out there that has a bit more texture, a bit more relief, a material that's not just a material that you're relying on as a blanket, but something that you can use as part of the architecture to create more detail on this structure. And part of that is just developing a really strong design concept. That could just sell what you're trying to do. Your concept, I didn't really hear any conversation about concept. I know that's not really the point about this, but, at the same time, it will help us love your project more if you give us something that you're holding onto in terms of concept, whether it's light filtering, or audio visual things. Looking at the floor plan, I had a similar impression that, yes, the courtyard is on the shady side, so it's going to be a cold courtyard. No one's really going to want to be there. It would be really great if the courtyard was on the south side, but then you have this height issue. I would encourage you, while you're still playing with massing, that...See what you can do to make that courtyard a little bit better in terms of usability. And even on the ground floor, there's program along El Camino that would be nice to look at, like the kitchen and the fitness center. Having the management office on the corner is maybe not the best use of the corner. Maybe some of that exciting program could be moved to the corner. I would encourage a little bit more shuffling in terms of what the important parts are on the street, and then, use the program that you have right now to address those important parts. East elevation, I see you improved your east elevation. I also had a similar note about the no windows on City of Palo Alto Page 32 that. And, I guess, going back to the massing in terms of the roof line, it would be nice to see something that's sort of...it could maximize. I don't know how realistic mezzanines are on the top floor, but there is, you know, El Camino has a base, middle and top thing that is with the guidelines, and making your top story a little bit more elongated. If you could use a mezzanine, or something. I don't know. I feel like that's also a planning thing that you might need to work out. That might give you a chance to enhance your efficiency. Get more square footage, potentially, but also just make that top part different from everything else, just to kind of give the cadence that is part of the design guidelines. That's all I have for now. Chair Furth: I don't know about you, but I’m down to three items so far. Peter. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you to my fellow Board members because they covered many of the points I was about to list. I think they are saying things that I agree with strongly, so I'll just go very quickly through those things. First, I'd like to address a central idea I had about your parking and your building massing, which -- I don't know if it's been explored, but it seems to me you could -- which would be to force all of the parking underground on one level, using stackers or something like that, so that you could get a grade-level courtyard as your outdoor space. I think your project is deficient in outdoor space for your residents, and I think it's all the more important to have viable outdoor space for people living here, especially when you have so many units so tightly together. And there's no easy public park within walking distance, or other space. And when you have an outdoor space on a second level, especially the way it's relating to the units you have and the complications of landscaping and stuff, it really isn't as good. You have an opportunity, if you had a U-shaped or L-shaped building fronting off the alley, maybe a metal grill with a nice gate to come in. People could walk into a pleasant courtyard, which would be used a lot. That would really enhance your project. And you could push your parking underground with the use of stackers and still fit it all. That was just an idea that sort of came across my head, thinking about your project, and I think it's worth considering. Although I understand it's a big change at this point. On the building massing and such, the corner feature is very important. Having a cap on the building is very important. Those things have been addressed. I think not having the management office at the corner of the building is a great idea. It's just symbolically, if nothing else. It doesn't say what's important about the building. I do encourage you to look at the building Osma referenced. It's called the Huxley. It's a new apartment building on El Camino in Redwood City. I don't know how, but they've put their fitness room and their community center down on the ground level. I don't think this is a below- market-rate unit, but at night, it's brightly lit, and when it's being used, it has this feature of animating the street. Not just the building, but the whole community. You get a sense of life going on. You get eyes on the street. You get people outside looking in; people inside looking out. That's really what the El Camino guidelines are after. That's what we are all here for. It's a really great opportunity to do that. A lot of that is in the details, making it a little bit taller. The beveled wall you have at the front is a good idea. Detail it out more. Think about it more. Think hard about which uses are really in these visible spots. The corner is really important, how you treat that. Having a management office with only windows facing one side is a real lost opportunity. I think you can take that a lot farther. Something else that I didn't hear mentioned was that your current plans have apartments facing your open space on the second level, and they are all at the same grade. This is the only window in this apartment, and it's right next to the common open space, which is close to the doorway, the passageway going out. It's inevitably going to lead to people inside just leaving the shades drawn all the time. That's a very meager existence, to be on the dark side of the building with your shades drawn because you have no privacy. People outside always feeling like they're making too much noise and there's additional conflict. It's an age-old architectural issue on multifamily housing, but you have the onus to do it better than I think you've done it here. If you do persist on having that open space on the second level, it should be done a little more carefully to preserve that. I think you could also do better linkages from within the building to get to that space, just to celebrate it more. It's a back yard, it's got a stair off the alley, and make it so people really could come and go through that entrance if they so choose. You have also, the trash area is coming in off of Wilton, and again, if you could get that off the alley somehow, back, or by the parking. Again, you help to animate the street. It's a small detail where you locate these things, but perhaps think about that. On the massing and articulation of the building, I agree with what my colleagues have said. Maybe what I'll say is a statement I jotted down here -- That the building is really a large urban mass. It's quite City of Palo Alto Page 33 suitable to the future as we see El Camino Real developing into. That's what our design guidelines are asking us, what other people are doing, but we really need to acknowledge, it's not compatible right now. As one of the speakers said, there's nothing this size within half a mile. It's a very large building. I believe it puts the burden on you as the developers to do it better, to do it more sensitively. That means having perhaps more detail, or more refinement, or sophistication. Or, as Osma said, some understanding and sense of play. Right now, it's a fairly large shoebox. The most I can see is two colors of plaster or two colors of material. How about a roof corniche? How about some special treatment of the entrance? How about a little bit of detail, or some awning at the windows? All these things are in the architect's toolbox, to make this building not an unimaginative part of El Camino Real. I think you just need to work on that a little bit more. Because we are essentially approving this as something for the future of El Camino, but we're not there yet, so you really need to be cognizant of that. The last comment, to follow upon that, is I understand it's affordable housing, but the burden is even higher, then, to make it so that it doesn't feel like that, to the town and everybody else. Right now, driving by, it's not the Huxley in Redwood City, which is a real fancy-looking building. But, we don't want to make that statement. We want the opposite to be true. We want all housing to be nice, to be good, to make people feel happy to be going home. Not like they are second-class citizens. This design, right now, just feels a little bit too much like it's sort of on the budget side. I know it is, but you have to take that challenge doubly hard. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you, everybody. I can't read my own handwriting, is why I take notes on a computer. Thank you to the applicant for the presentation, the neighbors for coming to speak to us. I have never, of course, been an architect, worked in design of affordable housing or multifamily housing, but I've spent years working on the financing of those things, from the point of view of public agencies, trying to encourage them, and I know how complicated and perverse our funding of this kind of housing is in this country at this time, and for the last 40 years. My thoughts. It certainly is a complicated set of setbacks, height limits...What do we call the horizontal, what do we call the diagonal? Board Member Thompson: Bulk plane...? Chair Furth: Daylight planes. Concerns about shading. We certainly need solar and shading studies so that we can really understand what this building would do to adjacent structures. Sometimes it might seem to people that we're making somewhat random comments, but we're going towards a set of standards that we are required to apply. One of them is that the design of this building will enhance the living conditions on site, and in adjacent residential areas. Things should be better when we're done than when we started. The upside of this site is that you're working from a pretty low base, in the sense that these are not well landscaped sites. They don't buffer the noise or the impact, psychological impact of a state highway. The downside is that they do, given their present low-intensity uses, probably not cause a lot of parking problems themselves. That seems to be generated by our general parking shortage in Palo Alto. I live in Downtown North, where, because of the presence of restaurants, we're not dealing with a neighborhood where everybody goes home at 5:00 or 10:00, either. We have steady parking demand from early in the morning until late at night. And I will say that the residential parking program has made it possible, most of the time, to park within a block of my house, which is where my guests need to go. I look forward to seeing more information from the City and the applicant on how the present system works or doesn't work, what kind of deficit position we may already be in on this street. I think as we look at the redevelopment of these buildings fronting on El Camino, the City...We look at design site by site, as people have pointed out, which has its limitations. But, the City definitely has a set of guidelines, which anticipates bigger, higher buildings along El Camino, closer to the El Camino frontage. In a sense, they're trying to make El Camino itself have boundaries and edges. One of the things that we lose when we do that is incidental views of the hillside. One of the things we gain is a sense of presence as we go down El Camino, which I've been going down since 1964, when it really didn't have much of a presence. But we see Curtner, we see Linder [phonetic], we see these streets, and they have...We need to think hard about how these new turns into those streets work. We need to think about -- and hear from staff -- on how does the El Camino frontage work there? Could it be better? We've heard that visibility is impaired because of the Palo Alto habit of parking as close to the corner as possible. Is that still appropriate here? How would the pedestrian and bicycle access work as we go around those heavily-impacted corners? Where would somebody wait for a ride-hailing system? One of the things that the El City of Palo Alto Page 34 Camino design guidelines require is pedestrian-friendly access. Where are the benches available for the general public walking down this street? Or, available for your own residents and their friends? We need to see that. We need at least minimal pedestrian amenities, though I would say that your building, with its more interesting façade and its landscaping, is an improvement over what's there right now. I live in a group of two-story and one-story residences adjacent to a four-story building. It provides us with buffering against a higher traffic thing, but part of the reason it works, even though the driveway is on the side street, is because it's landscaped within an inch of its life. It has a landscaped garden over that podium that's visible to the public as they walk along that sidewalk. It has wisteria hanging down over the entrance. It has probably six to eight-foot hedges on one side. It's a completely different experience than going into a dark, cavernous, unattractive drive. There is a lot that can be done; there's a lot that needs to be done. I'm concerned about the tight access, so we need to know more about how it would work, both for this building and the existing driveway. How trash collection would work. I get caught in my garage on occasion by the garbage trucks going by, so I need to add -- and there's three of them -- need to add extra time to get out on garbage days, or move before they get there. How is that going to work? I do think that there are serious problems with the El Camino Real entry, also, but I wait to see what further studies show. In terms of the design of the building, I like the sort of complicated fenestration, the placement of windows on the upper floors. I don't understand -- looking at the elevations we had previously -- how the ground-floor windows strengthen and relate to that. It looks a bit random to me, or unintegrated. I'm also concerned with floor-to-ceiling glass adjacent to a busily- traveled sidewalk, at the ground level, if it's not a retail space. That doesn't seem to me to be optimal in terms of having uses that you want to look at. I don't want to look at wastebaskets and people's feet as I walk by the sidewalk, and I probably don't want to have them exposed. I know this started out with some retail, but it doesn't have it any more, so I would like some more thought on where those windows actually should go. I don't think every guideline -- and they are, in fact, guidelines -- meets every zoning requirement. We're going to have choices to make. But, we shouldn't abandon them with respect to pedestrian amenities or ground-floor transparency. Those are both achievable. It looks like we have an existing neighborhood parking deficit. It's not the responsibility of this project to solve existing problems, but it is not to make it worse. I think that the way we signify, the way we show that a project is residential in this area is with lavish and significant landscaping, not just juncus. Not to say that you're using juncus, but it needs to be big, it needs to have flowering things; it needs to not be industrial. That's the way we signify that a use is residential and not office. Not that some offices don't have pretty fancy landscaping. The issue of lights shining into the adjacent residential is important and should be manageable. I agree that the parking calculations need to depend on, not the possible number of accessible parking spaces. This is a project where parking ratios are set by state law, not by us, so I'm sure they will set specifically that way. One of the issues here is that El Camino is, in fact, changing everywhere and becoming higher. I don't think that a series of rectangular buildings has to be a problem. I mean, there are spectacular neighborhoods around the world that have a basic design shape, and they repeat it, and they are great. And they are great because of the quality and detailing of the building. And I would say in the case of a temperate climate like ours, the landscaping makes it a pleasure to be there. There's a great old article called Our National Heritage or that Rat-Infested Slum, and it's about Georgian terraces, which are very repetitive, and were treated by planners looking to modernize that rat-infested slum, and were saved by the irate neighborhood. And that was probably a good thing. But, my point is, it's okay with me if you have a box because that's efficient, but it's not okay if it's not beautiful on some level. I don't think I disagree with anything my colleagues have said, except perhaps I'm okay with boxes as long as they are beautiful. Or, as we say in our standards, something about excellent architecture and high aesthetic quality. I think outdoor spaces are important. I think they need to be designed with an eye to the acoustic and visual privacy of the neighbors, the existing neighbors who live there. Sometimes that involves landscaping that sets the users back further from the edge. There was a comment about smoking. I think that local regulations may preclude that anyway, but we should know for sure. Certainly, that's not anything. We do need a sun and shade study. And I think that's it for me. I don't think our comments have created conflicting instructions. I did review the minutes from the City Council's prescreening of this project. Whether this is a suitable site for affordable housing with these modified zoning standards is not our call. That's the call of the City Council. Our responsibility is to look at this project in light of the specific standards that we apply, and that's what we will be doing. I agree that if more of the parking were underground or compact because of the use of stackers, it would be better. In City of Palo Alto Page 35 the testimony in front of the City Council, there was a concern about the continuing operational cost of stackers. There was a quantified number there. I don't know if it's possible, but it's unquestionable that if more of this were underground, it would be a building that fit in better and was more accommodating to and enhancing of the neighborhood. I'll look forward to additional information from the staff, particularly on parking and transportation, and from the applicant on the operation of the building and its impact on adjacent properties, and how that works in a way that works. Anything else before we close? Board Member Lew: I have one quick follow-up on the parking stackers. You might want to look at Stanford's Mayfield affordable housing project on El Camino. I think that's a bridge...Is that bridge? They have parking lifts at grade. And I think they were triple-decker stackers. They might have some sense for cost. I think I've heard third hand that the tenants don't like them, so I would think that you would be interested in that, as well. If there is an issue there. Chair Furth: Thank you, Alex. And, I should say that I am very pleased to have this project in front of us. We get a lot of projects that are for either office space or unaffordable housing, and this is a good change of pace. Mindful to our obligation to those who live there already, and those who will be coming. We will do our best. Thank you. We will take a five-minute break before our next... Vice Chair Baltay: We need to make a motion. Chair Furth: Oh, we need to make a motion to continue this to a date uncertain. Is there such a motion? Board Member Thompson: I was just going to add one more thing, really quick. For opportunities to add interest to the façade, in addition to shading devices. I'd also written here -- I didn't mention these -- that punched reliefs is an option, and then, also, balconies give the project a residential feel. Doesn't have to be very deep. Could even be Juliette balconies that don't even add square footage, but they still kind of create different interest, and sort of gives the building a more residential feel. Sorry, I forgot that earlier. Chair Furth: Those are the balconies from which you cry Romeo, Romeo, wherefore... Board Member Thompson: And Juliette balconies don't have any depth... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Some people call them French balconies. Board Member Thompson: ...and they have a guard rail. Chair Furth: Got it. MOTION Vice Chair Baltay: Good idea, Osma. I move that we continue this project to a date uncertain. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Board Member Lew: Second. Chair Furth: Okay, motion by Baltay, second by Lew, to continue this project to a date uncertain. All those in favor say aye? Opposed? None. Hearing none, the motion passes unanimously. MOTION PASSES 5-0. Chair Furth: We will take a five-minute break now. Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 36 [The Board took a short break.] Chair Furth: Thank you. We'll reconvene the Architectural Review Board. We are on item #3. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3200 El Camino Real [18PLN-00045] Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition for the Existing 16,603 Square Foot Motel and Construction of a new Four-Story Approximately 53,599 Square Foot Hotel. The Applicant Also Requests a Zone Change to Remove the Existing 50 Foot Special Setback Along Hansen Way. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study is Being Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. Chair Furth: We are on item #3, 3200 El Camino Real. This is a proposal for a new hotel. This is its first formal review. I should say that while it's a formal review, the application is not yet complete because the environmental work has not been completed under the California Environmental Quality Act. This is consideration of a major architectural review to allow the demolition of an existing 16,600 square foot motel and construction of a new four-story, approximately 53,600 square foot hotel. The applicant has also requested of the City a zone change to remove the existing 50-foot special setback along Hansen Way. Does anybody have any conversations to report? Okay, no ex parte conversations. Has everybody viewed the site? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. Board Member Thompson: Again, I haven't been there in the last two weeks, but I know the area pretty well. Chair Furth: Anybody else? Board Member Lew: I visited the site yesterday. Chair Furth: And, Bob, you've seen the site? I have seen the site. All right, staff? Sheldon Ah Sing, Contract Planner: Yes, thank you. Thank you for the introduction of the project. The project does include the demolition of an existing motel that was constructed in 1947. That was prior to the establishment of that 50-foot special setback. This project is at the intersection of El Camino Real and Hansen Way, and that is one of the entries into the Stanford Research Park. This project does include the architectural review, as well as the zoning amendment. The project will receive recommendation from this Board, as well as recommendation from the Planning Commission, and then, those will be forwarded onto the City Council for their final decision. Some site characteristics about the project. It is within the CS Service Commercial zoning district. That will remain. It's a flat topography for the site, surrounded by commercial, as well as research park across from Hansen Way. Mainly, it's low-intensity type of development. Along El Camino, there is some transition to some newer buildings, as you were discussing earlier today. The images there on the screen are both along Hansen Drive, as well as along El Camino Real, to provide some context of development in the area. There were some prior meetings for this project. It did go through a preliminary board meeting back in 2015, as well as two pre-screenings with the City Council, addressing the issue with the special setback. And then, we had a preliminary ARB last year regarding this project. So, there have been some changes along the way from those meetings. Some of the issues identified by the board at the last preliminary was relationship with the Fish Market property, having the third and fourth story modulate along that property side, as well as enhancing the plaza area, providing some more screening for that type of amenity. There's also a comment about the continuity of the sidewalk. The sidewalk along El Camino Real is at 12 feet, and then, it tapers down to six feet along Hansen Way. This is a site plan of the project. It shows the footprint. The building does cantilever over a little bit on the plaza side, as well as the back-rear end of the property. Presently, the City of Palo Alto Page 37 site includes a driveway from El Camino Real. With the new project, that will be eliminated and the access for this site will be along Hansen. That will include a loading zone, as well as any drop-offs. The project is also proposing valet, so that will be a part of the project, where someone would stop. Also, trash would be taken from that entry, as well. In this image you can also see that the "pork chop" that exists now at the Hansen intersection will be eliminated, so some of that property is going back to the project site, which allows for more enhancement of that plaza area. These are some perspectives that were included in the packet. The applicant does have a robust presentation that will show, I think, a little more detail of these, but just helps the public view the project. This is from across the way at the intersection of Hansen and El Camino Real, showing that plaza area. You can see that it would include some low walls and screening to help with some of the noise associated with El Camino Real. Again, these are some other birds-eye views, as well as images from El Camino Real from the other side, taking into consideration the Fish Market. You can see that the second floor, you have a terrace with some landscaping along El Camino Real, and that wraps around Hansen Way, as well as the upper floors along El Camino Real do go inward, so it provides some relief from El Camino Real. This is from Hansen Way, and it shows the bike lane, would also be enhanced with some protection. These are just a straight elevation view, showing some of the colors and materials that are proposed. Material boards, as mentioned have been updated. And then, more elevations there. Some topics of interest that we wanted to at least get some feedback on would be elimination of a special setback; the elimination of the "pork chop" and the intersection; consistency with the context-based criteria and architectural review findings; compatibility with the El Camino Real design guidelines. The project does include a parking reduction request. Part of the project would be to include valet, which is indicated by the applicant that they could include, at a minimum, 16 additional parking spaces. With the valet, you could park within the drive aisles, so that does help alleviate some of the parking deficiencies. And for a hotel, that kind of makes sense, with the operations, one use where a valet really makes a lot of sense. We're still evaluating that with our Transportation Demand Management Plan, and we will bring that back the next time we're here with the Board, along with the environmental document. One of the next steps it to complete that environmental review. We're really close to doing that and having that published, returned to this Board for the recommendation. We will have public hearings with the Planning and Transportation Commission, as well as with the City Council for their final decision. The recommendation today is to consider the information presented, and provide comment and continue the item to a date uncertain. With that, I complete my presentation. Be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions of staff before we hear from the applicant? Thank you. If we could hear from the applicant, please. You have 10 minutes. Good morning. Yatin Patel, Applicant: Good morning, Chair Furth, Vice Chair Baltay and Board members. My name is Yatin Patel. Our family owns and operates this... Chair Furth: Mr. Patel, could you, like everybody else, spell your name for the transcriber. Mr. Patel: Yeah. First name is Yatin, last name is Patel [spells name.] Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Patel: Sure. As I was saying, our family owns and operates this hotel. We've been in business for decades. It's been a long, long journey to get to where we are here today. As a family, we are incredibly proud of the progress we've made. I'll cede the microphone to our architect team, with Jim Heilbronner. James Heilbronner, Architect: Hi. Good morning. Name, James Heilbronner [spells name]. I think you guys have a pretty good package in front of you. We gave you a package of what's on the screen, also. What I wanted to do is, one of the handouts I gave was a list of materials, so we are clear on the kit of parts that we're using, types of metals, glass and painted stucco. It's a fairly simple list, but sometimes we all get caught up in what those are. The second thing I wanted to address -- so I use up my 10 minutes wisely -- is our responses to your comments at the last meeting, from June of 2017. One of the biggest concerns, I think, across the board was the northeastern corner near the Fish Market, with City of Palo Alto Page 38 respect to its, I'll just say mass height and proximity to property line. For clarity, the building on the north side is 10 feet south of the property line, which is further than it is today. Today, it's probably three to three and a half. It varies a little bit. Because of building code regs and...There's no setback requirement, but to have windows in the hotel, we need to be 10 feet away, minimum. That area is landscaped. Half of it is landscaped five feet, and then, there is a crushed granite exit way and accessway for fire department, for firemen to go back and forth east/west, if you will. On that corner, I think the second slide...Is this just a forward thing? If you look at the corner of the building, we've chopped back the main balcony, so we have more stepping in the north/south direction, and we've always had it in the east/west direction. Really dominated on the Hansen side. We have four step-backs of the building to work on the mass, to carve it out -- as has been discussed here today -- the shoebox, with different roof planes and elements going on, to soften the building's facial façade. And, of course, we have landscaping on the second floor to also scale the building differently than just a traditional box. The second item we picked up on, I think there was a lot of discussion about the pork chop. To make a long story short, the pork chop is gone. It's consistent with the City's transportation plan to not have them. So, we will be increasing the site, if you will, into CalTran's property. The curve is going to be a smaller radius and will pick that up in the sidewalk, and it effectively increases the plaza area. The second-level deck, there was conversation about perhaps public accessing that. We preferred not to do that for security reasons. The second deck is for hotel guests, access to maintain the plants, and there are some rooms with balconies up there. It's really a hotel private area, but humans will still be up there, and there's adequate exiting for that without a second stair to the ground. The sidewalk dimension on El Camino is clearly 12 feet. The El Camino design standards talk about setting the building against the setback. We're a little further back, another six feet or so, with landscaping, so we have a 12-foot sidewalk, landscaping, building on El Camino, which is a relatively short amount of frontage for us. It's a skinny site. I talked about the proximity of the building on the north property line. I think we just weren't clear about that in the first round. And item 7 was the same thing. I think we've really softened up that northeast corner, where you really primarily see it driving south on El Camino, with green wall, step building, glass, and particularly the high roof that breaks up and gives a lot of shadow to the building. Item 9 -- or item 8, I should say, and 10 -- is about the café that we've proposed. The café is really a functional element of the hotel, which is pretty common today, to have a small coffee/juice amenity bar that, in this case, will be open to the public through the plaza. We're talking about a small blade sign on El Camino to say you're here at the café. There's tables, chairs, umbrellas, screened off from both streets with planter walls and glass rail to try to reduce the noise. But, the café is public, so there is no restriction other than operating hours. We don't know what those are yet, but most likely it will be closed by somewhere, nine o'clock-ish, eight o'clock. We're not restricting public access. And the entrance was a discussion. The entrance to the café is off of the plaza, which is probably 15 feet off of the El Camino sidewalk. The plaza itself has grown a bit because of the change in the pork chop, but it's a contained area with alternating stones that are on the color board that we brought. Tables, chairs, more potted plants that we don't show, but pots that can be moved around. The top of service we have on the plaza are, it's a posted-up plaza deck so we can route irrigation lines underneath it, so we can move pots around without trenching and digging things back up. A flexible, really, plaza deck, that's hard deck, drains fast, drains well, and is flexible in how we move things around on top it based on what's going on in the hotel. Another comment was on our driveway, which we have moved down on the furthest part of Hansen that we can get. We've tightened that up a bit. Staff felt the same way. Where vehicles are coming in, making a right off of Hansen. The distance of the driveways there are quite good from the corner, from a traffic interference point of view, and we've re-delineated the street for the bike path, new delineator signage, green stripes, etc., that are required by the City for the bike path -- that does continue down Hansen. Parking issues. Well, to make a long story short, there is no parking on the site that you'll see. It's all underground. There are two levels. There are 82 parking stalls on the site, and with valet parking, we can easily get to, really easily get to 100 cars here. We want to manage the parking. It's appropriate for a hotel in this area to drop your car or self-park. It depends on the guest and how long they are staying, etc. Currently and historically, the parking count here, or the parking demand, has been about 70 percent for the 42 rooms that are here. The study, based on all kinds of traffic data nationally, points to the same statistic, so, we think having 82 cars plus the ability to grow it in the aisles is appropriate, where there won't be any backup or parking on the street. The other comment was on interior spaces. I think the location of the café, the location of the fitness center, the size of the conference room, which actually is kind of small, but for this type of City of Palo Alto Page 39 facility, at a 100 rooms, it's more than adequate. It's really more impromptu meetings, not a planned conference center or convention center. It's not really designed for that. The fitness center we deliberately put on El Camino to have some activity there, trying to meet with the design guidelines of, in this case, seeing people going nowhere on a bike. I think I covered the primary comments from last time. We've done some shifting since you saw it last, some design refinements. Colors, proportions; that continues to gel as we're going into technical documents, so there's always shifts of joints and stucco edges, etc. We've done some of that. I don't think it's hard to reconcile that unless you compare drawing to drawing. The corner element of the building is probably the last element, which is basically a stucco structure with posted-out metal screening to give it a lot of shadow and a different look, if that will turn the sun as it moves around the building. We haven't finalized the pattern. It's really a custom metal pattern. By now, we're talking about bubbles, different size holes that will let the light through. You'll kind of see more shadow than you will stucco color behind it. That was the intention of the corner, giving you... Chair Furth: Thank you. The previous speaker said it would be nice if I stopped people at the end of a sentence. My experience is, the sentences don't end sometimes. But, we will ask you. Thank you very much for your presentation, and I'm sure if we have questions, we can get some more details. I don't have any speaker cards. Is there anybody...? Or do I have a speaker card? Mr. Sing. You have one. You have one speaker card. Chair Furth: I do have a speaker card. Great. Mr. Levinsky? You'll have three minutes. Mr. Levinsky: Good morning. It's still morning, Board members. [spells name]. You received a letter from Becky Saunders, who is moderator of the Ventura area neighborhood, and I share her concerns about parking. And to just kind of understand the parking calculations, it looks like there are various deductions that have been occurring here. We heard the café will be public, and so, I think there is a concern that it's getting discounted or something in the calculations, so it's not being fully parked as it would be a public café. Also, I joke I'm the only person in Palo Alto who has ever read a TDM. There is a company that you go to, and you put in your name and address, and they do a few things, and out comes a 40- page TDM. In there, there's lots of boilerplate about how you're going to appoint somebody to reduce your traffic, and talk to your employees, and things like that. But we've never heard that any of these work. We've never seen any studies that show that they accomplish things. So, when hotels start talking about reducing parking through TDM's and things like that, does that really translate into removing the parking requirements, or...reducing the parking, or, will the employees be parking across El Camino, as happens with Stanford, as happens with other businesses, and so, intruding on the neighborhood. I would ask that really good parking studies be done that look at the effectiveness of...the reasonableness of any reductions that are given. One other thing is about, thank you for your thoughts about the looks of buildings, and all that. When you drive south on El Camino, you're going to see this big wall, and I think if you go back to the rendering that was shown, the part that's pointing towards the hills seem pretty unadorned. It's going to look like a big, white wall with some windows in it. I'm hoping that we can...There's nothing else around of that scale that's going to interfere, so either some robust trees or some good thinking might help solve problems like that. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you, Mr. Levinsky. Anybody else? Seeing none, I'll bring it back here. Okay, I have some questions for staff, but we'll start with questions for the applicant. Mr. Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. For the architect, please. I'm trying to understand. On the third and fourth floor of the building, you seem to have, what I would have thought are balconies, but they seem to be setbacks from the building outside of the guestrooms on both of the facades facing El Camino Real and Hansen Way. What is the function of those spaces? Mr. Heilbronner: The upper, upper floors are basically step-back, but the space in front of them are roofs, not balconies. That's a particular discussion with our client on sale-ability or usability of balconies. We City of Palo Alto Page 40 have a limited amount, so we thought it would be best that the larger spaces on the second floor, but not the third and fourth floor. It's really a programmatic. Vice Chair Baltay: Same question on the second floor, further deep on Hansen Way. There's a large open, what I would have called a balcony, again, over the entry courtyard. What is the function of that space, again? Mr. Heilbronner: The porte-cochere is strictly what it's intended. It's a weather-covering device for cars coming into the site, but high enough for fire trucks to traverse underneath it. Basically, it's a reflective white roof on the roof of the porte-cochere. Vice Chair Baltay: And in this case, all these guest rooms are looking at this reflective white roof. Is that right? Mr. Heilbronner: That's correct. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Chair Furth: And is this a partially-landscaped reflective white roof? Mr. Heilbronner: No. Chair Furth: No. The landscaping is all on the level below. It shows it as being on top of the porte- cochere. Mr. Heilbronner: Landscaping is on the second... Chair Furth: That's not the porte-cochere. Sorry. That's the other. That's the cover of the plaza I'm looking at. Mr. Heilbronner: Right. Landscaping is on the second level. Chair Furth: And the graveled roofs or the white roofs are on the top of the second level, top of the third level. Is that right? Mr. Heilbronner: Correct. Third and four...right. Chair Furth: Right. Mr. Heilbronner: Hmm-hmm. And, of course, the roof at large on the top. Chair Furth: Right. And could you explain to me how you arrived at the dimensions and color of the cantilevered element that faces El Camino? Mr. Heilbronner: The eyebrows -- as I call them -- were basically, when you're designing things and sketching things, you're looking at proportions and how things feel. The wing shape of it, the sloped undersigned and how far it cantilevers, I have to say that it is a feeling, and a pencil, using your aesthetic values, if there's any left. Chair Furth: After we're finished? Is that the implication? Mr. Heilbronner: No, I'm just...Just left as a career. The color is, those are also, you go through a number of color renditions, particularly with your client who has more emotional feelings about color as the owner of the building than everyone else, so, it's a back-and-forth design thing. City of Palo Alto Page 41 Chair Furth: Thank you. Any other questions of the architect? I'm seeing a lot of no's here. I had a question for staff. At this site now, because of the low profile of the existing accommodations, I see a lot of trees behind it, right? Big trees. Remind me how the rear of the site works, who property those trees are on, what that alley-ish space back there is. Mr. Sing: I believe you're referring to the redwood trees on sheet DR-2.1. It does show those trees. Those are on the adjacent property, and those are to remain and be protected. Chair Furth: What is the adjacent property? Is that access to...? That's private, with access to buildings? I mean, it's roadway, right? Or an alley? But not public? It's a driveway? Mr. Sing: I believe, yeah, that's not a public way. Chair Furth: A parking lot/driveway. Okay. Those would stay. Well, since we're on sheet DR-2.1, and to prove that I read the fine print, it says: All sidewalks, curb and gutter in public right-of-way shall be violated to the property frontage. What is "violating" the curb? Mr. Sing: I think those notes have to do with construction, but maybe the applicant... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Well, we won't spend a lot of time on it, but if you could check. I used to be a lawyer for a building department. I do not recall us asking them to violate sidewalks, but if you could check that, I... It may not be what we wanted. Okay. Board Member Thompson: I actually have a quick question for the applicant. If you could just briefly walk us through the material. You have two kinds of cement plaster...? Mr. Heilbronner: Two kinds of, two different paint colors on cement plaster, correct. Board Member Thompson: That's the white on the band. Mr. Heilbronner: The middle band. Board Member Thompson: The middle band. Mr. Heilbronner: That's correct. Board Member Thompson: That's just one story. Mr. Heilbronner: Mm-hmm. Board Member Thompson: And the white is two stories... Mr. Heilbronner: Correct. Board Member Thompson: ...give or take. There's a parapet, so, a bit more. Mr. Heilbronner: Mm-hmm. Board Member Thompson: And then, there are three metal panels. One is the gray that is the band underneath. Mr. Heilbronner: The gray is the lower, first-floor level, which are metal panels that clip on the building. Board Member Thompson: Okay. City of Palo Alto Page 42 Mr. Heilbronner: And then, there is the screen mesh that is metal #2. Or, I'm sorry, whatever metal that is. [crosstalk] Mr. Heilbronner: And then there's the windows storefront, the aluminum, anodized gray/silver color that we're listing as one of the metals. Board Member Thompson: What about the graphite mica? Metal... Mr. Heilbronner: Yes. The last one is the larger eyebrow. That's still a metal panel, but the darkest of the colors. Sort of a charcoal. Board Member Thompson: Okay. And then, how do the three type of glazing go together? Mr. Heilbronner: Well, you have typical dual glazing, relatively clear glass that you see through into the guest rooms and the storefront. Then there's some opaque panels, spandrel panels, where we're using glass, but you can't see through it because there's structure behind it. Board Member Thompson: Where does that happen? Mr. Heilbronner: You'll see that in the darker, like, in some of the darker...The lower bands down here at the base of the building. The lowest...my mouse isn't working here. The lowest level of the bottom windows, so that band, where you would have tables against the windows, we don't like to have through glass, so there's basically drywall finished on the inside, and spandrel glass that appears like glass, but you can't see through. It's all around town. The other glass is just basically clear single-pane glass on top of the screen walls at the plaza. As a sound barrier. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Sound barrier, so their height is like... Mr. Heilbronner: The screen wall is about 36 inches and the glass goes up to about give, so it's another two feet, five-and-a-half feet. To block sound. Board Member Thompson: Sound barrier goes just to five-and-a-half feet. Mr. Heilbronner: Pardon? Board Member Thompson: The top of the sound barrier is just five-and-a-half feet? Mr. Heilbronner: Mm-hmm. About my height, right here. Somewhere right here. A little shorter than me. Sorry. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Heilbronner: Am I allowed to bring up a...? Can I help with one item? Chair Furth: You may... Mr. Heilbronner: If I just, real quick? Chair Furth: I will give you that privilege. Mr. Heilbronner: It's really relevant more than a parking study. We have built-in parking studies now. We did the Hilton Garden Inn here. Half the parking underground that we built is never used. Ever, ever used. The hotel has been open now for close to two years. That whole level of parking is not used. A City of Palo Alto Page 43 project that we did in Redwood City, the courtyard on Highway 101, same thing. Now, they are above- level parking, but half used. And we just finished one recently in Burbank; same thing. Downtown, whole block, half the parking is being used. Half. And I'm talking when it's fully occupied. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Heilbronner: It's good data. Chair Furth: It is interesting data, and at some future date, if this persists, doubtless, neighborhoods who have parking problems will be coming to use those resources when the City changes its approach. I'm going to take the liberty of going first because I have some design questions, and my colleagues are better qualified than I am, and I'm interested in their comments. First of all, thank you so much for continuing to work on this project, and my thanks also to the City for, I think, making this a much more useful site, both for the property owners and the neighborhood. It's going to be a much better corner for pedestrians, bicyclists, for car drivers. That's all good. I have a couple of concerns. I think they are all easily addressable, but they need to be addressed. I don't see adequate seating for people walking down El Camino, as opposed to customers of your café or hotel. This is supposed to have pedestrian amenities that don't require buying a cup of coffee, so I expect to see more of that, perhaps on Hansen frontage, too, although I'm less...It would be good, but I'm less concerned about that. El Camino is a more traveled way and we want to encourage that with this great intensification of use on this site. With respect to the café, I'm concerned still about the access. It looks a little awkward and tight, walking into that narrow doorway right in the dark-ish corner. One possible approach...The goal is to make sure that the general public knows it's there and begins to use it as they are wandering buy, or want a break from their office, or something. One possible approach is signage, so that as you walk back and forth, you see it, you think, and you go, "Oh, around the corner, there is a café." But I think that's important. It was clearly important to the City Council when they were looking at this. I find the fourth floor window alignments confusing. The windows are much bigger and they don't quite seem to make sense in relationship to the lower floors. And finally, the eyebrow element. These are very bushy eyebrows. I find them, at least in the drawings that you've given us, too big and too dark. We hear over, and over, and over again, a couple of things. One is that people on this Board -- and in our guidelines -- want a top to a building, and people who live in this area, or live in the town, want buildings to minimize their imposing- ness. There's got to be a better way of putting that. We have a really big cantilever on the Epiphany Hotel downtown, which predates the current iteration of the, current use of the building. And it's unfortunate from every angle, in my opinion, including the upper floors of city hall. When I look at these drawings, you have a lot of terrace in back, you have space for some really good landscaping, you have this open plaza, and then, you plop down this big, heavy, dark element at the top, and that seems to undermine -- to me -- to undermine a lot of the good you've been doing. I would want that modified. I look forward to hearing what my colleagues have to say. That's interesting data about the parking. I had an operational question. If I come over to meet somebody at the hotel -- this is directed to the applicant -- can I leave my car with valet parking? Mr. Patel: Yes. Chair Furth: Okay, and if I come over to have a cup a coffee and meet a friend, I could do that, too. Mr. Patel: Yeah. Chair Furth: Thank you. All right. Personally, I'm very fond of valet parking, especially the kind that doesn't charge. Who would like to go next? Peter. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you very much for your additional presentations you gave us this morning. It's really quite helpful to have the multitude of eye-level perspectives of the building. We've not invested as much time into this as you have and it's really helpful, even if they're sketchy and not full renderings. I would encourage you to keep providing those for us. Many of my questions are answered just looking at those renderings. The project before us this morning, if you were listening, suffered from a lack of detail City of Palo Alto Page 44 and inspiration on the architectural, we think. And I think your project, by contrast, is doing too much. I'm not sure if that's coming from the architect or the client. For example, take the façade along El Camino Real. From the bottom, you'll have a heavy metal, wavy pattern. Then, you've got to step back a series of portal frames with a plaster base. Then, a row of windows, then a detailed, deeply-recessed element with heavy pillars. And then, the tall, the roof (inaudible). Five or six different architectural vocabularies. And I could go around the building and find that almost everywhere. I mean, that's not including the detailed concrete/glass element you are proposing. It's just too much. It's not refined. It's not really sophisticated. It just feels like too much. I think if you could just restrain your hand a little bit and try to limit it a little bit, think more about how these things merge together. I don't necessarily share Wynne's sense that a large roof overhang is inappropriate, but it needs to somehow be working with the rest of the building. You've got four or five different ins-and-outs and ups-and-downs and coming-out. It's not doing it, for me, at least. I'm very concerned that all of these terraces and stuff are not activated. There's not people. There's not landscaping. And we're trying to make El Camino Real a busy, urban corridor, where we are also trying to have tall, three- and four-story buildings along that corridor. What makes that succeed historically around the world is to have life, activity, in those spots, those balconies, those windows. When you take a guest bedroom and set it back five feet with a hard reflective roof, there's never, ever going to be anybody there, any sign of life there. You've taken it away from the community, forever. When you're building on the second floor, you have a wonderful guest terrace that would really be attractive, and guests will really like that. I go up a level and it's not there. I don't have anything. And especially on the El Camino Real frontage, with this very dramatic roof overhang, and these pillars...I was just thinking to myself, man, I would love to stay in that room. Except I wouldn't because I can't go out there, I can't really experience it. I can't step out and look up El Camino, and look down. On the other side, I can't step out, and from there, you have a view of the hills. It's really quite nice on the Hansen Way side, with the southern exposure. It could be lovely to have a... Come back from a business meeting and sit outside for a second. And you've got the perfect opportunity to do it, and yet, you're not doing it. That's what activates the building from the outside. It enhances life on the inside. When I come down to the corner plaza, I find the same problem at a different problem. Yes, you have a café there, but the café is so successfully tucked away and hidden. The door is just a single piece off to the side. I really would have to know it's there to feel comfortable going there. I want to see the café curve with the roof element above it. I want to see it somehow have evidence that there's tables and places to make it comfortable for everybody, not just from the inside the hotel going out, but from outside, looking at it. These are details that can be adjusted. But, what I'm troubled by is the consistent lack of your embracing that idea. That corner, that plaza, that café, is also a public space. Yes, it's private; you own the land. But, it's something that we're looking for. You're getting a 50-foot setback adjustment. We're looking for you to help the community have some presence on that corner, some place where it feels comfortable to sit, to meet a friend for coffee. And I just don't see that in the design. And even if that's not going to be your operating intention, I think you should design the space such that that is possible, and that means making a coffee shop that addresses the courtyard, and designing the courtyard so it's comfortable that way. As I look through your drawings, the other set of questions I have -- and I just have notes all over the place -- is about details. I take your larger corner element -- the three-story piece with, again, the concrete and glass element -- and where you have these windows deeply recessed, how is that detailed? Is that material wrapped into the thickness of the wall? Or is it sort of like, I can see on your renderings here where it's just a two-dimensional surface and there's some sort of a metal soffit, or something. When you do that deeply-recessed window, it's all about the details. It's all about how that surface is treated. On your second floor, you have this curving parapet wall, metal panels, but there's got to be a cap of some kind on top of that. Your detail shows just a minimal sheet metal piece, and I think it visually needs more. I think you should show some detailing and give some more thought to how that's going to work. I won't go through all the details around the building, but I found that there was a bunch of places where I just wanted to see a little more thought into integrating these components. On the one hand, I'd like to see you reduce the number of pieces; on the other hand, detail them a little bit more carefully, perhaps. I'll pass on making any comments on the materials now. I just saw the board for the first time this morning. I'm eager to hear what everyone else has to say. Thank you. Chair Furth: Osma. City of Palo Alto Page 45 Board Member Thompson: Hi, there. Thank you for your presentation on the project. I have to agree with a lot of what my board members have said already. I'll kind of go in the order that I wrote my notes down. One thing I noticed is that on your southerly elevations, which are sort of the southeast and southwest, I don't see a lot of shading, so, in terms of efficiency, there's...I talked about shading on the previous project as well, but I have to emphasize why I feel like it's very important to talk about it. Because in terms of building efficiency, that side is going to get a lot of sunlight, and it will add to your heat gain. At the same time, you do have a very, sort of plain-ish façade on that side. And I understand it's not the front and center part, but at the same time, that still is a street frontage, and people are going to walk by there, and I think that side deserves some visual interest in terms of dimension, scale, relief, so that it doesn't feel like a wall, that it could have something that comes out, whether the windows recessed, or there's something that sticks out that shades. And that could maybe tie better to some of these other architectural elements that you're already putting in here, like this big shading element at the top. Which I agree, at the moment, feels a little alien. The relationship that it has with the rest of the building is a little unclear because it happens once, and that really awesome sloping form doesn’t happen anywhere else. I think there's an opportunity here, where you can sort of think about, what is the design relationship and the design concept that you're trying to push here? Because I think what's happening, it's getting lost a little bit. And what I mean when I say "design concept" is, what I really care about is a relationship that is derived from the massing and the materials and how it relates to us as humans, not just visually, but even operationally. This really fun, metal mesh, like, I really like that material. I think it adds a lot of detail with, you know, sort of an efficient way to do it. It happens here, and then, I think in this render, it's missing at the top, but I see it in the other renders, so I'm assuming there is more of it on top, per your material board. It does happen in these places, but I feel like it's such an important part that the other places that it happens, like behind the green wall, it kind of gets lost. It would be really nice to have this really hide-and-seek relationship with this really awesome material, and this otherwise plain material, but really make that what your building is about. Right now, it's kind of one element that you're putting here. It's nice, but it doesn't tie in as well as it could with the rest of the building. In terms of the perforation pattern, the (inaudible), I do like a lot of the other patterns that you've shown here, as well, that add a bit more angles and a bit more dimensionality, so I would encourage you to explore something other than the bubbles. I've seen the bubbles around a little bit, but, again, it's sort of your choice. And it also will depend on how you choose to better integrate it with the rest of the building. At the same time, in terms of the palate of the building, I see white, light gray, dark gray. These colors are kind of on the cold side, which I know is pretty popular now. I think can make the project feel a little stark, so I would encourage considering adding color in some way, to sort of add a little bit more life to the project, and greenery is one way to do it, if you decide to do that more. If you decide not to do that, then maybe adding color might be an option to do it. Or, maybe something that kind of brings a little bit more warmth to the building. I agree with Board Member Baltay, that on the Hansen side, there are these views, and a lot of opportunities. It's also sunny on that side. It would be great to have a balcony or patio, something that actually embraces that condition that you have, where you have great views, you have great sunlight. It's a nice opportunity on there. I do appreciate the other landscaping elements that you’ve put in here. The green walls are a nice touch, and the other landscaping on the patio is nice to see. I do agree the coffee shop does feel hidden. It was a little hard to find, actually, on here. I'm getting a little confused. This is my first time looking at the project, also, so I apologize for that. But, yeah, it would be nice to have that area seem a little bit more welcoming to the public. I'll leave it at that for now. Chair Furth: Thank you. Alex? Board Member Lew: Thank you for your presentation. I'm largely supportive of your project. You've made all the big design moves. I think you've done well. I think my comment here...Here are my comments. One is we do have Rebecca Sanders' comment about the parking requirement. I think that's at the discretion of the director and not the Board. I think I want to say, in general, a lot of the hotels have, if you go in the middle of the day, the parking lots are empty, almost empty. That's my observation to you on visiting the site. That's actually when the staff are there, like housekeeping staff, and also, if there happen to be customers of the café, I would think they would be there in the middle of the day, at this given site. I think it can all work. I think there's also some...She had a comment about a restaurant use. I City of Palo Alto Page 46 did want to make a comment that on El Camino, we have several different zonings. We do have, like, neighborhood commercial, and service commercial, and we also have some downtown zoning for the California Avenue area. I think the different zones are intended to address neighborhood needs, as well as broader community service needs. I think this was zoned CF and not CN, and I think that was done on purpose, so I don't think that we really have neighborhood commercial driving this particular zoning requirement. On the massing of the project, I'm generally largely supportive of the project. I think the ground floor base and the stepped-back massing of the upper floors is working really well, I think. On the colors, I think I shared the concern with the colors that my other board members have mentioned. I think with regard to the design elements, Peter, you're saying there are too many. In a way, I disagree, because I think on large buildings, actually more is better. I think architects tend to try to make everything too uniform on buildings this scale, but I completely agree with you about the merging of the different elements. I think that's what I was struggling with when I was looking at the plans yesterday. I think some refinement could be made, and my view is that keeping all your design elements, but just looking at how they all intersect with each other, and maybe trimming back the (inaudible) on El Camino slightly. I think there's just some little tweaking that could go on to make this, to make it work better than it is. Thank you for the landscaping. I think you added some trees along the side property line. They're not showing that well in the renderings, but there are, like, I think on the, on the Fish Market side, I think there are evergreen podocarpus, and then you've got some green screen with ivy closer to the street. I was wondering if you would show the green screen, maybe continuous. I think instead of just individual panels, maybe considering possibly making it more continuous. Also, with ivy, you don't necessarily need green screen. It depends on the vine. I'm not sure exactly which species of ivy you have. Some of them can stick directly to the stucco, although they will cause some damage. Other vines, you do need the green screen. Like, twining vines, you do need the green screen. It seems like you don't have space to add trees up near the front. And then, with regard to...Oh, also on landscaping, we do have a native plant finding, and I think you're meeting the minimum requirements for that. I think you're showing a lot of...You are showing a lot of pittosporum and Chinese fringe flower shrubs. I think I would argue that maybe there are native options for that. I think it's a little tricky because there is sun and shade, they are in sun and shade, and that makes it a little bit harder to find a native plant. Also, I think if you're trying to keep things low, I think that also makes it harder because a lot of native shrubs can be, like, 10 feet high, which I think is too big for this particular location. And then, lastly, I think, on the materials, I think you are showing the perforated...it's not perforated. The custom metal panel up on the mechanical screen. I think that can work. I do want to caution you, though. We did do that on one project, at the Pavilion. We approved a perforated metal screen, and you can see right through it and see all the equipment. On that particular building, it's an old building, with very narrow floor plate, so the mechanical screen is close to the edge of the building. You have a much wider building, so the screen may not be that visible from the streets. But I do want to caution you about that. But I do like the metal, that particular custom metal panel at the corner. I think that that's working well. I do support the previous comments about making the café more visible from the street. I think I also do support Osma's comments about sun shading. I know it's come up before on other projects, like the Hilton Garden Inn, where the owner really didn't want to do any sun screening and wanted to rely on high-performance glazing. So, I do understand that's an issue with some building owners. That's where I’m at. I'm generally in favor of all the big design views on this particular project. I'm happy to see some revisions come back to the Board. Chair Furth: Robert. Board Member Gooyer: Okay. I think I sort of fall a little bit in between my fellow Board members' opinion. I can sort of see, I guess, what you were going for. Let's face it. This is a 40-mile-an-hour street and you want to catch some attention, and this is the type of building that will do that. I think the problem is, is that...I understand the whole concept of the -- and I think you carry it to almost the extreme here, the whole base, middle and top idea -- but some of the things, I think you have to understand that this community is very particular or very attuned to the size and mass of a building like this. You've heard from a previous discussion this morning that, you know, putting an eyebrow that big and making it that dark just stands out incredibly. I'm not saying it's a bad design the way it is, but the way it's done in this particular location, it goes back to the whole concept of the building fitting into its City of Palo Alto Page 47 environment. I think this is just...There's too much. This is what I agree with Peter on, is that it seems like you've done, you know, you've spent all the money, so to speak, on the corner, so there's eight different varieties of textures, like you said. The whole idea of using the perforated screen for screening the equipment on the roof. I think that's totally a waste of money because I know that screening isn't cheap, and I agree that that's not something you want to focus on. I'd just as soon make that disappear. If you're going to put an eyebrow on the Hansen side, it needs to be bigger than that, or something. It's like, if you're going to do something, then do it to the proper proportion. It seems like the one on El Camino is too big and the other one is too small, if you're going to do it that way. It also is a situation where about one-third of the elevation on Hansen, and then the elevation on El Camino, are way over the top, and the rest of it is a relatively bland, rectangular box, which makes the previous one we had actually look exciting. If you're going to do that, a building like this is a four-sided building, and I think it needs to be addressed as such. Like I said, there's so much going on at the corner that I think that needs to be toned down, and I think the rest of it needs to be enhanced. I agree completely that you've got all kinds of opportunity for balconies and terraces and you're not using them. The roof of that porta-cochere would be a perfect example of that. All you're doing is for those rooms there, looking at a big, white, reflective spot, I agree. Which is probably the most cost-effective thing to do, but I don't think it really enhances the whole idea of making this a communal area. As far as the café or the cafeteria, I agree that that's probably going to be an asset. I mean, I guess probably the main reason...Because, I mean, at least the literature I was reading, that we were given, is that part of it is based on the parking requirement, not so much on the reality of what's going to happen. I think it needs to be brought out into the corner. If we're going to try and make El Camino at all more of a walkable area, it has to be enhanced rather than, you know, stuffed somewhere in the corner. I would say that's probably it for the moment. I pretty much agree with most of the other things that the other people have said. Chair Furth: Thank you. I have a question for staff. Are there zoning or code implications for using those upper-level roof/balcony spaces? Can they be landscaped? Can they be open as amenities to the hotel rooms without causing problems under our code? Is it the applicant's choice, basically? Mr. Sing: Yeah, there's not a zoning issue with that. I mean, there's building codes that they have to address. Chair Furth: Could the applicant give us any insights into your thinking about this? Mr. Heilbronner: I'm sorry, what's the question on the balconies? Chair Furth: Using the upper floor balcony-like spaces, in fact, as accessible areas and/or planting areas, landscaping areas? Mr. Heilbronner: They would have to be pots of some kind but not built-in landscape planters. The upper part of this building is a wood frame, is wood-frame construction, so the floor-to-floor height is just at, I'll say minimal for a hotel. And because of the floor framing system, we don't have the thickness to create the waterproofing system that we'd like to have, that we can't have on the second floor because the second floor is concrete. It's a podium deck. So, one of the ingredients to not have balconies is the complexity of waterproofing those decks, which are effectively on spaces below. We don't have the luxury of height to do that. We have a 50-foot height limit, which is not bendable. Chair Furth: We're familiar with the height limit, yeah. Mr. Heilbronner: Right. That's one of the ingredients that went into those upper spaces, would not be...That doesn't preclude having pots of landscaping there, which... Chair Furth: With light soil mix and careful watering. Mr. Heilbronner: Right. And the roof color is being generated by sustainable, by criteria of the state building code, so, it's a green building. It's not about our choice to have a lighter... City of Palo Alto Page 48 Chair Furth: Reflective. Mr. Heilbronner: ...reflective roof. We can tone it down to more of a beige-y color, but it can't be traditionally the darker roof color. That's just something we're all dealing with in architecture with respect to, when you look out...And you're stepping the building back, trying to carve the building, and you have a roof, and then you have windows, and you're going to see it. There are these Catch-22's in design. Chair Furth: Thank you. Yes, Osma. Board Member Thompson: I was going to say, I think the issue is not the roof is white, necessarily. I think we all agree that it's sustainably responsible to make that white. I think more of it is that there is this open space that is front of a room that is an opportunity, both for the person who is in the room, and for people on the street to look up and see activity, or to see green. I think that's really what we're getting at. It's not really about changing the color of the roof. Unless you guys disagree. Mr. Heilbronner: Yeah, well, I mean, as the views are to the north, that you talk about, which adjoining us completely is a black parking lot. So, there are heat gain issues and views that aren't that pleasant everywhere you go. It's a dilemma with placing a building... [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: Okay, could we hear from the owner on their thinking on this? Your thinking. Mr. Patel: On balconies, or...? Chair Furth: On the use of those spaces and those... Mr. Patel: A couple things. I think, on El Camino, in our experience, operating, when guests come, they don't want to be on El Camino. They don't want...They just automatically associate El Camino traffic noise with being the noisiest part of the hotel. Very often we will get requests, "Hey, just set me back, apart from there." As far as the idea of people wanting to use balcony space in these areas, I mean, to the...I guess to the west, there's just large redwood trees. On El Camino, I'm not sure that anybody wants to use...I mean, we're providing it on the second floor. I'm not sure how many people are going to demand [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: What about the Hansen frontage? Mr. Patel: On Hansen? I think on the second floor, we've got balconies. I mean, some of this is just, I think, a cost issue on the third and fourth floors. I mean, we can't...I don't think we can provide balcony space for each guest room. And then, I don't know about ADA issues on...? No. Okay. Some of it has to do with cost on the third and fourth floors. I think... Chair Furth: Appreciate it. Mr. Patel: One other comment. I know we're very focused on, like, activating the space. I mean, there's got to be some sort of privacy for hotel guests. I know the second floor initially...I don't know if it was Council or ARB, suggested activating the second floor for public use, or even just hotel guest use. It was a common space. When people come back from work, they just want some sort of common space. I think we've created the plaza space, and then, on the interior, sort of a common meet-up space, as well, to kind of keep all of the common activity on the first floor, so as to not disturb guests on the other floors. Chair Furth: Any other questions of the owner? Board Member Lew: Just one last comment, though, on the balcony issues. On wood-framed buildings, if you tried to do a roof deck, you can do it the cheap way, like coatings. City of Palo Alto Page 49 Chair Furth: Those are the ones that fall down. Board Member Lew: Well, yeah, the (inaudible) coatings. So, it's kind of high-maintenance. It does require maintenance every year and some owners don't want to do it. And then, if you do it the more expensive way with, like, pedestal pavers, you're adding a lot of weight. I forget offhand. It might be like 15 pounds per square foot, or something. It's a lot, and it's relatively thick. You're adding... Mr. Heilbronner: An inch and a half. Board Member Lew: Yeah, but you're trying to make it, if you're trying to make it level, right? There's a paver, and then the pedestal. Mr. Heilbronner: There's different ways to... Board Member Lew: Yeah, there are different ways. Mr. Heilbronner: It's not the weight. It's the composition of the cookie to allow it to get the right materials. Let it drain properly. Not putting a deck right on top of plywood, or trying to have a walkable and waterproof surface all in one. It's a constructability issue for sure on the upper floors. It's not weight, or a code, or accessibility. It's composition. Chair Furth: Okay. Peter, do you have an additional comment? Vice Chair Baltay: Well, I just want to be clear because you've come back before us -- I looked at the record -- since 2015. I'm sure you want to get your building approved. You have heard from the Board consistently about the café, about activating El Camino. You've heard from City Council. They've said the same sort of things to you. I'm not hearing you come back to us, saying, "Yeah, we're going to look at." You're telling me it can't be done. I build buildings for a living. You can put balconies on wood-framed buildings. There are many ways to do it. You can put plants there that aren't just a pot. We're looking for a back-and-forth here, not just being told something technical. If you could just try to work with us, your building really will be approvable. Alex is right. This is a handsome building, and it's got a lot of potential, and it will be a great addition to the town. Chair Furth: Okay. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you, Peter. Thank you to the applicants. I had a couple comments on the landscape plan that I forgot. One is, it's very helpful if the plant list is something bigger than agate type. I can just barely read it as it stands, but if you need to put it on a separate sheet, please do. And, I think a number of those plants don't, particularly the bushes and trees, don't particularly meet our standards. I mean, I know we've got extra constraints on street trees, but these are not either local or good habitat plants. Our research indicates that Berkeley sedge is native, by the way. But, in any event, I'd like some larger plants that meet the goals of our findings, if that's feasible. And I echo Osma's comments on the colors. I think one of the characteristics of the southern part of El Camino and of the town has been that it's leafier, quieter, definitely funkier, and one of the things is its rather soft colors, it's rather warmer colors. A very cold, flat gray/white palate -- and we just got these material boards today -- I don't think is particularly desirable. Okay, anybody else want closing words before we completely confuse the applicant? I hope you've gotten some clear understanding of our thinking. Board Member Gooyer: I just want to add one thing. I want to agree with my two fellow board members here. I'm not a real fan of somebody coming up and saying, "No, we can't do that," if three out of the five of us here think that it's something at least worth investigating. It may be a little bit more difficult, but, I mean, I’m sure we've all...I've designed it, I'm sure a couple of my members here have done the same thing, so it's not a matter of it can't be done. Now, maybe it's more difficult. Whatever the case is, I City of Palo Alto Page 50 don't really care. But, as Peter was saying, your goal is to get past us, to a certain extent, or get our approval of it. And we have an understanding for what this community is looking for, so I think you need to work with us. I don't think we're being totally unreasonable, demanding some sort of amazing comments. No, I don't need the response... Mr. Heilbronner: I wasn't arguing. I was just pointing out... Board Member Gooyer: Okay. Chair Furth: Excuse me. Mr. Heilbronner: ...how we derived... [crosstalk] Board Member Gooyer: This doesn't need to be a discussion. I'm just making a point. Chair Furth: Time out, everybody. Thank you for your comments. Let me just go down quickly the list here, try to see where we have consensus, so you can understand what we're thinking about. Two of us commented that we'd like a different color palate. Three other conflicting or agreeing views on that? From the other three of you? Looks like a matter of indifference. Vice Chair Baltay: I support those comments. Chair Furth: Okay, so, that's a consensus, a majority, slight majority. I think there was a consensus on having a café that welcomed the general public along El Camino. People are nodding their heads on that one. Anybody disagree with me about the need for seating along some of these frontages, that's available to the public? Vice Chair Baltay: (inaudible) Chair Furth: No. Well. I dare you. People don't know what we say every time, although I know you do a lot of thinking about what we think about. I will tell you that part of the reason for wanting people out on those balconies and what-not is that it does enliven it. I also want landscape that is significant in size, and visible. Achieved in some way. I think of juncus as a very small plant. I think that's probably as much direction as we can give. Staff, do you have anything else? Ms. Gerhardt: There was some conversation about the eyebrows and the amount of textures. Chair Furth: There was. I think there was generally a consensus...the big moves, as Alex said, are well done, but that the other elements are not sufficiently integrated at the moment, and at least some of us think that there's too much eyebrow on El Camino, and maybe not a well-designed eyebrow on Hansen. Board Member Gooyer: The biggest concern with the eyebrow is not even so much the size of it. It's the color. It's that it's ultra-dark, which makes it stand out even more for a four-story building that is pushing the max. Chair Furth: A little too eye-catching. Board Member Thompson: Just to add onto that. I think it's also part of the conversation about integrating an architectural concept throughout the building, instead of just having it in one place. And I also kind of... I know two of us talked about shading... Chair Furth: Oh, right. City of Palo Alto Page 51 Board Member Thompson: ...on the southern side. Chair Furth: And I would support you in that. So, support for that approach. Board Member Thompson: That could kind of be part of that conversation, about integrating... Chair Furth: Well, it's probably... [Slight distortion in recording.] Chair Furth: ...not adding more enlightenment, but I think those are all helpful comments, and thank you all for them. Do we need a motion to continue to a date uncertain? Sheldon, is anything coming up in the environmental review that we should be thinking about between now and our next meeting? I know you haven't finished the documentation, but... Mr. Sing: I mean, we're still evaluating that. Chair Furth: ...what are the issues that have arisen? You've probably identified the issues by now. Mr. Sing: I mean, there's no traffic issues, the building is not eligible for historic listing. Chair Furth: It's under a plume? Or over a plume? A toxic plume? Mr. Sing: That is the case, but there is mitigation that we're looking at. Chair Furth: It can be handled. At the moment, you're expecting a negative declaration, so that everything that might cause a problem won't once the building is properly designed. All right. MOTION Chair Furth: Motion, please, to continue to a date uncertain. Vice Chair Baltay: I'll move that we continue this project to a date uncertain. Chair Furth: Is there a second. Board Member Gooyer: I'll second. Chair Furth: Motion by Baltay, second by Gooyer, to continue to a date uncertain. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. Hearing none, this project is continued to a date uncertain. MOTION PASSES 5-0. Chair Furth: Thank you for your continued work on this project. We look forward to seeing you again. That concludes our hearings for today. We have a subcommittee meeting, and we have two sets of minutes. Approval of Minutes 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Minutes of August 2, 2018. 6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 16, 2018. Chair Furth: Somebody want to make a motion on the minutes for August 2nd? City of Palo Alto Page 52 Board Member Thompson: I'll abstain from voting on the minutes. Chair Furth: You were not here? Board Member Thompson: And I haven't read them. Chair Furth: We can continue it for one more day. Vice Chair Baltay: I'll move that we approve the minutes from August 2nd. Board Member Lew: I have some comments on them. Chair Furth: All right. Is there a second, first of all? Board Member Gooyer: He had comments, you said. Board Member Lew: Okay, so, I have comments on August 2nd. On page 17, the reference to the night school at Stanford University. And it's not "night school" like daytime and night time. It's actually k-n-i-t... It's a person's... Chair Furth: It's the Knight Foundation. Board Member Lew: It's the Knight business school. Like Knight Ridder... Chair Furth: K-n-i... Board Member Lew: Yeah, k-n-i... Chair Furth: K-n-i-g-h-t. Board Member Lew: ...g-h-t. On August 16th minutes, on page 11, I made a reference to pleached trees, which is p-l-e-a-c-h-e-d. It's what they do in Paris, they prune the trees. Chair Furth: They whack the heck out of the elm trees. P-l-e-a-c-h-e-d. Sorry. Board Member Lew: Yes, pleached. Chair Furth: It's "peached" with an l. Board Member Lew: On page 18, there's a reference to Michael Harbour. I think that was misspelled as H-a-r-b-o-u-r. Chair Furth: What's the proper spelling? Board Member Lew: There's a "u," right? Chair Furth: Oh, sorry. Board Member Lew: That's all. I can make a... Chair Furth: Second? Board Member Lew: I will make a motion that we approve the minutes as amended. Vice Chair Baltay: I'll second that motion. City of Palo Alto Page 53 Chair Furth: Motion by Lew, second by Baltay, to approve the minutes as corrected, for August 2nd, 2018. Furth, Baltay, Lew, Gooyer: Aye. Chair Furth: Nay? Abstentions? Board Member Thompson: Abstain. Chair Furth: All right, so, 4-0-1. Motion passes. MOTION TO APPROVE AUGUST 2ND MINUTES PASSES 4-0-1, WITH BOARD MEMBER THOMPSON ABSTAINING FROM THE VOTE. Chair Furth: I would entertain a motion to approve the meeting minutes for August 16, 2018. Unless there are any amendments or corrections to suggest. Board Member Lew: Actually, one of the corrections I made was for August 16th. Chair Furth: We'll take that as read. Why don't you make the motion? Board Member Lew: Okay, I'll move that we approve the minutes for August 16th, 2018. Vice Chair Baltay: I'll second. Chair Furth: Baltay second. That's motion by Lew, second by Baltay, to approve the minutes with the previously-mentioned correction, for August 16, 2018. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Abstaining? Board Member Thompson: Abstain. Chair Furth: All right, so, 4-0-1, that motion passes. MOTION TO APPROVE AUGUST 16 MINUTES PASSES 4-0-1, WITH BOARD MEMBER THOMPSON ABSTAINING FROM THE VOTE. Subcommittee Items 7. 3945 El Camino Real [16PLN-00374]: 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 the Manager of Current Planning Jodie Gerhardt at jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Furth: Let's see, we're going to have a subcommittee item, which is item 3945. Remind who the subcommittee members are. Ms. Gerhardt: We have Board member Thompson and Board member Baltay. Chair Furth: Thank you. We will let you go ahead with that. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements City of Palo Alto Page 54 Chair Furth: Are there any board member questions, comments or announcements? Board Member Lew: Yeah. I've been putting together an updated list of awards that recent ARB projects have gotten. We are up to 12 awards now, just in the last couple of years. I will pass that on to all of you, as well as the Council and staff. Chair Furth: Thank you. It will be helpful, and a pleasure to see. Anything else? Board Member Thompson: I may be absent November 1st. Chair Furth: And I'm going to have to leave fairly promptly from the next meeting. I have a plane to catch, but not until one o'clock, do I have to leave. I'm puzzled, staff. Do we not adjourn...? We must adjourn the meeting now because we're going to run out of quorum. We will adjourn this meeting, and the subcommittee will meet with staff immediately following this meeting. Thank you all for your attendance and courtesy. Adjournment City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Members Alexander Lew, Osma Thompson and Robert Gooyer. Absent: None. Chair Furth: Good morning, and welcome to the October 18, 2018, meeting of the Architectural Review Board of the City of Palo Alto. Would you call the roll, please? [Roll Call] Oral Communications Chair Furth: Now is the time for oral communications from any member of the public wishing to speak on a matter not on the agenda, but within the scope of our responsibilities. I have no cards, and I see no members of the public who aren't affiliated with item 2, so we will note that. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Furth: Any agenda changes, additions or deletions, staff? Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: No. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative Future Agenda items. Chair Furth: ARB meeting schedule and attendance record. That's item 1. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, on the schedule, we do have two subcommittee items after the hearing. Chair Furth: Yes. Ms. Gerhardt: And then, you'll see for future agenda, we have the 3128 El Camino Real, which is exterior modifications to the McDonald's. That would be going forward. And then, we'll have a discussion on the comp plan policies as they relate to the ARB. There's also one other project, 744 San Antonio. There are some minor revisions to the approved Marriott that will be coming to you. The wireless projects shown here are not quite ready, so those will come on a different day. Thank you. Chair Furth: Great. And do you have a tentative date for our discussion of ex parte communications? ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: October 18, 2018 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 Ms. Gerhardt: I am still working with the attorneys and I will get you that date. Chair Furth: Thank you. All right, so, we have meetings scheduled on November 15th, December 6th and December 20th. Board Member Thompson: What's the study for? Chair Furth: Ex parte communications, talking to people outside the board meetings about their projects that are coming before the board or have already been heard by the board. Thanks. Board Member Thompson: Thanks. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 1841 Page Mill Road [18PLN-00213]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Master Sign Program With Sign Exceptions to Allow for new Monument Signs, Directory Signs, and Directional Signs. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15311 (Accessory Structures). Zone District: RP (Research Park). For More Information Contact Project Planner Garrett Sauls at Garrett.Sauls@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Furth: All right. We have one full-board public hearing item this morning. It concerns 1841 Page Mill Road, the corner of Page Mill and, I guess, (inaudible), turning into Foothill. It's quasi-judicial. It's a request for a recommendation on the applicant's request for approval of a master sign program with sign exceptions to allow for new monument signs, directory signs and directional signs. The applicant is Stanford University. The project is exempt from provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. The zoning district is the Research Park. Mr. Sauls? Garrett Sauls, Project Planner: Thank you, Chair Furth. My name is Garrett Sauls, I've been working with the City of Palo Alto Planning Department with Corporate Sign Company on this application. This application is here before you today. It's a roughly 10 1/2 acre site with about 185,000 square foot office and research and development park. The proposal is to improve and provide improvements to about 16 total signs on the site, as well as to modify an existing Master Sign Program that they have from 2003. On those applications are two existing monument signs, one along Page Mill Road, the other along Porter Drive, along the flagpole portion of the lot. There is one existing sign that has been approved through an exception on Page Mill Road that is adjacent to the vehicle entry sign. There are seven directory signs located within the complex that will serve to identify the tenant locations at the respective buildings, and there are six directional wayfinding signs that they are looking to provide improvements for, as well. The reason that we are here at the ARB for this application is that many of the signs that are proposed do not meet the sign code allowances. The challenges that really kind of impact this site is, given its size and nature, the sign code doesn't really accommodate for a lot of the signs that they are looking to do on the site that will provide more visibility for the tenants, as well as provide for better ability to travel through the site and be more noticeable, have better vehicular wayfinding signs. It ought to be easier to direct visitors to the site, throughout the site. Looking at the history of the site, back in 1985, the sign that was approved, the second tenant side along Page Mill Road was originally approved in 1985. In 1994, the site received its first Master Sign Program, and in 2003, they had modified that sign program to mostly what you're seeing here today in the packet. Looking at the site again, the biggest challenge -- like I mentioned earlier -- is that you have a very large sign, in the sign code, allows monument signs only about 27 square feet with a height of five feet in total. That makes it very difficult for vehicles passing along Porter Drive and Page Mill Road to notice the signs at that site. In addition, a lot of the adjacent properties have around two to three different tenants located on the site, whereas this one has more than a handful, so, fitting in all those different tenants on larger vehicular signs that are going to be visible from Page Mill Road and Porter Drive are going to be very challenging for those who are coming up to the site, to actually be able to notice what tenants are located there. Some of the key City of Palo Alto Page 3 considerations, again, is really just that the sign code, the reason that they're really applying for this application is that they're doing a site-wide change with multiple tenants. Usually, sign applications are respected to individual tenants. And then, in particular with this application, they are looking to exceed what is allowed within the Municipal Code for what you have in the sign code for directional signs, directory signs, and freestanding monument signs. The goals of what they are trying to establish here is to have standardized heights and dimensions for the sign, as well as to update the signage so that they can more accurately reflect some of the existing improvements that they are going to be doing on the site, to which the tenant and applicant can speak a little bit more to that. If you look here at the slides, you have some existing pictures of the site. Just kind of looking through, you see some of them, they vary in height and scale with what you have on the site today. That makes it challenging for people driving through to try and notice where the signs are, and where the tenant is located once they've gone into the complex. Looking along here, this is additionally the sign that is along Page Mill Road, the second tenant sign as you're driving up. Doesn't really have a whole lot of conflicts as you're driving into the site in terms of a line of sight as you're coming up to the turn-in. It was important to highlight some of the things they are doing. It's going to be very challenging to see as you're driving up. There's vegetation, there is a light pole, there's trees. There's also an electrical utility box further down that really obscures the visibility of the sign that is being proposed today. Just kind of looking through, you have a little bit more examples of how the size of the signs don't necessarily scale appropriately to the building, and they are providing the new sign, where that at least serves to identify the tenant more easily. Ultimately, the recommendation from staff is to approve the application as it has been proposed. Staff believes that the proposal does not, while it does exceed the sign code, it would more appropriately relate to the site as, again, it is a significantly large site, and what they have served to do is try to prevent more opportunities for people who are driving through the site to be able to notice the tenants, see where they are located at, and have better ability to understand which way to go. That's it. Chair Furth: Are there questions of staff before we hear from the applicant? Alex. Board Member Lew: Yes. First off, I have a question. My recollection is that Stanford does not allow wall signs in the Research Park. If you could clarify that for me. Mr. Sauls: Yeah, so, none of the signs proposed in the application are going to be any wall signs. The only signs that they have are lettering, so address labeling is all they're doing. And those generally aren't reviewed under a planning application. Ms. Gerhardt: And also, to be clear that that's a Stanford policy, a landowner policy, but not a City regulation. Board Member Lew: Thank you. Chair Furth: If some of these...? Do they have unused wall sign allowances? Or have they used up all their square footage no matter where they put the sign? Mr. Sauls: Thank you. They don't, from when I looked at the site the other day, I didn't see any wall signs existing on the site. They effectively would have allowable wall sign square footage to use. What they are proposing to do right now is just exceeding individually those allowances within the sign code. For the freestanding signs and directory signs and directional signs, they are exceeding what is the allowable square footage for the area, and a number of them are exceeding the allowable height allowances. For directional and directory signs, there are no limitations indicated in the municipal code for how many signs there can be. Those were their special purpose signs, so they have somewhat of a different allowance. Chair Furth: How many extra square feet of signage, monument signage are they asking for? Mr. Sauls: Looking at what they are proposing, the sign along Porter Drive is 60 square feet. That's the one along the flagpole portion of the lot... City of Palo Alto Page 4 Chair Furth: Right. Mr. Sauls: ...so, that is asking for a 33 square foot additional. The one along Page Mill Road is 104 square feet. You can see in the packet also that they have existing signs that they are actually reducing in total size, mostly from what is being proposed. Looking at the tenant ID sign, they're looking to propose a 58 square foot sign, and what is allowed is a 27 square foot sign. In addition, given that they are modifying that existing exception, how we generally treat a modification to a non-conforming structure is that it is essentially a brand-new structure, so they would be getting an exception for having an additional sign along Page Mill Road, which would modify the existing exception, basically. For directory signs, you're allowed four square feet in area and eight feet in height, and they are asking for 20 square feet. For directional signs, you're allowed six square feet and three feet in height, and they're asking for about a seven foot tall wayfinding sign and a roughly 12 to 15 square foot directional sign, based on how many panels are on those. Chair Furth: Thank you. May we hear from the applicant? You'll have 10 minutes to make your presentation. We won't start it until you've got your electronic materials up. Bryan Panian, Corporate Sign Systems: Hi, good morning. My name is Bryan, from Corporate Sign Systems. We are the... Chair Furth: I'm sorry, Bryan, we need your first and last name, and we need the spelling for our transcriber. Mr. Panian: All right. [States and spells name.] We are the contractor for the project. We are a design- build shop out of Santa Clara. I think that Garrett did a great job covering our goals. I want to have a brief presentation that really...First point, before we even get into this, is that what we're trying to do is modify existing. We're not building anything new, and in many cases, we are asking for slightly larger or even reducing square footage. The goal is to update these old, dated signs to a more modern architectural sign appearance. We're trying to clean up and organize the layouts for better legibility and visibility, as Garrett said, for vehicle traffic and pedestrian traffic. We're trying to justify the tenant names, enlarge the address so that it's more visible for, you know, the purpose of these signs. We're trying to also create uniformity throughout the park. Many of these signs vary in size, height. We're trying to create a standard for the tenant so that everyone's sign is the same, everybody gets the same amount of square footage for their name. It's a little all over the place right now. We're trying to create a uniform appearance. It's both for the wayfinding of the pedestrians and the vehicles. Right now, the wayfinding signs are little ground monument signs that point directions. We're trying to replace those with a pole sign that can point people in different directions throughout the property. That gives us some flexibility. Rather than just a single face pointing left or right, we can use a four-axis system. Really, the whole goal is to...Updating the signage is one part in a larger effort to update and beautify the property. After me, Michelle from Hudson will come and speak to the additional things that they're trying to do on the property, making updates for beautifying it. This is a quick rendering I had for the existing sign. This is the primary monument along Page Mill. The existing sign is at the top. This is sort of my photoshop rendering of the intent for what the new sign would appear. You can sort of see how we're trying to increase the size of the address, justify the tenant names so they are more easily legible, readable, and just sort of clean it to a more updated and newer appearance. This is an example of all of the signage throughout the property. The goal, in general. That's really, I think, all I have to say. You know, we provided our drawings. I hope that they speak for themselves. The goal...I'm sorry, do you have a question for me, or...? Chair Furth: No, I was just going to say... Mr. Panian: Okay. Chair Furth: ...if that's the end of your presentation, if you would stay there for just a minute, do any members of the Board have questions? Board Member Thompson. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Board Member Thompson: For your signage type item F, which is the seven-foot-tall one... Mr. Panian: Yes. Board Member Thompson: ...I see in the site plan that it's not in the path of travel necessarily. Will it be located...? I just wanted to confirm if it's in the path of travel. Mr. Panian: Those are next to all the walkways on the, in the pedestrian...from the parking lot, it's on the pathways into the buildings. Board Member Thompson: It is? Mr. Panian: Yes. Board Member Thompson: People would have to pass under them. Mr. Panian: Well, it's going to be in the landscape adjacent to the walkway or the sidewalk. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Mr. Panian: And that was the reason for the seven foot, is to allow any clearance in case there would be any, you know, nobody bump their head on it. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Mr. Panian: But, it wouldn't be on or protruding into the walkway. It would be adjacent to, like, in the landscaping. Board Member Thompson: The sign wouldn't, if there was... Mr. Panian: You'd have to walk into the landscape to touch the sign, or bump the sign. Board Member Thompson: Sure, but the flag part that's rotated, that could potentially overhang onto the path of travel? Mr. Panian: Well, we would orient it in a way that it would not. We can control the direction of them. You can have it flag into the landscape but point the other direction. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Mr. Panian: With an arrow. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Mr. Panian: Does that kind of make sense? Board Member Thompson: It does. Mr. Panian: We would be sure not to put the flags out into the walkway. Let's put it that way. Board Member Thompson: You can, but there are height restrictions for that. Mr. Panian: Okay. Board Member Thompson: Accessibility height restrictions. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Mr. Panian: Right. Board Member Thompson: We can talk about that later. And then, so, reflective white vinyl, that doesn't happen in sign A or sign B. I was just wanting to confirm where that happens. Mr. Panian: Our plan is also to update the accessible parking signs in the property, the handicapped parking, and we pulled that from the package per Garrett's request. It really didn't account for, or, you know...It's just updating a code sign. It's replacing existing and it didn't count towards... Chair Furth: We don't usually do that, yes. Mr. Panian: ... square footage or anything. It didn't count. It's called out still as a usage, but we pulled that page. I'm sorry it's...It's a ghost sign, in a way. Board Member Thompson: Okay. The reflective white vinyl was only for the blue. Mr. Panian: That's correct. Board Member Thompson: It's not used anywhere else. Mr. Panian: That's correct. Board Member Thompson: Okay. That was my confusion. Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay: Good morning. Chair Furth: Board member Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: I don't see any provisions for lighting of these signs except what already exists on the site. I'm presuming that you're intending to leave the existing ground-mounted lights to illuminate these signs. Mr. Panian: Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like you to clarify, and be really clear: Are any of these signs internally illuminated? Mr. Panian: None of the signs are internally illuminated, no. Vice Chair Baltay: Is there any change to the exterior illumination on the signs. Mr. Panian: Not per my scope. Maybe Michelle can answer that. No. The plan is, yes, to reuse the existing ground illumination. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Chair Furth: Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. Does anybody else wish to speak? Mr. Panian: Michelle? Okay, thank you. Chair Furth: You have seven minutes. Michelle Hernandez, Hudson Pacific Properties: Hi, I'm Michelle Hernandez [Spells name]. I'm with Hudson Pacific Properties. We manage the properties. I just wanted to explain that in addition to directional signage, this is part of a huge enhancement project for the buildings, and actually the project. I just wanted to kind of give you an idea of what we have been doing, and what we're going to continue City of Palo Alto Page 7 doing, and this is part of the project. We actually just did a renovation of the amenity area. We spent $2 million on that to enhance the property. We just got approval to upgrade the landscaping area throughout the property, as well, and we are painting the exterior of the building, as well. And then, this is part of that project, as well. We're spending probably, like, over $3 million on enhancing the project, so this is in addition to that scope, as well. As far as directional signage. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions of Ms. Hernandez? Okay, thank you very much. Ms. Hernandez: Thank you. Chair Furth: We'll let you know if we have further questions as we discuss this. Commissioner Baltay. Board member Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, Wynne. For the staff. I wonder if you could clarify for us what the findings are we need to make for the sign exception. I just want to put it out there as we discuss this. Mr. Sauls: Thank you. Finding #1 for the exception is there are exceptional, extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to the property in the same district. What I had indicated in that section was basically that given the size of the site and the number of tenants that are on the site, it would be very challenging to really provide adequate signage that's going to both meet the sign code allowances, as well as what the applicant is wanting to have. Do you have a question? Vice Chair Baltay: I'm just making sure I understand you clearly. You're saying that it's the number of tenants, is why we would justify the finding? Mr. Sauls: The number of tenants as well as the size of the site, based on what's allowed for the side code, yes. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, good, thank you. Mr. Sauls: The second finding is that the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardships. In that sense, again, it would be very challenging for the applicant to meet the sign code allowances and still provide adequate visibility for their tenants as people are moving throughout the site, as well as to more adequately provide directional understanding of where to go. Like Bryan had mentioned, it would be very challenging, or it gives them some flexibility with the new pole- mounted directional wayfinding signs, to more adequately or correctly point in the direction where someone might need to go. And then, the last finding is that the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. All the signs that are proposed are going to be on the owners' property, so there's not going to be anything that's going to be projecting onto any of the public right-of-way or anything that's going to be obstructing visibility, as it's been proposed. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Chair Furth: Okay. I would note that if you look at packet page 29, when these findings were made some years ago for the existing signs, it was -- I'm sorry, it's page 28 -- it was also noted that this property is next to the Hetch Hetchy right-of-way, so it has no visibility on that side, on that frontage. Most corner lots have at least two frontages, which gives them more opportunity for signage under our code, but this one is hidden by a lot of oleanders, or whatever it is they're planting out there these days. It's not oleanders, is it? Dense vegetation. Board Member Lew: I just looked at it this morning. It's a very dense grove of oak trees. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Chair Furth: Sorry. I looked at it, too, but I was not paying enough attention to the vegetation. Anyway, it's obscured. You come around the corner and you come upon it very rapidly, and you don't, really, you don't even see the buildings. You don't even know there's going to be Page Mill Hill. I have a question for the applicants. Are you now de-emphasizing Page Mill Hill as the name of this parcel? Mr. Panian: It is going to become a bit more of a, just side note, as you can see. We're going to have a standard little branding, "Page Mill Hill," that's almost like a footnote now. I think it becomes less premiere as a title, if I’m right, Michelle...? Ms. Hernandez: Yes. Mr. Panian: Yeah. Chair Furth: I'm asking because when you have a multi-tenant property like this, you can emphasize the name of the building, which is what you would do in a high-rise, urban street. You know, you wouldn't...You don't have every tenant. You get the Pan-Am building, or whatever. The address, you tell people to go to the Pan-Am building. And you decided not to tell people to go to Page Mill Hill, that it's more effective to use addresses and names? Question? Ms. Hernandez: Sorry. We actually use Page Mill Hill. Yes, we do. We reference it as Page Mill Hill. Chair Furth: It's fine print now. Mr. Panian: It is reduced in size. That's right. But, it's still a branding deemed for the site, but maybe reduced from what's existing, yes. Chair Furth: But you do publicize the site as Page Mill Hill. Is that right? Ms. Hernandez: The site? Chair Furth: You do publicize the site as Page Mill Hill? Ms. Hernandez: Correct. Chair Furth: Thank you. Who would like to start? Go ahead, Peter. Well, I'll say something briefly, which is, we have two issues before us. One is an aesthetic one concerning the design of your...primarily aesthetic, concerning the design of your proposed sign. The other one is the request to allow exceptions from our existing code, which we're only allowed to do if we can make these findings because the California courts have said, otherwise, we're being arbitrary and capricious and denying due process. So, we need to take those findings seriously. Okay. Who would like to begin? Robert. Board Member Gooyer: Okay. This one is, I don't know. I was having a...I like the monument signs, or I should say they're a big improvement as to what you've got there, so I don't really have that much of a problem with those. I guess where I get bogged down a bit is there just seemed to be so many of them. I mean, you've got areas for, just to show an address, you've got, you know, you've got a 15 square foot sign that shows five addresses. To me, that just seems excessive. I mean, I understand you said it's a large property, but still. On the monument signs, at the entry I can see when you're driving down Page Mill, where you have to catch it, you have to, you know, because you're looking for somebody. Once you're on the property, you pretty much know where you're going, so I don't see the need to have each individual address, for it to have its own sign. I mean, once you're on the campus and you're doing five miles an hour, it’s not like you have to quickly note what the address is. I just think it's overkill. And the exceptions, I don't know. The way they're written, they are just so vague, I have a hard time seeing the justification of those. At this point, I'm a little up in the air. Like I said, I can accept the larger two monument signs, but the rest of it, I have a problem with. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Chair Furth: Alex. Board Member Lew: Thank you for your presentation, and I did look at the site today. I think I do agree that the monument signs on Page Mill Road are really too low, given that location and the speed of the traffic and the existing landscaping. I can support a larger sign there. I think the design of the existing primary monument sign is really, is very difficult to ready, so I think your proposed revision does help. In considering the exceptions, I did look at 1001 Page Mill Road, which is a comparable sized site, and looked at how they broke up the address. They just used one address for all four buildings on the site, so I did consider that project and compare that to your project. I am willing to support the project and exceptions. I think the language that staff had drafted here troubled me a little bit, just one part of it, which is I think justifying it, that the parcel is larger than the others. And when I looked at the zoning maps, I saw lots of large parcels, and parcels even larger, so I think I would...My inclination would be to use the old findings with the Hetch Hetchy reservoir, the dense planting of oak trees, and limited access points to the site as justifications for having the larger monument sign. The other signs, I don't feel...I'm not crazy about the directional signs, but they are internal to the site. I'm generally willing to support those. That's all that I have on this particular one. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board member Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Good morning. Thank you for the presentation. I concur with Alex's comments and can support the project and make the necessary findings for it, including the sign enhancement exception. I had three items I would make recommendations on because I think they are internal and small. Sign D6 is a numerical sign on the side of a building and specified to be 24-inch letters. I just don't think that fits. When I was out there at least, I didn't see where it was going to go. Sign... Chair Furth: Excuse me, too big, too small? Vice Chair Baltay: Too big. The sign is, as I read your plans, D6 is listed at 24-inch tall letters, and I think that just doesn't fit. I thought 12 inches would fit. They have a spandrel panel there, it's about 15 inches tall, as best I can tell. You may just want to check that. It doesn't really affect my ability to make the findings. Sign D4, that's on the canopy of, what I would call the back building, the one you approach from the flagpole. There, you are showing the letters on your drawing mounted above the canopy, and I thought they would be better below canopy where they are currently. Just be more visible. Again, it doesn't really affect my findings, but it's a recommendation. The last one is sign D1. Again, it's numbers on the building to the left as you first enter from Page Mill, and they are listed at 18 inches, and again, they just seem too large. It might be worth reviewing those things. Otherwise, I can vote to recommend approval. Thank you. Chair Furth: Board member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: Hi there. Yeah, I'm mostly in concurrence with my fellow board members. Signs E and F, because I did ask about sign F, if it was in the path of travel. I notice that E is also one of those that's sort of like a post with, kind of these flags come out. As you have them drawn, they are not compliant for accessibility. You need at least 6-foot-8 clearance underneath the lowest flag for accessibility reasons. And then, also, the base needs to be high enough for cane detection. As they are right now, they would not be okay. And I know it's not our job to check for accessibility, but these signs aren't typically supposed to be this tall, from what I understand. If you're going to make them tall, you have to make them compliant. That was the big outlier for me. And I was worried about the contrast of the letters with the coloring, but if you're not using the white vinyl on the stainless, I think you're fine. It's just black on the stainless. I think that's good enough contrast. I'd be willing to approve it so long as we make a condition that these also are accessible. Other than that, I have no other comments. Chair Furth: Thank you. I do think that the new...Thank you for your presentation. I do think the new 1801-1899 monument sign is a big improvement over what you have right now. It's much more visible. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Do we have a new fire department regulation? Is that why we have great big numbers on buildings all over town now? Is that a public safety issue? Mr. Sauls: Yeah, so, from what I've noticed in a lot of sign applications recently is that they are having larger address numbers on their side, so I wouldn't be surprised that Fire is having them... Chair Furth: Downtown, you see a lot of new signage. Mr. Sauls: Yeah, it is larger, and has numbers on each building, too. It's not just one whole campus number. Chair Furth: It is a complicated site plan. There was a time when law firms were seen as an unsuitable use for the research park, but that clearly is long gone. One of the things that I’m having trouble with is the relationship between the Gibson Dunn sign and the numeric sign. Right now, I don't feel that they look as if they were planned at the same time or by the same person, and I don't see that improving a lot here. Do any of my colleagues have any thoughts on that? They are nodding their heads. I'm looking at sheet number 5. And I understand that you probably have a principal tenant who is entitled to their own sign, and I don't have a problem with that. But, I do have a problem with relationship of these two signs. Is Gibson Dunn going to not appear then on the other sign? They're not one of the tenants listed in the directional sign? Mr. Panian: They are. I believe that...Like I say, we're updating existing, so this one, the larger Gibson Dunn, is the premiere... Chair Furth: Right. Mr. Panian: ...tenant sign. Chair Furth: They are your anchor tenant, they're your Macy's. Mr. Panian: Yes, exactly. And then, you're going to have one at their primary entry to the building that indicates, you know, the smaller tenant, so when you're at their front door, you know this is the building that you're entering for Gibson Dunn. Chair Furth: But they won't be listed on the 1801-1899 sign? Mr. Panian: Oh, I see what you mean. I see. For, like, redundancy on that road. That's a good question. That is yet to be determined. You can... Chair Furth: All right. I think it's not really...I was curious, but...I don't think as presented these signs match your intention to have an integrated sign program that shows that Page Mill Hill is a planned, thought-out, sign project. I don't know what my colleagues might suggest, if they agree with my concern, as a way to remedy that. But it doesn't work now. Or what thoughts you might have. Or why you did it the way you did it. Vice Chair Baltay: Can I ask? It seems to me that they are both on a stainless background with black letters of the same typeface and the material underneath is a concrete base. Is that right? Mr. Panian: You mean the Page Mill letters, or...? I'm sorry... Vice Chair Baltay: The two signs... Chair Furth: Signs A and B. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Vice Chair Baltay: I'm not (inaudible) when I see such a big difference in design. They are clearly different signs, but to me, if the materials are identical... Board Member Gooyer: But not really because the sign A, the 1801, for instance, is different than the D sign 1801. They're not coordinated. Chair Furth: I think it has to do with the size of the typeface, I think it has to do with the design. Right now, they look really... Board Member Gooyer: It's piecemeal. Chair Furth: ...uncoordinated, and this design, I agree with you, that it has materials that are the same, but it doesn't seem to have been designed by the same designer with the same assignment. Mr. Panian: We are using a consistent font for the address numbers throughout. We do have consistent materials for the white concrete base, the stainless steel. A consistent color scheme. Chair Furth: It seems to me, looking at it -- and I am the person up here with no design credentials -- a really strong feature of your new monument sign is that white border on the left. And it's missing here, and I think this would work better if it had a white border, or something. Board Member Lew: The sign B, I think is meant to coordinate with the C signs, the tenant signs. And I understand that there's an overlap. I get that. Chair Furth: Yeah. Board Member Gooyer: And B is a larger C sign. I understand that. Chair Furth: But that's not what you experience driving down Page Mill, and that's how this is going to be seen. Board Member Lew: If we could go back to, I think there's an existing photo with those signs in perspective from the sidewalk. Mr. Sauls: I can pull that up real quick. Board Member Lew: Thank you. Mr. Panian: Mr. Lew is correct, that D and C are more...I'm sorry, B and C correlate their tenant signs, not really... Chair Furth: This is an extended version... Mr. Panian: Correct, because it's your premiere tenant. It's just an enlargement of... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: It's a very distinguished law firm. I'm not arguing. Mr. Panian: Yes. But I understand how you're saying it varies from the primary monument, but that is because it... Board Member Gooyer: (inaudible) how close they are to each other. Chair Furth: You see them at the same time as you drive down. City of Palo Alto Page 12 Board Member Thompson: But what better relationship can you have if they're the same materials, and the same font, and the same lettering, and the same massing? Chair Furth: The same design...I mean, you don't see the text when you start down. You see the relative presence and shape of the signs. I think this is the problem. It's an extended version of sign C instead of something that is designed, not just choice of materials and font, but in relationship to sign A. In my view. Vice Chair Baltay: Respectfully, I don't see it. To me, if you started bringing the concrete up on one side or the other, giving it slight asymmetry like the front, you're just being a little bit derivative. I mean, the monument sign is a lesser sign. It's still not as much design as the main entry sign, comparing A and B. What gave me pause when I was out there and thinking about all of this is that the big monument sign on the road, sign B, is fully 15, 18 inches taller than what's there currently. And it does make it more dominant than sign A1 or A2. And that gave me pause. I thought about it for quite a while. Actually stood around and measured, and looked, and my opinion was that driving down the road, the main entry sign was still the more dominant sign, which is as it should be. I recognize what she's saying. It could be slightly different, but I think it's fine, ultimately. Chair Furth: Any other comments? Does somebody...? Board Member Thompson: I think that is a fair point that you bring up, Board member Baltay, that if you look at this view, the...As it exists currently, does the Gibson Dunn Crutcher sign, is that currently taller than the entry? The sort of A sign replacement? Vice Chair Baltay: I'd say they are about the same right now. When I was walking around, they both come up mid chest height. Board Member Thompson: Would you agree with that, applicant? Bryan? Mr. Panian: Let me check. We've got the existing measurements. The Gibson is taller than the primary monument currently. However, if you look at our package for sign type A2, the primary alignment -- excuse me -- the plan is to increase the height of the street-facing concrete, to raise that up and make it more premiere. We're going to build that concrete up. I'm looking at our page 11, so, we're going to go to a slightly higher...The Gibson is about 48 inches and this would be about 50 inches on the street side. Because when you look at this, the primary monument is very low, and it's a slanted entry on the landscape, so the left side is much taller than...I'm sorry, the right side, deeper down, is much taller. But, we're trying to bring the presence out closer to the street so that you do notice it as you're driving. That's where we want to put the large address numbers and bring the tenants out a little bit that way. We're going to build that up, and the idea is to cut the concrete back, move everything up toward the street a little bit more. Raise the concrete up so that it does become a little bit more premiere than the Gibson Dunn. You don't see the Gibson Dunn as, "Oh, this is the premiere," or "this is the monument sign." It just becomes, this is maybe the primary tenant, whereas the monument stands out more to address the property as a whole. Board Member Thompson: Okay. And then, the sign A replacement, that height is about the same. Mr. Panian: That's correct, yeah. Ms. Gerhardt: If I may, if you take a look at page 9, there are measurements for the existing and the proposed sign A, and also, if you take a look at page 12, then you'll see the measurements for sign B. Vice Chair Baltay: Wynne, if I could, perhaps something to address your concern, Robert, is that the tenant monument sign B really should be about 12 or 18 inches lower. Should be really not taller than the... City of Palo Alto Page 13 Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, I mean, the reality of it is you've got 10 tenants on the primary sign A, yet the single premiere tenant -- if you want to call it -- sign is bigger than the other one. I mean, that just seems overkill. Vice Chair Baltay: That was my first reaction, looking at it. I'm just, thinking about it now, thinking about what Wynne was saying, by lowering it, you'll also enhance a horizontal proportion... Board Member Gooyer: Plus, I mean... Vice Chair Baltay: ...which would probably help tie these together from a design point of view. Board Member Gooyer: Usually, let's face it. From a signage standpoint, signage is designed to let people know where something is. And in most cases, you make it bigger because if someone is driving along and they're not sure if they want to come into your store, your business, or whatever the case, they go, "Oh, such-and-such, let's go there." This is a law office. I mean, you pretty much know you're going there. This is not a, "Hey, for the heck of it, let's just drop into the local law office and see what's going on." I mean, this just seems overkill also for the type of tenant that it is. And I mean, like I said, I like the initial sign, but this one is just way too big. And in fact, even the monument signs seem excessive. Again, like I said, you're on campus, you're doing five miles an hour, I don't think you need a monument sign for a -- as you call it -- a smaller tenant. That's why I said, this whole thing just seems overkill. Mr. Panian: You're right, and to address that, we're not building new or just modifying existing. For the Gibson Dunn sign, the idea was to pull that top off... [crosstalk] Board Member Gooyer: ...not building new could also mean you can trim down and... Mr. Panian: Certainly yes. And I agree with you. Yes. Definitely. If that would be a provision that you would allow, we'd be happy to do that. The idea and the intent was just to modify existing. Board Member Gooyer: It's the same thing. Figure the, as you call it, the secondary sign is, by proportion to the person next to this, like, almost four feet high. That just seems awfully excessive, again, for, like I said, if you're driving 10 miles an hour between four buildings, or four... (inaudible) little one, for all intents and purposes, four buildings on campus, it just seems overkill to me. Mr. Panian: And I...I'm sorry. Chair Furth: Go ahead. Mr. Panian: I guess my comment to that is that there are, those signs are already there, so maybe it's already overkill, and maybe we're just trying to...We're not trying to add to those. We're just trying to update them, modify them. Chair Furth: Okay, so, I think that... Mr. Panian: Unify them. Chair Furth: ...I could say that...I think that my colleagues' comments have helped me because part of what bothers me is that this tenant sign is way too big compared to the Page Mill Hill sign. If you reduce its height, which will make it more horizontal, which will help with the proportions -- because that's one of the things that's not very lovely right now -- I would be happy. Vice Chair Baltay: If we said no more than 48 inches for all the signs B and C, that would change the proportion. Is there...? City of Palo Alto Page 14 Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, I'd be willing to see something like, for sign B, literally proportionately, two sign C's next to each other, or something. It's the same height, but it's twice as wide. Or something of that nature. It's still subservient to the A sign, which I think it should be. Vice Chair Baltay: If you just leave it no bigger than what's there now, it's now 48 inches at the high side. Board Member Gooyer: Well, but, I mean...Yeah. But, I mean, you could change the style slightly to make it look like the new one. But, yeah, something... Vice Chair Baltay: Well, the new design, except we're changing the 65 inch dimension to 48 inches. Board Member Gooyer: Right. Right. Vice Chair Baltay: And then, you might as well do the same thing on the other C signs if you're trying... [crosstalk] Board Member Gooyer: Oh, I agree. I think those are excessive, also. Vice Chair Baltay: One of them is 54, a couple of them are 48. But, just do them a favor and say no more than 48 inches anywhere. On signs B and [crosstalk]. Board Member Gooyer: I think that would be a big improvement. Chair Furth: I think that would work. Would that work for the applicant? Mr. Panian: Yeah. And, in a way, that is what we were trying to do with the sign type C. On our page 15, you can see one of the existing signs is 54 inches tall. We wanted to bring everything down to 48. Some are smaller; some are taller. We said, let's just cap it at 48 and make them all the same. Chair Furth: We support you in that effort, it looks like. Do we need to...? It sounds like we have a consensus to approve with that condition, and with slightly different findings. Do we need anything else about the redesign of sign E-F to comply with the disability requirements? Accessibility? Board Member Thompson: Accessibility. Yeah. Because Finding #3 discusses public safety, welfare, and currently... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Well, it's also, since you have caught it...I think staff wants to say something. Ms. Gerhardt: If that's going to raise the total height of the sign, is that okay? Would just be the question. I mean, it will be caught by our building department, ultimately. They will ensure that it is ADA accessible. But, if it raises up the whole sign, are we still okay with that? Chair Furth: Does that...? Does that increase the non-conformity of the existing sign plan? Male??: Yes, it will. Board Member Thompson: I mean, it's already four feet higher than what was allowed, so I guess it would be... Chair Furth: What's our justification for these high signs under our code? What's our justification for this? This isn't about visibility from the street on a difficult site. This is internal, why can't they do conforming directional signs? That's not a rhetorical question. It's a question we have to answer in order to grant the exception. City of Palo Alto Page 15 Mr. Sauls: The three foot tall sign that would be allowed would be very difficult to be seen as you're traveling through the site in a vehicle. As you're traveling through the site in a vehicle, having something that's a little taller up will be more appropriate and providing for better travel throughout the site. Chair Furth: Is this because of the grading, because of the way the parking lots are laid out? I mean, why doesn't everybody get a variance? Mr. Sauls: The other thing to note is that the site gradually slopes away from Page Mill Road towards the adjacent properties, so, as you're kind of going through, kind of driving in, almost at an angle -- like so -- rather than just kind of at a straight-facing direct... Chair Furth: One thing I notice is when you look at the parking lot, which is internal, the big, sort of u-shaped parking lot, the visibility is terrible. It would be very confusing to try and figure out where to go. I don't think it was designed to have principal access by strangers that way. Board Member Lew: Wynne, I think, to answer your question, I think it is the layout of the... Chair Furth: Of the site. Board Member Lew: ...of the site. And I think the code, the directional signs allowed by code, we see them elsewhere on the Research Park. Basically, there's a very small sign that says, like, "Deliveries," and that's all that they're trying to... Chair Furth: Because they don't want anybody on site. Board Member Lew: Right. Anyway, I think that the sign code doesn't really address a very complicated site like this. And it's come up before, say, like, with the shopping center. How do you navigate to find the right store? I think there is a rationale for that. Board Member Thompson: And I think it also doesn't have to be for all signs. I think it just has to be the signs that intrude on the path of travel. Mr. Panian: Okay. Board Member Thompson: I think your sign rendering on page 18 might be okay. I mean, I'm not the building department, I can't say that, but it doesn't look like it's intruding on the path of travel. But, in your site plan, you have a few in the parking lot where somebody could easily walk up to that, walk under it, and that would be a problem. Mr. Panian: I think, ideally, it would be best to create uniformity, though, and consistency. Make them all ADA compliant. Because that's the goal here. Rather than having varying heights, just create a standard so your eyes, you're always looking where the sign is. You know? Board Member Thompson: At the same place. That makes sense. Mr. Panian: And to address Mr. Gooyer again, is that the directional signs will help declutter the park. Right now, there are ground directional signs that are less than three feet that are rather large and bulky. The idea is maybe those are covered by landscape, difficult to see. The idea is to remove those and do a higher pole that is less intrusive or less... Board Member Gooyer: I don't mind them being off the ground a little bit. I understand you don't want them, you know, a foot off the ground. Mr. Panian: Yeah. City of Palo Alto Page 16 Board Member Gooyer: It just seems like an excessive amount of space to show, you know, five addresses. Mr. Panian: I understand. And... Board Member Gooyer: And you could also...I mean, you could easily say, whatever, you know, 1841, 1881, 1891, you know, 1, 2, 3, with one arrow, or something. Rather than individual placards for each one. That's what I was getting at. That it just seemed excessive in size. But it is an internal sign, so... Chair Furth: Okay, yeah. That's where I end up, too. MOTION Chair Furth: Would somebody like to make a motion, or is there further discussion? Board Member Lew: Okay, I will make a motion that we recommend approval of the project to the Planning Director, with the following requirements: One is that sign types B and C have a maximum height of 48 inches; that sign type...is it E? Is that the directional one? Board Member Thompson: It's E and F. Board Member Lew: E and F meet the accessibility requirements for height clearance. Board Member Thompson: And cane detection. Board Member Lew: And... Chair Furth: As drawn, it doesn't meet the cane detection. Board Member Lew: Okay. Thank you for that. And that we modify the findings. We're going to say, instead of, in the draft language for finding exception #1, the language says [reading] the project parcel is exceptionally large in comparison to the other RP-zoned parcel surrounding the site, that we change that to be more similar to the language used in existing finding, which references the Hetch Hetchy easement, and the dense oak woodland landscaping on the Junipero Serra frontage. Vice Chair Baltay: I will second that motion. Chair Furth: Any further discussion? All in favor say aye? All opposed? Hearing none, the project is recommended for approval. Thank you. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. Mr. Panian: Thank you for your time today. Appreciate it. Study Session Chair Furth: There will be no study session. Approval of Minutes Chair Furth: The minutes were received so late that we will not try to act on them today, so that matter is continued. Subcommittee Items City of Palo Alto Page 17 Chair Furth: We now have two subcommittee items. One of them is 2609 Alma Street, which is a review of aspects of a previously-approved project. The second is 250 Sherman Avenue. We will adjourn as a board and...oh, I'm sorry. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Furth: Board questions, comments or announcements? Board Member Lew: I want to announce that the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan met for the first time last night. Chair Furth: Yes. Board Member Lew: They are going to have two community workshops next year for the broader public, and there are going to be four in-progress meetings with the Council over the initial part of the plan, to keep the Council updated on that. There will be lots of opportunities to share what's going on. And there were lots of members of the public who were not on the committee who are interested in the project, so there's pretty broad participation and interest in the project. Chair Furth: That's good news for all of us. We certainly hear from people in that neighborhood as we do this piece-by-piece review. Also, we received an invitation from V-Ware. Did you all get that? VMware? To a design workshop...? What is it? I couldn't quite figure out what it was. Board Member Lew: Yes, I thought that, too. I wasn't really sure where that was coming from. Chair Furth: Maybe staff could give us some guidance. I'll send you the invitation. It was sent to us as ARB members. At least some of us. Board Member Thompson: I did not get it. Chair Furth: We'll send it to you. Vice Chair Baltay: Maybe I can [crosstalk] thing of group interest, perhaps. I attended the preliminary hearing on 788... Board Member Lew: San Antonio. Vice Chair Baltay: ...San Antonio Road. That's a housing development. I took away one thing that's not related to that project, but the Council had a lot of discussion about parking and lift parking. I heard a clear consensus from the Council that stacking lift parking, things like that, shouldn't be considered for every parking use. They clearly said things we've been saying, about the need for quick, temporary parking, families with children coming home not being able to use the stacker lifts. They were really questioning and probing on what was the appropriate use of those stackers. Which is something we struggle with all the time. I found it reassuring to hear them not saying stackers are perfect for every situation. Chair Furth: Thank you. When you said "lift parking," I thought you meant as opposed to Uber drop-off. Ms. Gerhardt: Board members, related to the VMware invitation, it looks like it's a community event that they are putting on November 1st. Innovations for good, the opportunity and responsibility for tech, is the title of it. If people wanted to attend, we just need to make sure whether we have a quorum or not. Chair Furth: There is an exception for...One is allowed to attend meetings that have a majority of the Board, but there are conditions under which you do it. We should...If anybody is going to go, we should let staff know and be sure we know what those conditions are. City of Palo Alto Page 18 Board Member Lew: Staff, does VMware have any applications coming to the Board? Is there anything in the works? Ms. Gerhardt: I believe they had some smaller revisions that came in that, I want to say they are approved, and I can double-check that. Board Member Lew: Okay. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Then the Board as a whole is adjourned. Adjournment