The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2018-12-20 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 20, 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. 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. 3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3200 El Camino Real [18PLN-00045] Recommendation on the Applicant's Request for Approval 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 _______________________ 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. Applicant Also Requests a Zone Change to Remove the Existing 50 Foot Special Setback Along Hansen Way. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is Circulating Between December 5, 2018 and January 4, 2019. Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. 4. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2321 Wellesley Street [18PLN-00178]: Request for Architectural Review of a Two-Family Residential Project. This Application Will Also be Heard by the PTC on December 12, 2018 for a Zoning Map Amendment to Change the Subject Property From R-1 to RMD(NP). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: R-1 (Single-Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez (samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org) 5. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 2 in Barron Park, Palo Alto Orchards, and Charleston Meadows Neighborhoods, and Next to Stanford Shopping Center [17PLN-00170 File Uses 250 Hamilton Address]: Request by Vinculums (for GTE Mobilnet dba Verizon Wireless) for Seven Small Cell Node Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permits on Existing Wood Utility Poles in the Public Right of Way. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15303. Zoning Districts: Node Locations are Adjacent to R-1 Zones and CC Zone. R-1 Zone: 4206 Suzanne Dr, 3715 Whitsell Av, 785 Barron Av, 792 Los Robles Av, and 3993 Laguna Av; R-1(S) Zone: 4193 Wilkie Wy; CC Zone: Across from 213 Quarry Road Next to Stanford Shopping Center Parking Structure (180 El Camino Real). Alternative Node Locations for Three Primary Node Locations are Adjacent to R-1(S) Zone (362 Carolina Ln, Alternate for 4193 Wilkie Wy Node), R-1 Zone (4013 Amaranta Av, Alternate for 792 Los Robles Av Node, and R-1(10,000) Zone (904 Los Robles Av, Alternate for 3993 Laguna Av Node). 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 6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 4, 2018. 7. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 18, 2018. _______________________ 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. 8.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 1, 2018 Subcommittee Items Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes 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 # 9927) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 12/20/2018 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 2019 Meeting Schedule (DOCX)  Attachment B: Tentative Future Agendas (DOCX) 1 Packet Pg. 6 2019 Schedule Architectural Review Board Meeting Schedule & Assignments Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/10/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Special 1/17/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/21/2019 /17 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/21/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/4/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/18/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/2/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/16/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/6/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/20/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/ /2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/18/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/1/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/15/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/5/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/19/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/3/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/17/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/21/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/5/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/19/2019 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 July August September October November December 1.a Packet Pg. 7 Architectural Review Board 2019 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics January 10 Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (Joint with HRB) Crown Castle/Verizon: Cluster 3 Small Cells (1st Formal) 380 Cambridge Avenue: New Commercial Building (2nd Formal) 1.b Packet Pg. 8 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9956) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/20/2018 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 On December 6, 2018, the ARB continued the review of this application, which was not heard on that date, to the ARB meeting of December 20, 2018. Subsequently, the applicant requested a postponement of the application review to an ARB meeting in January, a date certain of either January 10, 2019 or January 17, 2019. 2 Packet Pg. 9 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9816) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/20/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3200 El Camino Real: New Hotel (2nd Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3200 El Camino Real [18PLN-00045] Recommendation on the Applicant's Request for Approval 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 Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is Circulating Between December 5, 2018 and January 4, 2019. Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon 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 City Council based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB on October 4, 2018. This 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/66965. A copy of the report without prior attachments is available in Attachment F. 3 Packet Pg. 10 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 is modified to reflect recent project changes. Background On October 4, 2018, the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-10042018/. The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Provide sun screening on the southern side Screen element extends from the plaza floor to the roof parapet. Convert some rooftop space to balconies, particularly where rooms have views The roof decks have been modified slightly but there is no increase in quantity. Some second-floor rooms have decks, but the third and fourth floor rooms in the same position do not. The second floor also has a communal deck. Reduce the number of materials used on the café corner, explain how the materials are integrated The overall color scheme has been lightened, particularly on the first floor. There is also more glass and spandrel glass used on the corner of the tower to improve visual openness. There is only one color of stucco, so the materials have been reduced. Ensure the café is visually inviting from the street and provide public seating Café footprint changed to bring café into plaza more and closer to the street. Entry approach to café off of El Camino is wider. Increase the use of native plant species for landscaping and scale them to the building Sheet L1.0 shows more native plant species than the previous iteration. Reduce the visual impact (dark color) of the “eyebrows” The rendering shows a different color, but the materials legend shows no change. The project also includes a Zoning Amendment application to eliminate a 50-foot special setback. On December 12, 2018, the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) heard the zoning amendment application. At the end of the ARB recommendation, the project will be heard by the City Council to consider both the zoning amendment and the architectural review. Analysis1 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. 3 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Before delving into how the project responded to the Board’s direction at their last meeting, it is important to recognize the evolution of the project. The project has been the subject of several public hearings prior to the October 4, 2018 ARB meeting (links to these meetings are included in Attachment F). These included Pre-Screening (2016 and 2017) to deal with the special setback issue; as well as preliminary ARB meetings (2015 and 2017) for the design of the site and building. Each iteration addressed different comments, however, major consideration has been made toward addressing the corner, the massing of the project and its relationship to the surroundings. 2015 2017 3 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 September 2018 November 2018 3 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 The current submittal (described in Attachment E) added visual interest to the corner by rounding out the tower and using spandrel glass and limiting the decorative metal to a single panel. The base of the building and roof appear lighter in the current rendering, but the materials are actually the same. Functionally, the glass tower’s windows would be in guest rooms which may not be practical overlooking what is planned to be an active plaza area. The exact size of the window appears larger in the rendering than in the floor plan. Specific changes to the project at the direction of the Board include: 1. Balconies – added four guest balconies to the El Camino side of the building on the 4th floor. 2. Balconies – made 3rd and 4th floor “step back areas” on Hansen side into landscaped platforms (not occupancy balconies). 3. Balcones – made 3rd floor “step back area” on El Camino side into landscaped platform (not occupancy balconies). 4. Roof Eyebrows – Reduced the length of the cantilever on the El Camino side. 5. Roof Eyebrows – elongated the Hansen side eyebrow to the east to gain symmetry and balance with El Camino side. 6. The plant palette includes more native species for trees, shrubs and ground cover. 7. Southeast Corner of Building: a. Made Design Changes to distinguish elements on corner: i. Screen Element now extends from plaza floor to roof parapet and is “framed symmetrically” with pilasters. ii. Glass Element on corner (for corner guest rooms) has been changed to a curved curtain wall element that follows the curvature of the originally proposed metal facade wall. Curved glass element softens the corner and adds verticality to the 3 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 building from plaza floor to the roof. At the same time, the curved glass element encompasses part of the Café at the Plaza level. iii. The metal façade wall at the first level of the building remains as does its curvature at the corner but a portion of the second-floor podium, behind the wall, has been removed to create an open-air space that allows the metal screen wall and the curved curtain wall glass element to extend from plaza floor to the roof. iv. Vertical pilasters “book end” the curved curtain wall glass element from plaza floor to the roof. v. Café plan reconfigured to be within the curved curtain wall glass element and be more “outbound” into the plaza. Café is the same size (area) thus no changes to related parking requirement or parking spaces provided. Other changes to the project include: 8. Site Issues – benches infused into plan along El Camino for public use. 9. Plaza – Opened up more for broader cross views. Café foot print changed to bring café into plaza more and close to Street. Entry approach to Café off of El Camino widened. 10. Plaza – eliminated green screen wall and propose a wall, water sculptural element on the south face of the building in the Plaza. 11. Windows – design modifications made to organize windows to more consistent sizing. Recessed windows more to give more depth and shadow to elevations. Infused the metal screen material between windows (vertically) to bring the screening material (used at the corner of the building) into the overall façade 12. Façade – generally the same configuration of plan, setbacks, height and quantities however more consistency in window sizes and their relief to give more shadow to the façade. We removed the second-floor paint color (light grey) and made it white to match the rest of the building thus reducing the horizontal “layering” affect. Windows on the north elevation changed to match the Hansen side thus more interest and character. 13. Landscaping a. Changes made to add plants on balconies at every level b. Pots added to the plaza c. More green screening added to the north side of the building facing neighbor to the north. In summary, the project demonstrates consistency with the required findings and has responded to the Board’s direction. 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. 3 Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 An IS/MND has been prepared and is available as Attachment G. The public circulation period of the environmental document was between December 5, 2018 and January 4, 2019. Significant Impacts were identified regarding Air Quality, Biology, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, and Hazards; but these impacts would be reduced to Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures (Attachment C). 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 December 7, 2018, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on December 10, 2018, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments There was correspondence and a speaker at the last public hearing regarding parking and the elevations that lacked interest. As of the writing of this report, no additional project-related, public comments were received. In response to the parking comments, the project includes 82 standard parking spaces and 24 valet parking spaces for a total of 106 parking spaces provided on site. The required parking is detailed in Attachment D, however, in summary, counting the coffee shop and guestroom parking requirements and reductions allowed through the submittal of the Transportation Demand Management document and parking study, the project meets the required parking stated in the PAMC. In response to the elevations, the revised project includes upper level terraces with landscaping that provides additional interest along Hansen Way and El Camino Real. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Recommend approval of the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon S. Ah Sing, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 x109 (650) 329-2575 sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 16 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Conditions of Approval and MMRP (PDF)  Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment E: Applicant Response w Comparisons (PDF)  Attachment F: October 4, 2018 Staff Report w/o Attachments (PDF)  Attachment G: Project Plans and Environmental Documents (DOCX)  Attachment H: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (PDF) 3 Packet Pg. 17 50 50 RM- 637 CS CS CS RP 611 52 3225 3239 3255 3295 455 3305 3337 3339 592 572582 3150 3170 3200 3300 607 60 550 447 3 429 451 441 431 3159 411 435 3250425 435 3200 455 460 3201 450 430 400 3263251 0 3802862450 456 470 71 299929512905 461 3000 30173001 3128 3127 850 700 600 3398 3111 473 3225 440 620 630 429 660 3215 3275 3327 3399 3333 3201 3051 3101 3160 3260 2 3265 LA M BERT AVENUE EL CA MINO REAL HANSEN W AY EL CA MINO REAL HANSEN W AY W AY ACACIA AVENUE PORTAGE AVENUE OLIVE APE EL CA MINO REAL L CA MIN O REAL EL CA MIN O REAL EL CA MINO REAL This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS Legend Special Setback Frontages Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels 3200 El Camino Real (Project Site) 0'200' 3200 El Camino Real Area Mapwith Zoning Districts CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2018 City of Palo Alto 3.a Packet Pg. 18 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 3200 El Camino Real 18PLN-00045 In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: Comprehensive Plan Goal/Policies Consistency Analysis Service Commercial: Facilities providing citywide and regional services and relying on customers arriving by car. These uses do not necessarily benefit from being in high volume pedestrian areas such as shopping centers or Downtown. Typical uses include auto services and dealerships, motels, lumberyards, appliance stores and restaurants, including fast service types. In almost all cases, these uses require good automobile and service access so that customers can safely load and unload without impeding traffic. In some locations, residential and mixed-use projects may be appropriate in this land use category. Examples of Service Commercial areas include San Antonio Road, El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road northeast of the Bayshore Freeway. Non-residential FARs will range up to 0.4. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s encouragement of housing near transit centers, higher density multi-family housing may be allowed in specific locations. The project proposes a new hotel along El Camino Real. A hotel is consistent with the Service Commercial land use designation description. Policy L-1.3: Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its The project site is surrounded by development and is accessible by all utilities. 3.b Packet Pg. 19 surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. 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 The project implements the South El Camino Real Design guidelines by providing a wide sidewalk along El Camino Real and enhancing an existing bicycle lane along Hansen Way. In addition, a “pork-chop” island is removed at the intersection to help with pedestrian/bicyclist safety. A coffee shop is proposed with access along El Camino Real spurring pedestrian activity. Policy L-3.1: Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. The project’s design will include elevations with visual interest including landscaped balconies and terraces. 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. The project replaces an existing motel with a hotel and adds a coffee shop. Policy T-5.1: All new development projects should manage parking demand generated by the project, without the use of on street parking, consistent with the established parking regulations. As demonstrated parking demand decreases over time, parking requirements for new construction should decrease. The project includes valet parking to create efficient use of the site and the demands of transient customers. The project’s parking study demonstrates that hotel parking demand is lower than 100% of the City’s zoning requirements. Policy T-5.6: Strongly encourage the use of below-grade or structured parking, and explore mechanized parking instead of surface parking for new developments of all types while minimizing negative impacts including on groundwater and landscaping where feasible. The project includes two levels of underground parking so that the site is not overwhelmed with surface or structured parking. 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 hotel project includes a small coffee shop that will attract local users. The project is consistent with the City’s zoning codes, except where an exception is requested for the reduction in parking pursuant to the requirements of the zoning code. 3.b Packet Pg. 20 The South El Camino Real Design Guidelines are applicable to the project and is located within the Cal-Ventura Corridor Area. The project is consistent or inconsistent with the following Guidelines: Guideline Consistency 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 project includes a plaza at the corner for an outdoor amenity area with direct access to a coffee shop. 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 63% build to the setback along El Camino Real and a 52% build to setback along Hansen Way. 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 46’-2” feet in height to the parapets. 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 within the plaza area at the corner of El Camino Real and Hansen Way with direct access to a coffee shop. 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 balconies and terraces along the elevations. 4.2.1 Relationship of Entries to the Street: Buildings should have entries directly accessible and visible from El Camino Real. The coffee shop has an entry along El Camino Real and the hotel has an entry off of Hansen Way. Secondary entries are also located along Hansen Way and 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 including direct access to a coffee shop. 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. 3.b Packet Pg. 21 Guideline Consistency 4.8.1 Mix of Materials: Juxtaposition of contrasting materials can create interest when carefully integrated. This project includes stucco, glass, and metal in a composed design. 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 a single vehicular entry along Hansen Way and pedestrian entries along El Camino Real and Hansen Way. Parking is located below grade so not to overwhelm the site with surface or structured parking. The site is currently fully developed and is completely flat. The project provides adequate setback and elevation modulation that provides harmonious transition in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses. The project is consistent with the context-based design criteria: 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 has a 12-foot sidewalk along El Camino Real; is eliminating the “pork-chop” island at the intersection and is enhancing the bicycle lane along Hansen Way. 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 project includes build-to setbacks, outdoor benches and an outdoor plaza area providing an attractive space for pedestrian activity. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks The project meets the required setbacks and is consistent with the South El Camino Real Design guidelines. The elevations include uniform fenestration and balconies to provide visual interest. 4. Low Density Residential Transitions 3.b Packet Pg. 22 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 abut lower scale residential development. 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 project includes an outdoor plaza at the street intersection that is open to visitors and customers of the hotel. 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 Parking for the project is located underground. 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 site is less than an acre in size. 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project The project will be consistent with the City’s Green Building Ordinance, as further described in Finding #6. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project uses a variety of materials including glass, metal and stucco with neutral colors. Together these materials used on the building embody a consistent theme. The applicability of the materials combined with the structures mass creates a distinctive pedestrian-oriented plaza area and interface with El Camino Real and Hansen Way. The use of materials and color and form for the first-floor grounds the building and contributes to the prescribed streetscape identified in the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The introduction of stepped-back elevations including balconies and landscaped terraces soften the upper floors. The use of the metal screening and glass at the corner provides a focal point for the building. 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.). 3.b Packet Pg. 23 The project includes a design that facilitates pedestrian activity along the street with a proposed outdoor plaza at the corner intersection. The removal of the pork chop will make the intersection safer for pedestrians and cyclists. 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 includes landscaping on the ground and within balconies along the elevations. Pots were added to the plaza area making the area more pedestrian-oriented. The palette used on the elevations provides relief from what would otherwise be solid stepped back surfaces. The plant palette includes more variety of native plantings. Attention to the north side of the building with green screening complements the transition to the neighboring property. Together, the landscape plan complements the building and its surroundings. The existing redwood trees on the adjacent neighboring property will be protected during construction activities. 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 will be consistent with the City’s Green Building Ordinance. The following electives are proposed by the project:  Hardscape alternatives and cool roof reduction  Steel framing  Elevators  20% indoor water savings  Appliances and fixtures for commercial application  Restoration of areas disturbed by construction  Certified wood  Regional materials  Acoustical ceiling and wall panels  Lighting and thermal comfort controls (single and multi-occupant spaces) 3.b Packet Pg. 24 ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 3200 El Camino Real 18PLN-00045 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Hotel Parmani 3200 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, California,” stamped as received by the City on November 14, 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. 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. 7. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Estimated Development Impact Fees in the amount of $987,500 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related 3.c Packet Pg. 25 building permit. 8. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90- day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 9. 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. 10. The owner or designee shall implement the following to reduce exposure of future hotel guests and workers to vapor intrusion: • Install a vapor membrane system that envelops the below grade portion of the proposed building, including areas below and above the groundwater table. • Design and operation of the HVAC system to control air flows from sub-grade parking levels upward into occupied levels. • Ventilate the sub-grade parking level with a fan triggered by CO sensors. • Maintain a positive pressure in the hotel lodging space relative to the sub-grade parking levels. • Design and build elevator hoistways within the building to have air relief vents. • Conduct post-construction Indoor Air Monitoring, quarterly for a minimum of two years with potential to reduce frequency to semi-annually following the initial two years. 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 S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us to schedule this inspection. 3.c Packet Pg. 26 Building Department 12. A site-specific soils report will be required to be submitted for the building construction permit. 13. The allowable area calculation for the proposed Hotel and Parking building shall comply with CBC 506.2.4 for mixed occupancy, multistory buildings. 14. The proposed restaurant and coffee shop will require Santa Clara County Health Department approval to be submitted to the Building Division prior to the Building Permit issuance. 15. The proposed hotel is required to comply with the accessibility requirements of CBC Chapter 11B for Transient Lodging Guest Rooms. 16. 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. Public Works Engineering Department 17. 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. The certification form, 2 copies of approved storm water treatment plan, and a description of Maintenance Task and Schedule must be received by the City from the third-party reviewer prior to planning approval by the Public Works department. Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, third-party reviewer shall also submit to the City a certification for approval that the project’s permanent measures were constructed and installed in accordance to the approved permit drawings. 3.c Packet Pg. 27 • Provision C3 Form • Storm Water Treatment Design Certification • 3rd Party review response letter (stamped/signed) • http://www.scvurpppw2k.com/pdfs/1112/SCVURPPP_C.3_Data_Form_final_2012.pdf 18. 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). 19. GRADING PERMIT: Separate Excavation and Grading Permit will be required for grading activities on private property that fill, excavate, store or dispose of 100 cubic yards or more based on PAMC Section 16.28.060. Applicant shall prepare and submit an excavation and grading permit to Public Works separately from the building permit set. The permit application and instructions are available at the Development Center and on our website. This application must be submitted to Public Works when applying for a Building Permit. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 20. EXCAVATION: Plans shall clearly identify the deepest point of excavation including below grade basement slab with note and appropriate dimensions. 21. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations, earthwork volumes, finished floor elevations, area drain and bubbler locations, drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of 2% or 5% for 10-feet per 2013 CBC section 1804.3. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales, area drains, bubblers, etc. Grading that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from neighboring properties, will not be allowed. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 22. GRADING: Project proposal includes an underground structure. A rough grading plan will need to be present in submittal. 23. ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE: Garage drains shall have sand/oil separator indicated. Proposed trash enclosure shall be required to drain to sanitary sewer only. 3.c Packet Pg. 28 24. 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 and 3- feet from side an rear property lines, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. Include these dimensions on the plan. 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. 25. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring Plans prepared by a licensed professional are required for the Basement Excavation and shall be submitted with the Grading and Excavation Permit. 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. 26. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Shall clearly identify the highest projected groundwater level to be encountered in the area of the proposed basement in the future will be ______ feet below existing grade. Provide the following note on the Final Grading Plans. “In my professional judgement, the highest projected groundwater level to be encountered in the area of the proposed basement in the future will be ______ feet below existing grade. As a result, the proposed drainage system for the basement retaining wall will not encounter and pump groundwater during the life of this wall.” 27. DEWATERING: Excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is not allowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level. We recommend that a piezometer be installed in the soil boring. The contractor shall determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using a piezometer or by drilling and exploratory hole. Based on the determined groundwater depth and season the contractor may be required to dewater the site or stop all grading and excavation work. In addition Public Works may require that all groundwater be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. 28. Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Grading Permit. The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the plan 3.c Packet Pg. 29 during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a Grading Permit prior to dewatering. Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. Public Works has a sample dewatering plan sheet and dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 29. 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. 30. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and adjacent to the work within the Public road right-of-way. “Any construction within the city’s public road right-of-way shall have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.” 31. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and Grading and Drainage Plan: “Contractor shall not stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of-way.” Construction phasing shall be coordinate to keep materials and equipment onsite. 32. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant is required to replace the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters and 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. 33. Any existing driveway to be abandoned shall be replaced with standard curb & gutter. This work must be included within a Permit for Construction in the Public Street from the Public Works Department. A note of this requirement shall be placed on the plans adjacent to the area on the Site Plan. 34. PAVEMENT: Hansen Way 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 Hansen Way 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. 3.c Packet Pg. 30 35. 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. 36. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works on our website http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 37. 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. 38. 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. Include a copy in resubmittal. Guidelines are attached below: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=2719 39. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to the first building occupancy sign-off. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. There is a C.3 plan check fee that will be collected upon submittal for a grading or building permit. 40. 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 California Building Code 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.” 41. PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT: The property owner shall provide a public access easement for the additional feet of sidewalk between the property line and back of walk and/or building edge on 3.c Packet Pg. 31 the El Camino Real frontage. Alternatively, the property owner may dedicate the space to the city. The easement or dedication shall be shown on the Tentative and Final maps, or if the applicant chooses not to subdivide the property, show the future easement on plans submitted for a building permit and note that the easement must be recorded prior to building permit final. Additional area behind the property line needed to create a 12-foot wide sidewalk along El Camino Real. Plot and label the Public Access Easement along El Camino Real that provides the 12-foot wide sidewalk. 42. It appears the applicant is proposing to maintain the significant landscaping and decorative paving proposed in the right-of-way. If that is the case, the applicant will be required to enter into a long term maintenance agreement. This agreement will need to be recorded against the property prior to Building or Grading permit issuance. If not, subsequent comments may apply regarding the proposed improvements in the right-of-way. 43. Existing traffic signal on El Camino Real should be shown on plans and shown as to be protected. 44. Existing City storm drainage structures should be shown on plans. Subsequent comments may apply if proposed improvements interfere with existing City storm drain utilities. Transportation 45. VALET PARKING PLAN: Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit and receive approval of a valet parking plan. At minimum, the plan shall include a written operations plan and scaled site plan demonstrating adequate space is available to store the required number of vehicles and maintain efficient access. The written plan should include operating hours and estimated number of staff required to efficiently operate the service to prevent queuing into the public right of way. The scaled site plan shall show the quantity and location of all valet parking spaces. Assuming vehicles are parked parallel, the minimum dimensions of a valet parking stall within a drive aisle are 8-feet by 20-feet. No more than 20% of the required off- street parking may be provided with a valet program. The Director of Planning and Community Development may require modifications to the valet plan and operation as necessary to improve efficiency and impacts to the general welfare. 46. BICYCLE PARKING: Prior to building permit issuance, the owner or designee shall submit plans that demonstrate compliance with the bicycle parking requirements for short-term parking at a minimum of 12 spaces. 47. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM): The owner or designee shall submit a final TDM plan to the City’s Transportation for review and approval. 48. TDM Pre-Occupancy Site Visit/Inspection: Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, the owner or designee shall call for an inspection by the Planning Division designee to verify that all physical measures (bicycle parking, signage, etc.) have been included as planned. 3.c Packet Pg. 32 49. TDM Ongoing Monitoring and Reporting Statement. The owner or designee shall once the building is occupied submit an On-Going Monitoring and Reporting Statement to the Transportation Division for review compliance with the approved TDM plan. Enforcement steps will be taken, if needed, to attain compliance status. 50. TDM Plan Update. The owner or designee may during operation of the site request changes to the approved TDM plan. The Transportation Division shall review the request to ensure commensurate measures are included or maintained. Public Art 51. The owner or designee shall pay to the public art fund in–lieu of commissioning art on site; the funds must be received prior to the issuance of a building permit. Water Quality The project shall abide by the following Code requirements: 52. PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater The project is located in an area of suspected or known groundwater contamination with Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). If groundwater is encountered then the plans must include the following procedure for construction dewatering: Prior approval shall be obtained from the city engineer or designee to discharge water pumped from construction sites to the storm drain. The city engineer or designee may require gravity settling and filtration upon a determination that either or both would improve the water quality of the discharge. Contaminated ground water or water that exceeds state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm drain. Such water may be discharged to the sewer, provided that the requirements of Section 16.09.040 are met and the approval of the superintendent is obtained prior to discharge. The City shall be compensated for any costs it incurs in authorizing such discharge, at the rate set forth in the municipal fee schedule. Review the guidelines listed in City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.28 prior to discharge of any water from construction dewatering. 53. PAMC 16.09.055 Unpolluted Water. Unpolluted water shall not be discharged through direct or indirect connection to the sanitary sewer system. And PAMC 16.09.175 (b) General prohibitions and practices Exterior (outdoor) drains may be connected to the sanitary sewer system only if the area in which the drain is located is covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading, and appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent is provided. For additional information regarding loading docks, see section 16.09.175(k) 3.c Packet Pg. 33 54. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(9) Covered Parking If installed, parking garage floor drains on interior levels shall be connected to an oil/water separator prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer system. The oil/water separator shall be cleaned at a frequency of at least once every twelve months or more frequently if recommended by the manufacturer or the superintendent. Oil/water separators shall have a minimum capacity of 100 gallons. 55. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper is not permitted 56. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. 57. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping is not allowed 58. 16.09.180(12) Mercury Switches Mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps. 59. PAMC 16.09.205(a) Cooling Systems, Pools, Spas, Fountains, Boilers and Heat Exchangers It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas, fountains boilers and heat exchangers to the storm drain system. 60. PAMC 16.09.165(h) Storm Drain Labeling Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No dumping - Flows to Bay," or equivalent. The applicant previously indicated that no food is prepared on the premises, therefore Food Service Establishment Requirements do not apply. However, if food is prepared on site, the requirements will need to be followed. The applicant indicated that the hotel’s laundry is done on-site. Please see http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/projects/formulat/sdsi.htm for information on the Environmental Protection Agency’s Safer Detergents Stewardship Initiative (SDSI), for consideration. 61. Designated Food Service Establishment (FSE) Projects: A. Grease Control Device (GCD) Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075 & Cited Building/Plumbing Codes • The plans shall specify the manufacturer details and installation details of all proposed GCDs. (CBC 1009.2) • GCD(s) shall be sized in accordance with the 2007 California Plumbing Code. • GCD(s) shall be installed with a minimum capacity of 500 gallons. • GCD sizing calculations shall be included on the plans. See a sizing calculation example below. • The size of all GCDs installed shall be equal to or larger than what is specified on the plans. • GCDs larger than 50 gallons (100 pounds) shall not be installed in food preparation and storage areas. Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health prefers GCDs to be installed 3.c Packet Pg. 34 outside. GCDs shall be installed such that all access points or manholes are readily accessible for inspection, cleaning and removal of all contents. GCDs located outdoors shall be installed in such a manner so as to exclude the entrance of surface and stormwater. (CPC 1009.5) • All large, in-ground interceptors shall have a minimum of three manholes to allow visibility of each inlet piping, baffle (divider) wall, baffle piping and outlet piping. The plans shall clearly indicate the number of proposed manholes on the GCD. The Environmental Compliance Division of Public Works Department may authorize variances which allow GCDs with less than three manholes due to manufacture available options or adequate visibility. • Sample boxes shall be installed downstream of all GCDs. • All GCDs shall be fitted with relief vent(s). (CPC 1002.2 & 1004) • GCD(s) installed in vehicle traffic areas shall be rated and indicated on plans. B. Drainage Fixture Requirements, PAMC Section 16.09.075 & Cited Building/Plumbing Codes • To ensure all FSE drainage fixtures are connected to the correct drain lines, each drainage fixture shall be clearly labeled on the plans. A list of all fixtures and their discharge connection, i.e. sanitary sewer or grease waste line, shall be included on the plans. • A list indicating all connections to each proposed GCD shall be included on the plans. This can be incorporated into the sizing calculation. • All grease generating drainage fixtures shall connect to a GCD. These include but are not limited to: a. Pre-rinse (scullery) sinks b. Three compartment sinks (pot sinks) c. Drainage fixtures in dishwashing room except for dishwashers shall connect to a GCD d. Examples: trough drains (small drains prior to entering a dishwasher), small drains on busing counters adjacent to pre-rinse sinks or silverware soaking sinks e. Floor drains in dishwashing area and kitchens f. Prep sinks g. Mop (janitor) sinks h. Outside areas designated for equipment washing shall be covered and any drains contained therein shall connect to a GCD. i. Drains in trash/recycling enclosures j. Wok stoves, rotisserie ovens/broilers or other grease generating cooking equipment with drip lines k. Kettles and tilt/braising pans and associated floor drains/sinks • The connection of any high temperature discharge lines and non-grease generating drainage fixtures to a GCD is prohibited. The following shall not be connected to a GCD: a. Dishwashers b. Steamers c. Pasta cookers d. Hot lines from buffet counters and kitchens e. Hand sinks f. Ice machine drip lines g. Soda machine drip lines h. Drainage lines in bar areas 3.c Packet Pg. 35 • No garbage disposers (grinders) shall be installed in a FSE. (PAMC 16.09.075(d)). • Plumbing lines shall not be installed above any cooking, food preparation and storage areas. • Each drainage fixture discharging into a GCD shall be individually trapped and vented. (CPC 1014.5) C. Covered Dumpsters, Recycling and Tallow Bin Areas PAMC, 16.09.075(q)(2) • Newly constructed and remodeled FSEs shall include a covered area for all dumpsters, bins, carts or container used for the collection of trash, recycling, food scraps and waste cooking fats, oils and grease (FOG) or tallow. • The area shall be designed and shown on plans to prevent water run-on to the area and runoff from the area. • Drains that are installed within the enclosure for recycle and waste bins, dumpsters and tallow bins serving FSEs are optional. Any such drain installed shall be connected to a GCD. • If tallow is to be stored outside then an adequately sized, segregated space for a tallow bin shall be included in the covered area. • These requirements shall apply to remodeled or converted facilities to the extent that the portion of the facility being remodeled is related to the subject of the requirement. D. Large Item Cleaning Sink, PAMC 16.09.075(m)(2)(B) • FSEs shall have a sink or other area drain which is connected to a GCD and large enough for cleaning the largest kitchen equipment such as floor mats, containers, carts, etc. Recommendation: Generally, sinks or cleaning areas larger than a typical mop/janitor sink are more useful. E. GCD sizing criteria and an example of a GCD sizing calculation (2007 CPC) Sizing Criteria: GCD Sizing: Drain Fixtures DFUs Total DFUs GCD Volume (gallons) Pre-rinse sink 4 8 500 3 compartment sink 3 21 750 2 compartment sink 3 35 1,000 Prep sink 3 90 1,250 Mop/Janitorial sink 3 172 1,500 Floor drain 2 216 2,000 Floor sink 2 Example GCD Sizing Calculation: Quantity Drainage Fixture & Item Number DFUs Total 1 Pre-rinse sink, Item 1 4 4 3.c Packet Pg. 36 Example GCD Sizing Calculation: Quantity Drainage Fixture & Item Number DFUs Total 1 3 compartment sink, Item 2 3 3 2 Prep sinks, Item 3 & Floor sink, Item 4 3 6 1 Mop sink, Item 5 3 3 1 Floor trough, Item 6 & tilt skillet, Item 7 2 2 1 Floor trough, Item 6 & steam kettle, Item 8 2 2 1 Floor sink, Item 4 & wok stove, Item 9 2 2 4 Floor drains 2 8 1,000 gallon GCD minimum sized Total: 30 Recycling 40. Please ensure that the interior of this facility complies with Municipal Code 5.20.108 (see attachment provided). Public area restrooms must have color-coded labeled compost service for paper towels and garbage service for any diaper changing stations. If the dining and coffee shop areas are self-service (no hotel wait staff) then waste stations must be available to patrons. The waste stations must have 3-sort color-coded labeled containers for garbage (black), recycling (blue) and compost (green). Kitchen area must have the appropriate number of 3-sort color-coded labeled waste stations for garbage, recycling and compost. The fitness area should have the appropriate waste containers, as needed (recycle for water bottles and compost for paper towels/tissues). Guest rooms must also have 3-sort color-coded labeled containers for garbage (black), recycling (blue) and compost (green). 41. Ensure that the trash enclosure is large enough to accommodate at least 3 bins sized 3 or 4 cubic yards, plus room for customer access and maneuverability. See Enclosure Guidelines for bins dimensions. Electrical Utilities 42. Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) 3.c Packet Pg. 37 to design and construct the electric service requested. 43. A completed Utility Service Application and a full set of plans must be included with all applications involving electrical work. The Application must be included with the preliminary submittal. 44. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. 45. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 46. Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. 47. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be checked for underground facility marking shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 48. The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to California Electric Code requirements and no 1/2 – inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer’s expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. 49. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at the depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. 50. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. 51. For services larger than 1600 amps, a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility’s padmount transformer and the customer’s main switchgear may be required. See City of Palo Alto Utilities Standard Drawing SR-XF-E-1020. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Division for review and approval. 52. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM conductors per phase can be connected 3.c Packet Pg. 38 to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct or x-flex cable must be used for connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of a transition cabinet will not be required. 53. The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the California Electric Code and the City Standards. 54. Meter and switchboard requirements shall be in accordance with Electric Utility Service Equipment Requirements Committee (EUSERC) drawings accepted by Utility and CPA standards for meter installations. 55. Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and greater) and associated hardware must be submitted for review and approval prior to installing the switchgear to: Gopal Jagannath, P.E. Supervising Electric Project Engineer Utilities Engineering (Electrical) 1007 Elwell Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 56. For 400A switchboards only, catalog cut sheets may be substituted in place of factory drawings. 57. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. 58. The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboards, conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and switch/transformer pads. 59. The follow must be completed before Utilities will make the connection to the utility system and energize the service: • All fees must be paid. • All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector. • All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant. • Easement documents must be completed. Utilities WGW PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 60. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the existing water/wastewater fixture unit loads (and building as-built plans to verify the existing loads) to determine the capacity fee credit for the existing load. If the applicant does not submit loads and plans they may not receive credit for the 3.c Packet Pg. 39 existing water/wastewater fixtures. 61. 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 62. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet per parcel/lot for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain). 63. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater laterals and mains need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes, electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas. 64. 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. 65. CPAU recommends the water, gas, and wastewater utilities connection shall be connected to mains on Hansen Way. 66. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 67. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 68. 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.c Packet Pg. 40 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. 69. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (a double detector assembly may be allowed for existing fire sprinkler systems upon the CPAU’s approval). reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 70. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 71. 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. 72. 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. 73. A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. For service connections of 4- inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant's contractor must provide and install a concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required control equipment in accordance with the utilities standard detail. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. (water services should be connected to water main on Hensen Way) 74. A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required. Show the location of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including all fire department's requirements. 75. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must conform to utilities standard details (above ground gas meter system is prefer). 76. A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans 77. The applicant shall secure a public utilities easement for facilities installed in private property. The applicant's engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the county of Santa Clara, and provide the utilities engineering section with copies of the public utilities easement across the adjacent parcels as is necessary to serve the development. 3.c Packet Pg. 41 78. Where public mains are installed in private streets/PUEs for business/condominium and town home projects the CC&Rs and final map shall include the statement: “Public Utility Easements: If the City’s reasonable use of the Public Utility Easements, which are shown as P.U.E on the Map, results in any damage to the private/Common Area, then it shall be the responsibility of the Business/Association, and not of the City, to Restore the affected portion(s) of the Private/Common Area. This Section may not be amended without the prior written consent of the City”. 79. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures (abandoned by CPAU). 80. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 81. To install new gas service by directional boring, the applicant is required to have a sewer cleanout at the front of the building. This cleanout is required so the sewer lateral can be videoed for verification of no damage after the gas service is installed by directional boring. 82. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto current utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. 83. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for all utility work in the El Camino Real right-of-way. The applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the WGW engineering section. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 84. 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 3.c Packet Pg. 42 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. 85. 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. 86. 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 3.c Packet Pg. 43 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. 87. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include 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. 88. 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. 89. 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.) c. Add Site Plan Notes.) 3.c Packet Pg. 44 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” 90. 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. d. 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).” e. 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 91. LANDSCAPE PLANS f. Include all changes recommended from civil engineer, architect and staff, including planting specifications if called for by the project arborist, g. 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: 3.c Packet Pg. 45 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. 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). h. 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. i. 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. 3.c Packet Pg. 46 92. 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 93. 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. 94. 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. 95. CONDITIONS. All Planning Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 96. 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. 97. 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. 98. 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 99. 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 3.c Packet Pg. 47 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). 100. 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. 101. 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. 102. PLANNING INSPECTION. Prior to final sign off, contractor or owner shall contact the city planner (650-329-2441) to inspect and verify Special Conditions relating to the conditions for structures, fixtures, colors and site plan accessories. POST CONSTRUCTION 103. 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. GREEN BUILDING 104. 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: 105. 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. 106. 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. 3.c Packet Pg. 48 107. 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. 108. 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. 109. 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. 110. 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. 111. 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). 112. The project includes a new or altered irrigation system and therefore the irrigation must be scheduled between 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. unless weather conditions prevent it. Operation of the irrigation system outside the normal watering window is allowed for auditing and system maintenance. Total annual applied water shall be less than or equal to maximum applied water allowance (MAWA) as calculated per the potable water use reduction tier. PAMC 16.14.310 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). ). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 113. 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. 3.c Packet Pg. 49 114. 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. 115. 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. 116. 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. 3.c Packet Pg. 50 3200 El Camino Real Hotel Parmani Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program/Environmental Commitment Record City of Palo Alto November 2018 3200 El Camino Real Hotel Parmani Project Page 1 Avoidance/Mitigation Measures Mitigation and Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Schedule Air Quality [Source: Section 4.3.3 of Initial Study] MM AIR-1: Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce community risk impacts from construction to a less than significant level. All mobile diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 25 horsepower and operating on-site for more than two days continuously (or 20 hours in total) shall meet U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 2 engines equipped with CARB-certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters or equivalent. Implementation: Project contractor Monitoring: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment, BAAQMD Observation of conditions by Building Inspectors during construction During construction Biological Resources [Source: Section 4.4.2 of Initial Study] MM BIO-1.1: The project owner or designee shall schedule demolition and construction activities to avoid the nesting season. The nesting season for most birds, including most raptors in the San Francisco Bay area extends from February 1st through August 31st. • If it is not possible to schedule demolition and construction between September 1st and January 31st to avoid the nesting season, pre-construction surveys for nesting raptors and other migratory nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified ornithologist, as approved by the City of Palo Alto, to identify active nests that may be disturbed during project implementation on-site and within 250 feet of the site. Projects that commence demolition and/or construction activities between February 1st and August 31st shall conduct a pre-construction survey for nesting birds no more than 14 days prior to initiation of construction, demolition activities, or tree removal. • If an active nest is found in or close enough to the project area to be disturbed by construction activities, a qualified ornithologist shall determine the extent of a construction- free buffer zone (typically 250 feet for raptors and 100 feet for other birds) around the nest, to ensure that raptor or migratory bird nests would not be disturbed during ground disturbing activities. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) will notified, as appropriate. The Implementation: Project applicant Monitoring: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment, City of Palo Alto- approved/qualified ornithologist, CDFW Pre-construction surveys to be conducted by a qualified ornithologist for nesting raptors and other migratory birds Findings shall be reported to Director of Planning and Community Environment No more than 14 days prior to demolition, grading, construction or tree removal, if occurring between February 1st and August 31st 3.c Packet Pg. 51 3200 El Camino Real Hotel Parmani Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program/Environmental Commitment Record City of Palo Alto November 2018 3200 El Camino Real Hotel Parmani Project Page 2 Avoidance/Mitigation Measures Mitigation and Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Schedule construction-free buffer zones shall be maintained until after the nesting season has ended and/or the ornithologist has determined that the nest is no longer active. • The ornithologist shall submit a report indicating the results of the survey and any designated buffer zones to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto prior to any grading, demolition, and/or building permit. Cultural Resources [Source: Section 4.5.3 of Initial Study] MM CUL-1.1: In the event any significant cultural materials (including fossils) are encountered during construction grading or excavation, construction within a radius of 50 feet of the find would be halted, the Director of Planning shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall examine the find and make appropriate recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate treatment of the resource. Recommendations could include collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials. A report of findings documenting any data recovered during monitoring shall be submitted to the Director of Planning. Implementation: Project contractor Monitoring: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment, City of Palo Alto- approved/qualified archaeologist Qualified archaeologist shall examine any cultural materials encountered during construction activities Findings shall be reported to Director of Planning and Community Environment During construction MM CUL-1.2: Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California in the event of the discovery of human remains during construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this state law, then the land owner shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Implementation: Project contractor Monitoring: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment, Santa Clara County Coroner, NAHC Santa Clara County Coroner shall determine the status of remains, if encountered NAHC shall identify descendants of the deceased, if remains are Native American During construction 3.c Packet Pg. 52 3200 El Camino Real Hotel Parmani Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program/Environmental Commitment Record City of Palo Alto November 2018 3200 El Camino Real Hotel Parmani Project Page 3 Avoidance/Mitigation Measures Mitigation and Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Schedule Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. If the Director of Planning finds that the archaeological find is not a significant resource, work would resume only after the submittal of a preliminary archaeological report and after provisions for reburial and ongoing monitoring are accepted. Submittal and acceptance of an archaeological report to the Director of Planning and Community Environment MM CUL-2: In the event that a tribal cultural resource is found during construction, the NAHC will be contacted for information regarding the appropriate tribe and/or persons to notify. Once the appropriate tribal representatives are notified, consultation will take place consistent with AB 52 requirements. Mitigation measures that may be considered to avoid significant impacts (if there is no agreement on appropriate mitigation in discussions with the tribal representative) may include: • Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including: - Planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context; - Planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria; • Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following: - Preservation in place; - Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource; - Protecting the traditional use of the resource; - Protecting the confidentiality of the resource; - Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. Implementation: Project contractor and project applicant Monitoring: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment, NAHC Notification of Director of Planning and Community Environment if tribal cultural materials are encountered Coordination with NAHC to ensure appropriate tribal representatives are notified Tribal consultation to determine appropriate mitigation measures for the tribal resources discovered During construction 3.c Packet Pg. 53 3200 El Camino Real Hotel Parmani Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program/Environmental Commitment Record City of Palo Alto November 2018 3200 El Camino Real Hotel Parmani Project Page 4 Avoidance/Mitigation Measures Mitigation and Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Schedule Geology and Soils [Source: Section 4.7.3 of Initial Study] MM GEO-1: Geotechnical Design Considerations. The project owner or designee shall implement all the measures and conditions set forth in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Murray Engineers, Inc. in June 2018 or provide an acceptable equivalent to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works Engineering to reduce hazards related to expansive or unstable soils. These include but are not limited to: - Foundation design (mat foundation, basement water proofing, lateral loads, and settlement) - Spread footing foundations for detached landscape improvements - Drilled pier foundations (at-grade foundations) - Basement retaining walls (mat foundation, subsurface drainage, lateral load) - Slabs-on-grade (at-grade features outside the basement, exterior slabs) - Vapor retarder - Flexible pavements (asphaltic concrete) - Earthwork (clearing and site preparation, material for fill, compaction, temporary slopes and excavations, and surface drainage) Implementation: Project contractor and project applicant Monitoring: City of Palo Alto Director of Public Works Engineering Approval of mitigation measures and conditions by the City of Palo Alto Director of Public Works Engineering Observation of conditions by Building Inspectors during construction Prior to and during construction activities Hazards and Hazardous Materials [Source: Section 4.9.3 of Initial Study] MM HAZ-1: A Construction Risk Management Mitigation Plan shall be developed by the applicant to reduce exposure of construction workers and surrounding receptors to contaminated on-site soil, groundwater and soil vapor during development. Elements of this plan should include the following: • Develop a Site Health and Safety Plan that includes provisions to monitor and protect construction workers from benzene or TCE-contaminated soil vapor exposure; • Develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for construction to prevent or minimize potential contaminated runoff from on-site soils; Implementation: Project contractor and applicant Monitoring: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Approval of Construction Risk Management Mitigation Plan by Director of Department of Planning and Community Environment Observation of conditions by Building Prior to and during construction activities 3.c Packet Pg. 54 3200 El Camino Real Hotel Parmani Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program/Environmental Commitment Record City of Palo Alto November 2018 3200 El Camino Real Hotel Parmani Project Page 5 Avoidance/Mitigation Measures Mitigation and Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Schedule • Obtain the relevant underground construction permits and approvals to ensure that dewatering of contaminated groundwater and subsequent disposal or reuse of groundwater is conducted in accordance with local and state regulations; • Follow recommended dust control measures to reduce worker and public exposure to on-site contaminants that may be attached to airborne dust particles; • Comply with excavation and shoring guidelines regarding the proper handling, storage, and disposal of contaminated and/or wet impacted soil to ensure that workers or nearby residents would not be exposed should such soils be encountered; • Characterize and properly reuse or dispose of excavated soil to ensure that construction workers or nearby residents are not exposed to contaminated soil; • Comply with groundwater extraction and disposal guidelines in order to minimize the volume of extracted groundwater and ensure that appropriate remediation occurs. Inspectors during construction 3.c Packet Pg. 55 ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3200 El Camino Real, 18PLN-00045 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None 0.61 acres (100’ x 258’) 0.61 acres (100’ x 258’) Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) 2 feet 10’-9” Rear Yard None 5 feet 10 feet to trash enclosure/13’-9” to building Interior Side Yard None 3 feet Varies (4’-10” to 10’) Street Side Yard None 3 feet 0 feet (19 foot setback from curb) Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback on El Camino Real 33% of side street built to setback on Hansen Way (7) Not compliant 63% (63 feet) along El Camino Real 52% (135 feet) along Hansen Way Special Setback 50 feet – see Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps 50 feet 0 feet (19 foot setback from curb) Max. Site Coverage None 48.3% (13,000 sf) 39.8% (10,808 sf) Max. Building Height 50 feet 25 feet 49’-8” Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 2.0:1 for hotels 18.18.060(d) 48.35% (283,980 sf) 1.99:1 (53,658 sf) (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (7) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage, build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage 3.d Packet Pg. 56 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) continued Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Topic Requirement Proposed Hours of Operation (18.16.040 (b)) Businesses with activities any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be required to obtain a conditional use permit. The director may apply conditions of approval as are deemed necessary to assure compatibility with the nearby residentially zoned property The hotel operates 24 hours daily. 18.16.080 Performance Standards. All development in the CS district shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, including all mixed use development 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Hotel Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1 per guestroom for a total of 99 parking spaces Eating and Drinking – 1 space per 60 sf of public area and 1 space per 200 sf of service area, less up to 75% if approved by the Director for shared use = 4 spaces Total = 103 spaces 22 spaces 82 spaces Providing additional 24 spaces through valet operations. Condition of approval to ensure valet operations plan is maintained. Bicycle Parking 1 per 10 guestrooms (100% short term) equals 10 spaces Eating and Drinking - 1 per 600 sf of public area and 1 space per 200 sf of service area = 2 spaces Total = 12 spaces None 10 spaces *condition of approval to achieve compliance. Loading Space 1 loading spaces for 10,000 - 99,999 sf 1 space 1 space 3.d Packet Pg. 57 The hotel use is subject to the following additional restrictions per PAMC Section 18.16.060(d) (d) Hotel Regulations (1) The purpose of these regulations is to allow floor area for development of hotels in excess of floor area limitations for other commercial uses, in order to provide a visitor-serving use that results in an enhanced business climate, increased transient occupancy tax and sales tax revenue, and other community and economic benefits to the city. (2) Hotels, where they are a permitted use, may develop to a maximum FAR of 2.0:1, subject to the following limitations: (A) The hotel use must generate transient occupancy tax (TOT) as provided in Chapter 2.33 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; and (B) No room stays in excess of thirty days are permitted, except where the city council approves longer stays through an enforceable agreement with the applicant to provide for compensating revenues. (3) Hotels may include residential condominium use, subject to: (A) No more than twenty-five percent of the floor area shall be devoted to condominium use; and (B) No more than twenty-five percent of the total number of lodging units shall be devoted to condominium use; and (C) A minimum FAR of 1.0 shall be provided for the hotel/condominium building(s); and (D) Where residential condominium use is proposed, room stays for other hotel rooms shall not exceed thirty days. (4) Violation of this chapter is subject to enforcement action for stays in excess of thirty days not permitted under the provisions of this chapter, in which case each day of room stay in excess of thirty days shall constitute a separate violation and administrative penalties shall be assessed pursuant to Chapters 1.12 and 1.16. 3.d Packet Pg. 58 The following is a summary of design changes made since the last version of Design reviewed by ARB: 1.Site Issues – benches infused into plan along El Camino for public use. 2.Plaza – Opened up more for broader cross views. Café foot print changed to bring café into plaza more and close to Street. Entry approach to Café off of El Camino widened. 3.Plaza – eliminated green screen wall and propose a wall, water sculptural element on the south face of the building in the Plaza. 4.Windows – design modifications made to organize windows to more consistent sizing. Recessed windows more to give more depth and shadow to elevations. Infused the metal screen material between windows (vertically) to bring the screening material (used at the corner of the building) into the overall façade 5.Balconies – added 4 guest balconies to the El Camino side of the building on the 4th floor. 6.Balconies – made 3rd and 4th floor “step back areas” on Hansen side into landscaped platforms (not occupancy balconies). 7.Balcones – made 3rd floor “step back area” on El Camino side into landscaped platform (not occupancy balconies). 8.Façade – generally the same configuration of plan, setbacks, height and quantities however more consistency in window sizes and their relief to give more shadow to the façade. We removed the second floor paint color (light grey) and made it white to match the rest of the building thus reducing the horizontal “layering” affect. Windows on the north elevation changed to match the Hansen side thus more interest and character. 9.Roof Eyebrows – Reduced the length of the cantilever on the El Camino side. 10.Roof Eyebrows – elongated the Hansen side eyebrow to the east to gain symmetry and balance with El Camino side. 11.Southeast Corner of Building: a.Made Design Changes to distinguish elements on corner: i.Screen Element now extends from plaza floor to roof parapet and is “framed symmetrically” with pilasters. ii.Glass Element on corner (for corner guest rooms) has been changed to a curved curtain wall element that follows the curvature of the originally proposed metal facade wall. Curved glass element softens the corner and adds verticality to the building from plaza floor to the roof. At the same time, the curved glass element encompasses part of the Café at the Plaza level. iii.The metal façade wall at the first level of the building remains as does its curvature at the corner but a portion of the second floor podium, behind the wall, has been removed to create an open-air space that allows the metal screen wall and the curved curtain wall glass element to extend from plaza floor to the roof. iv.Vertical pilasters “book end” the curved curtain wall glass element from plaza floor to the roof. v.Café plan reconfigured to be within the curved curtain wall glass element and be more “outbound” into the plaza. Café is the same size (area) thus no changes to related parking requirement or parking spaces provided. 12.Landscaping: a.Changes made to add plants on balconies at every level. b.Plant species changed to more native varieties. c.Pots added to the plaza. 3.e Packet Pg. 59 d. More green screening added to the north side of the building facing neighbor to the north. SUMMARY We have responded to ARB comments by stepping back and relooking at issues in a comprehensive way. The majority of comments, in my opinion, were seeking clarity of design and more order to the various components of the building. The current design spreads the use of elements consistently throughout the façade, namely the screen metal paneling (bubble pattern) and brings more order to major components of the building (windows and the corner vertical elements) to where there is distinction and logic to their organization. With respect to colors, we present the same color palette as seen last time by ARB that seems appropriate as a backdrop to the large quantity of greenery found at each floor level. James Heilbronner, President 30 Years of Success! www.archdim.com S.F. BAY AREA 300 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Ste. 375 Oakland, CA 94612 TEL. 510.463.8300 CELL. 510.517.2748 3.e Packet Pg. 60 3.e Packet Pg. 61 NEW VERSION 11/14/2018 3.e Packet Pg. 62 OLD VERSION 10/04/2018 3.e Packet Pg. 63 NEW VERSION 11/14/2018 3.e Packet Pg. 64 OLD VERSION 10/04/2018 3.e Packet Pg. 65 NEW VERSION 11/14/2018 3.e Packet Pg. 66 OLD VERSION 10/04/2018 3.e Packet Pg. 67 NEW VERSION 11/14/2018 3.e Packet Pg. 68 OLD VERSION 10/04/2018 3.e Packet Pg. 69 NEW VERSION 11/14/2018 3.e Packet Pg. 70 OLD VERSION 10/04/2018 3.e Packet Pg. 71 NEW VERSION 11/14/2018 3.e Packet Pg. 72 OLD VERSION 10/04/2018 3.e Packet Pg. 73 NEW VERSION 11/14/2018 3.e Packet Pg. 74 OLD VERSION 10/04/2018 3.e Packet Pg. 75 NEW VERSION 11/14/2018 3.e Packet Pg. 76 OLD VERSION 10/04/2018 3.e Packet Pg. 77 NEW VERSION 11/14/2018 3.e Packet Pg. 78 OLD VERSION 10/04/2018 3.e Packet Pg. 79 NEW VERSION 11/14/2018 3.e Packet Pg. 80 OLD VERSION 10/04/2018 3.e Packet Pg. 81 NEW VERSION 11/14/2018 3.e Packet Pg. 82 OLD VERSION 10/04/2018 3.e Packet Pg. 83 NEW VERSION 11/14/2018 3.e Packet Pg. 84 OLD VERSION 10/04/2018 3.e Packet Pg. 85 NEW VERSION 11/14/2018 3.e Packet Pg. 86 OLD VERSION 10/04/2018 3.e Packet Pg. 87 NEW VERSION 11/14/2018 3.e Packet Pg. 88 OLD VERSION 10/04/2018 3.e Packet Pg. 89 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9563) 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: 3200 El Camino Real: New Hotel (1st Formal) Title: 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. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Consider the information presented and provide comment and continue item to a date uncertain. Report Summary The purpose of this report is to introduce the formal project and allow the Board to provide direction on the proposal while the environmental documentation is in process. The project has been through the Preliminary Review and Pre-Screening processes previously. The project seeks Architectural Review and Zoning Amendment approval. The project proposes to demolish the existing two-story motel building on site and develop the site with a new four-story hotel with a two-level basement garage. The project site includes 100-foot frontage along El Camino Real and 258-foot frontage along Hansen Way. The property has a 50-foot special setback along Hansen Way, thereby rendering half of the site usable for new development. The design considers the prior discussion from the Board and the City 3 Packet Pg. 35 3.f Packet Pg. 90 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Council and assumes elimination of the 50-foot special setback along Hansen Street through a Zoning Amendment. The project also seeks a 17% reduction in required parking (may be higher if the coffee shop is open to the public). Background On October 1, 2015, the ARB conducted a preliminary review of the project (Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLkk9TeWWBI). There was public and Board comment that the project was too bulky and its design would benefit from looking at the context of the surroundings. On April 4, 2016, the City Council conducted a Pre-Screening for the project with the same design that was presented to the ARB on October 1, 2015. The Council did not support a variance for the project, had some concerns about the project design, and requested that it come back to the Council for further consideration and discussion. On May 1, 2017, the City Council held its continued Pre-Screening review of the project where several Council members indicated that the proposed zoning map change was appropriate and provided feedback regarding the design. The applicant subsequently applied for a new Preliminary Architectural Review to reflect the new design concept. On June 15, 2017, the ARB conducted a hearing on the project. The Board had comments regarding the plaza area as a public focal point. There was interest in seeing more modulations on the third and fourth floors along the side that faces the Fish Market property. Project Information Owner: Prabhu Corporation c/o Yatin Patel Architect: Architectural Dimensions Property Information Address: 3200 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Stanford Research Park area, adjacent to Ventura neighborhood Lot Dimensions & Area: 100’ x 258’-3” (28,878 square feet) Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Yes Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes, Street trees Historic Resource(s): Built in 1947, evaluation in process Existing Improvement(s): 16,603 sf; Two stories; 25 feet Existing Land Use(s): Adjacent Land Uses & North: CS (Commercial/Electronics Repair) 3 Packet Pg. 36 3.f Packet Pg. 91 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Zoning: West: RP (Research & Development) East: CS (Commercial/Fish Market Restaurant) South: RP (Offices) Aerial View of Property: Source: Digital Globe, US Geological Survey, USDA Farm Service Agency, Google Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: CS (Service Commercial) Comp. Plan Designation: CS (Service Commercial) Context-Based Design Criteria: Yes 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 3 Packet Pg. 37 3.f Packet Pg. 92 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not Applicable Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: April 4, 2016 (Pre-screening): http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/51665 May 1, 2017 (Pre-screening): http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57247 PTC: None HRB: None ARB: October 1, 2015 (Preliminary): https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/49220 June 15, 2017 (Preliminary): https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=58266 Project Description The site consists of a single parcel totaling 26,878 square feet. The site is located on the southwest corner of El Camino Real and Hansen Way (see location map, Attachment A). The site has a Comprehensive Plan designation of Service Commercial and a zoning designation of CS Service Commercial. The site includes a 50-foot special setback along Hansen Way. This special setback is applicable to all properties along Hansen Way. The project includes the demolition of an existing two-story motel and the construction of a new four-story 53,598 square foot hotel with two levels of underground parking (80 spaces) with total of 82 parking spaces provided for the site. To accommodate the development, the proposal includes elimination of the 50-foot special setback along Hansen Way. The project would have a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.99:1 and a site lot coverage of 39.8%. The project would include a plaza at the corner intersection of Hansen Way and El Camino Real that would feature some outdoor seating and have access to a coffee shop (not confirmed whether this is open to the public). A minor entry into the hotel is located off the plaza and the primary entry is located along Hansen Way adjacent to the driveway onto the site. The four-story contemporary-designed hotel includes modulations along the Hansen Way elevation. At the ground level, a porte cochere provides for vehicular entry and drop off area leading to the lobby of the hotel. A second story terrace wraps around from the Hansen Way elevation to the El Camino Real elevation with potted plants. The north elevation, includes some modulation, however, not as much as the Hansen Way elevation (south). Proposed materials include stone cladding, stone veneer, painted stucco, vision and spandrel glass with aluminum frames and metal paneling. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: 3 Packet Pg. 38 3.f Packet Pg. 93 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 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 (Attachment B). However, since this project includes other actions that require approval by the City Council, the Board will make their recommendation to the City Council. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial.  Zoning Amendment (ZA): The elimination of the special setback requires a legislative action. The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.80. Rezone applications are reviewed by the PTC and recommendations are forwarded to the City Council.  Conditional Use Permit—(CUP): Since the hotel will have operations between 10:00pm and 6:00am daily, the project requires the approval of a CUP. This process for evaluating a CUP is set forth in PAMC 18.77.060. Typically, the Director of Planning & Community Environment approves these requests. Since the application includes other action that require approval by the City Council, this request will be considered by the City Council. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The project site is located at the entrance to the Stanford Research Park, and across El Camino Real from the Ventura neighborhood, in an area that includes mostly older single to two story commercial development. Directly across the street along Hansen Way is a research & development building surrounded by a large surface parking lot. Hansen Way includes a 50-foot special setback that was intended to accommodate future street widening. The subject lot is narrow in comparison to some of the other lots in the area with frontage along El Camino Real. The adjacent property to the north of the site along Hansen Way includes a building that does not meet the 50-foot special setback (i.e. 36-feet). The intersection of Hansen Way and El Camino Real includes a “pork chop” traffic delineator that channels a free-right movement for vehicles from El Camino to Hansen Way. Another “pork chop” allows free right turning onto El Camino Real from Hansen Way. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 3 Packet Pg. 39 3.f Packet Pg. 94 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 land use designation for the project site is Service Commercial, which includes facilities providing citywide and regional services and relying on customers arriving by car. These uses do not necessarily benefit from being in high volume pedestrian areas such as shopping centers or Downtown. Typical uses include auto services and dealerships, motels, lumberyards, appliance stores, and restaurants, including fast service types. In almost all cases, these uses require good automobile and service access so that customers can safely load and unload without impeding traffic. In some locations, residential and mixed-use projects may be appropriate in this land use category. Examples of Service Commercial areas include San Antonio Road, El Camino Real, and Embarcadero Road northeast of the Bayshore Freeway. Nonresidential FAR will range up to 0.4. On balance, staff believes the project will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. A detailed review of the project’s consistency will be provided at the next hearing, prior to ARB recommendation. Zoning Compliance3 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment C. The proposed project 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. Proposed Use The project replaces an existing motel with 36 guestrooms and increases the guestrooms on- site to 99 rooms. A hotel is a permitted use within the CS district. In accordance with PAMC 18.16.060(d) hotels are permitted up to 2.0:1 FAR. The project’s FAR of 1.99:1 is consistent with this standard. Regardless of the size of the site and intensity of the development, the CS zoning district has no maximum site coverage standard. Setback The project shows an encroachment into the existing 50-foot special setback. As previously discussed, as part of the project’s requests, a zoning amendment is proposed to eliminate this setback for this property. Context-Based Design Criteria According to Section 18.16.090 of the PAMC, “compatibility is achieved when apparent scale and mass of new buildings is consistent with the pattern of achieving a pedestrian oriented design, and when new construction shares general characteristics and establishes design 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3 Packet Pg. 40 3.f Packet Pg. 95 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 linkages with the overall pattern of buildings, so that the visual unity of the street is maintained”. The proposal shows an architectural style compatible with some of the newer buildings on the street within the vicinity, intended to create a visual unity of the street’s buildings. The building would be one of the newer developments on the block in terms of design and massing. Generally, the streetscape along El Camino Real includes a mixture of newer and older development that includes one to four story buildings. The pattern for newer development is to be more intensive, incorporating contemporary design. El Camino Real Design Guidelines and South El Camino Real Guidelines The project is subject to the El Camino Real Design Guidelines and the South El Camino Real Guidelines. The Guidelines consider the site a part of the California Avenue Corridor Area. According to the Guidelines, new buildings should front El Camino Real with prominent facades. Entries should face El Camino Real, or be clearly visible and easily accessible to pedestrians. Auto-oriented development should include pedestrian-friendly design elements to accommodate those arriving by foot or transit. The project includes what appears to be a secondary pedestrian entry from El Camino Real. The Guidelines encourage visually appealing and functional open space amenities. The project includes an outdoor patio area at the corner of the property, which appears to support this guideline. The use of low walls is encouraged to define this location. The site will need to enhance the site landscaping, especially along the parking lot edges as encouraged by the guidelines. The project should also consider a variety of lighting types, integrating these fixtures into the project design and at the same time minimize glare upon adjacent properties. Signs are not currently included in the scope of the project; however, the guidelines encourage that primary signs be designed as an integral part of the building, be legible, and backlit. The proposal generally appears to be compliant with a majority of the El Camino Real Design Guidelines and South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The proposal provides some appropriate transitions to the surrounding buildings with the varied roof lines and building articulation. The architecture, while modern, is simple in appearance and appears to not detract from the streetscape. The proposed project also includes landscaping at the street to improve visual interest and pedestrian comfort. The ARB is requested to discuss the project’s compatibility in the areas of scale, mass, pedestrian oriented design, given the site’s context. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project proposes to move the current main driveway entry from El Camino Real to Hansen Way to reduce pedestrian and vehicular conflicts. Prior iterations of the project included maintaining the “pork chop” at the El Camino Real and Hansen Way intersection. Through discussions with the applicant, the project now proposes to eliminate the adjacent free right 3 Packet Pg. 41 3.f Packet Pg. 96 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 turn (pork chop), which is likely to improve circulation along El Camino Real and provide greater safety to pedestrians and cyclist alike. Implementing this improvement would require coordination between, the applicant, the City and the State Department of Transportation (CalTrans), whom controls the El Camino Real right-of-way. The project includes two surface parking spaces and a ramp that would lead to two levels of underground parking with standard parking spaces. According to PAMC Section 18.52, the hotel and restaurant(s) would require 105 automobile spaces; the plans indicate 82 proposed automobile spaces which could be increased with the use a valet parking in the aisle ways. The project currently seeks a parking reduction pursuant to PAMC 18.52.050, Table 4 for a 22% reduction when transportation and parking alternatives are provided. The maximum allowed reduction is 20%, therefore, staff will continue to work with the applicant to see how valet parking may/or may not create efficiencies. The project requires 12 short-term bicycle spaces. The project currently provides 10 bicycle spaces. Consistency with Application Findings The project is subject to a number of applications as described previously. Each application requires the City Council to make findings for any approval. The Board is tasked with recommending findings for the architectural review application. A list of the findings is included as Attachment B. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project requires the completion of an Initial Study, which is currently ongoing. Technical studies supporting the environmental analysis include, air quality emissions report, arborist report, historic report, geotechnical study, Phase I environmental site assessment, acoustical report, and traffic report. 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 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. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 42 3.f Packet Pg. 97 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 x 109 (650) 329-2575 sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: ARB Finding, Context-Based Design and Performance Criteria (DOCX)  Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment D: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)  Attachment E: Project Plans (DOCX) 3 Packet Pg. 43 3.f Packet Pg. 98 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 down to find “3200 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=2716 3.g Packet Pg. 99 3200 El Camino Real Hotel Parmani Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program/Environmental Commitment Record City of Palo Alto November 2018 3200 El Camino Real Hotel Parmani Project Page 1 Avoidance/Mitigation Measures Mitigation and Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Schedule Air Quality [Source: Section 4.3.3 of Initial Study] MM AIR-1: Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce community risk impacts from construction to a less than significant level. All mobile diesel-powered off-road equipment larger than 25 horsepower and operating on-site for more than two days continuously (or 20 hours in total) shall meet U.S. EPA particulate matter emissions standards for Tier 2 engines equipped with CARB-certified Level 3 Diesel Particulate Filters or equivalent. Implementation: Project contractor Monitoring: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment, BAAQMD Observation of conditions by Building Inspectors during construction During construction Biological Resources [Source: Section 4.4.2 of Initial Study] MM BIO-1.1: The project owner or designee shall schedule demolition and construction activities to avoid the nesting season. The nesting season for most birds, including most raptors in the San Francisco Bay area extends from February 1st through August 31st. • If it is not possible to schedule demolition and construction between September 1st and January 31st to avoid the nesting season, pre-construction surveys for nesting raptors and other migratory nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified ornithologist, as approved by the City of Palo Alto, to identify active nests that may be disturbed during project implementation on-site and within 250 feet of the site. Projects that commence demolition and/or construction activities between February 1st and August 31st shall conduct a pre-construction survey for nesting birds no more than 14 days prior to initiation of construction, demolition activities, or tree removal. • If an active nest is found in or close enough to the project area to be disturbed by construction activities, a qualified ornithologist shall determine the extent of a construction- free buffer zone (typically 250 feet for raptors and 100 feet for other birds) around the nest, to ensure that raptor or migratory bird nests would not be disturbed during ground disturbing activities. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) will notified, as appropriate. The Implementation: Project applicant Monitoring: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment, City of Palo Alto- approved/qualified ornithologist, CDFW Pre-construction surveys to be conducted by a qualified ornithologist for nesting raptors and other migratory birds Findings shall be reported to Director of Planning and Community Environment No more than 14 days prior to demolition, grading, construction or tree removal, if occurring between February 1st and August 31st 3.h Packet Pg. 100 3200 El Camino Real Hotel Parmani Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program/Environmental Commitment Record City of Palo Alto November 2018 3200 El Camino Real Hotel Parmani Project Page 2 Avoidance/Mitigation Measures Mitigation and Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Schedule construction-free buffer zones shall be maintained until after the nesting season has ended and/or the ornithologist has determined that the nest is no longer active. • The ornithologist shall submit a report indicating the results of the survey and any designated buffer zones to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto prior to any grading, demolition, and/or building permit. Cultural Resources [Source: Section 4.5.3 of Initial Study] MM CUL-1.1: In the event any significant cultural materials (including fossils) are encountered during construction grading or excavation, construction within a radius of 50 feet of the find would be halted, the Director of Planning shall be notified, and a qualified archaeologist shall examine the find and make appropriate recommendations regarding the significance of the find and the appropriate treatment of the resource. Recommendations could include collection, recordation, and analysis of any significant cultural materials. A report of findings documenting any data recovered during monitoring shall be submitted to the Director of Planning. Implementation: Project contractor Monitoring: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment, City of Palo Alto- approved/qualified archaeologist Qualified archaeologist shall examine any cultural materials encountered during construction activities Findings shall be reported to Director of Planning and Community Environment During construction MM CUL-1.2: Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California in the event of the discovery of human remains during construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains. The Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this state law, then the land owner shall reinter the human remains and items associated with Implementation: Project contractor Monitoring: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment, Santa Clara County Coroner, NAHC Santa Clara County Coroner shall determine the status of remains, if encountered NAHC shall identify descendants of the deceased, if remains are Native American During construction 3.h Packet Pg. 101 3200 El Camino Real Hotel Parmani Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program/Environmental Commitment Record City of Palo Alto November 2018 3200 El Camino Real Hotel Parmani Project Page 3 Avoidance/Mitigation Measures Mitigation and Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Schedule Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. If the Director of Planning finds that the archaeological find is not a significant resource, work would resume only after the submittal of a preliminary archaeological report and after provisions for reburial and ongoing monitoring are accepted. Submittal and acceptance of an archaeological report to the Director of Planning and Community Environment MM CUL-2: In the event that a tribal cultural resource is found during construction, the NAHC will be contacted for information regarding the appropriate tribe and/or persons to notify. Once the appropriate tribal representatives are notified, consultation will take place consistent with AB 52 requirements. Mitigation measures that may be considered to avoid significant impacts (if there is no agreement on appropriate mitigation in discussions with the tribal representative) may include: • Avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, including: - Planning and construction to avoid the resources and protect the cultural and natural context; - Planning greenspace, parks, or other open space, to incorporate the resources with culturally appropriate protection and management criteria; • Treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, taking into account the tribal cultural values and meaning of the resource, including, but not limited to, the following: - Preservation in place; - Protecting the cultural character and integrity of the resource; - Protecting the traditional use of the resource; - Protecting the confidentiality of the resource; - Permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property, with culturally appropriate management criteria for the purposes of preserving or utilizing the resources or places. Implementation: Project contractor and project applicant Monitoring: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment, NAHC Notification of Director of Planning and Community Environment if tribal cultural materials are encountered Coordination with NAHC to ensure appropriate tribal representatives are notified Tribal consultation to determine appropriate mitigation measures for the tribal resources discovered During construction 3.h Packet Pg. 102 3200 El Camino Real Hotel Parmani Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program/Environmental Commitment Record City of Palo Alto November 2018 3200 El Camino Real Hotel Parmani Project Page 4 Avoidance/Mitigation Measures Mitigation and Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Schedule Geology and Soils [Source: Section 4.7.3 of Initial Study] MM GEO-1: Geotechnical Design Considerations. The project owner or designee shall implement all the measures and conditions set forth in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Murray Engineers, Inc. in June 2018 or provide an acceptable equivalent to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works Engineering to reduce hazards related to expansive or unstable soils. These include but are not limited to: - Foundation design (mat foundation, basement water proofing, lateral loads, and settlement) - Spread footing foundations for detached landscape improvements - Drilled pier foundations (at-grade foundations) - Basement retaining walls (mat foundation, subsurface drainage, lateral load) - Slabs-on-grade (at-grade features outside the basement, exterior slabs) - Vapor retarder - Flexible pavements (asphaltic concrete) - Earthwork (clearing and site preparation, material for fill, compaction, temporary slopes and excavations, and surface drainage) Implementation: Project contractor and project applicant Monitoring: City of Palo Alto Director of Public Works Engineering Approval of mitigation measures and conditions by the City of Palo Alto Director of Public Works Engineering Observation of conditions by Building Inspectors during construction Prior to and during construction activities Hazards and Hazardous Materials [Source: Section 4.9.3 of Initial Study] MM HAZ-1: A Construction Risk Management Mitigation Plan shall be developed by the applicant to reduce exposure of construction workers and surrounding receptors to contaminated on-site soil, groundwater and soil vapor during development. Elements of this plan should include the following: • Develop a Site Health and Safety Plan that includes provisions to monitor and protect construction workers from benzene or TCE-contaminated soil vapor exposure; • Develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for construction to prevent or minimize potential contaminated runoff from on-site soils; Implementation: Project contractor and applicant Monitoring: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Approval of Construction Risk Management Mitigation Plan by Director of Department of Planning and Community Environment Observation of conditions by Building Prior to and during construction activities 3.h Packet Pg. 103 3200 El Camino Real Hotel Parmani Project Mitigation Monitoring & Reporting Program/Environmental Commitment Record City of Palo Alto November 2018 3200 El Camino Real Hotel Parmani Project Page 5 Avoidance/Mitigation Measures Mitigation and Monitoring Responsibility Monitoring Action Schedule • Obtain the relevant underground construction permits and approvals to ensure that dewatering of contaminated groundwater and subsequent disposal or reuse of groundwater is conducted in accordance with local and state regulations; • Follow recommended dust control measures to reduce worker and public exposure to on-site contaminants that may be attached to airborne dust particles; • Comply with excavation and shoring guidelines regarding the proper handling, storage, and disposal of contaminated and/or wet impacted soil to ensure that workers or nearby residents would not be exposed should such soils be encountered; • Characterize and properly reuse or dispose of excavated soil to ensure that construction workers or nearby residents are not exposed to contaminated soil; • Comply with groundwater extraction and disposal guidelines in order to minimize the volume of extracted groundwater and ensure that appropriate remediation occurs. Inspectors during construction 3.h Packet Pg. 104 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9726) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/20/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 2321 Wellesley Street: Two New Units & Zone Change from R- 1 to RMD(NP) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2321 Wellesley Street [18PLN-00178]: Request for Architectural Review of a Two- Family Residential Project. This Application Will Also be Heard by the PTC on December 12, 2018 for a Zoning Map Amendment to Change the Subject Property From R-1 to RMD(NP). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: R-1 (Single-Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez (samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org) 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 City Council based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Background Project Information Owner: Jack Culpepper Architect: Jarvis Architects Representative: Not Specified Legal Counsel: Not Specified Property Information Address: 2321 Wellesley St 4 Packet Pg. 105 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Neighborhood: College Terrace Lot Dimensions & Area: 50’ x 125’; 6,250 sf Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: One (1) Street Tree Historic Resource(s): Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s): Vacant Lot Existing Land Use(s): Vacant Lot Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: RMD (NP) (Multi-Family Residential) West: PF (College Terrace Library) East: RMD (NP) (Multi-Family Residential) South: R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Special Setbacks: Not Applicable Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Maps 4 Packet Pg. 106 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans/Guidelines Zoning Designation: R-1 Single Family Residential District Comp. Plan Designation: Single Family (SF) Context-Based Design: Not Applicable Downtown Urban Design: Not Applicable SOFA II CAP: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable ECR Guidelines ('76 / '02): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not Applicable Located w/in AIA (Airport Influence Area): Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: Prescreening ….. PTC: The proposed Zone Change was heard by the PTC on December 12, 2018, Staff Report https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68094 HRB: Not Applicable ARB: Not Applicable Project Description A request for Major Architectural Review and Zone Change to change the zoning district from R- 1 to RMD(NP) and allow the construction of a new attached duplex comprised of an approximately 2,915 square foot, two-story single family home with an attached 1,126 square foot second unit in the basement. 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.  Zone Change: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.80. This Code Section is intended to provide a review process for changes in district boundaries, or by changing the regulations applicable within one or more districts, 4 Packet Pg. 107 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 whenever the public interest or general welfare may so require. The PTC’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The subject parcel is approximately 6,250 square feet and is currently zoned R-1 and has historically been used as a single-family residence. However, the 1931 dwelling was demolished in the early 1990s and the parcel has remained vacant. The subject parcel is located directly adjacent to a Public Facility zone (College Terrace Children’s Center, College Terrace Library and Mayfield Park) and is surrounded by multi-family and duplex dwellings in the RMD (NP) zone to the north and to the east. The relationship of the subject parcel relative to the surrounding zoning can be viewed on Attachment A. The subject property is the only R-1 zoned property on the north side of Wellesley Street on this block. The subject parcel is surrounded by a mixture of one-story and two-story residences, and multi-family complexes located at 2226 Wellesley Street, 811 College Avenue, and 2345 Wellesley Street. Subject Parcel 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. 4 Packet Pg. 108 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Adjacent Apartment Building Single Family Homes Across From The Subject Parcel The existing R-1 zoning of the subject parcel allows for the construction of a new single-family residence as well as construction of an accessory dwelling unit. While the Residential Multiple- Family Residential District (RMD) would permit a single-family dwelling with a second dwelling unit under the same ownership as the initial dwelling unit. Though both the R-1 and RMD zone would allow for two dwelling units on the subject parcel under common ownership, the R-1 zone would achieve the second dwelling unit by way of adding an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), which is limited to 600 square feet in area. (900 square feet, if detached). The RMD zone allows for two, single-family homes without the same floor area limitation for the second unit. Recently effective ADU code changes to allow an additional (bonus) 220 square feet of floor area would not be applicable to this project as the bonus floor area would be for homes that were existing on January 1, 2017. The requested zone change to RMD also involves the Neighborhood Preservation Combining District (NP), which modifies the RMD two unit multiple-family residential district areas, and requires the preservation of the visual and historic character of such designated neighborhoods. The (NP) combining district requires formal review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to ensure quality design and compatibility with surrounding properties. As discussed, the neighborhood has a mixture of housing densities and an eclectic mix of architectural styles, Staff seeks the ARB’s input on the proposed design of the two-family dwelling (duplex) in relation to the ARB findings and the neighborhood context as required by 4 Packet Pg. 109 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 the NP combining district. The proposed craftsmen style, utilizing wood siding, appears to be consistent with the varied styles in the neighborhood. Additionally, staff seeks the ARBs guidance regarding the submitted landscape plan. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan2 On balance, the requested zone change and the intention to develop two dwelling units on the subject parcel is consistent with the Comprehensive Plans as it would provide two net new housing units to the City housing supply. In addition, the (NP) combining district requires any new development on the subject site to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood which is consistent with Policy L-3.1 which seeks to “Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures”. Furthermore, the requested zone change would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plans Land-Use Map as the RMD(NP) zone district is designated Multi-family Residential, and is not associated with spot zoning. Zoning Compliance3 Rezoning the property from R-1 to RMD (NP) modifies the development potential of the site and increases allowances for lot coverage, height, and floor area. 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. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project has proposed a carport with two parking spaces, in addition to the driveway area that would have capacity for additional parking on site. This proposal meets the Code requirement. The RMD zone allows for the maximum FAR to be exceeded by 200 sf in order to accommodate the required second covered parking space (PAMC 18.10.060). This project is utilizing the FAR exemption for the second covered parking space. 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 Guideline Section 15303(b) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). This application falls under this exemption as it involves a proposed duplex residential structure that totals no more than six dwelling units in an urbanized area. 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 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 4 Packet Pg. 110 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on December 7, 2018, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on December 10, 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 pertaining to the design or massing the project. Comments from the public were received regarding the zone change process and what the requested change would mean for development standards. 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 Samuel Gutierrez, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2225 (650) 329-2575 samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org 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 Request Letter (PDF)  Attachment F: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Packet Pg. 111 1 2 6Jodie Gerhardt 5Russ Reich Coll e g e T e r r a c e _ L i b r a r y 165 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 25. 0 ' 50.0 ' 140. 0 ' 75.0 ' 180. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 180 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 264 . 1 ' 660 . 9 ' 264 . 1 ' 659 . 7 ' 658. 9 ' 198 . 3 ' 659. 7 ' 198 . 3 ' 115. 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115. 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 75.0 ' 140 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 25.0 '25.0 ' 50.0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 34. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 34. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115. 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 80.0' 125 . 0 ' 80. 0 ' 125.0'61. 5 ' 125 . 0 ' 61. 5 ' 125 . 0 ' 36.0' 125 . 0 ' 36. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 75.0' 125 . 0 ' 75. 0 ' 125.0'25100 25.0 ' 99125 7.5'100.0'7.5'100.0' 13. 5 ' 125 . 0 ' 13.5 ' 125 . 0 ' 38. 7 ' 18.0 ' 10. 5 ' 95.0 ' 28.0 ' 113 . 0 ' 56. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 28. 0 ' 95.0 ' 10. 5 '18.0 ' 38. 7 ' 12.0 ' 28. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 28. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 40.0 ' 125 . 0 ' 40. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50.0' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 40. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 40. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 40.0 ' 125 . 0 ' 40. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 416 . 0 ' 658 . 9 ' 416 . 0 ' 657 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115. 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 192.5'119. 9 ' 125.0'144.9'50.0'90.0'17.5'174.7'22.5'100.0'22.5'100.0' 100 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 100 . 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 45. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 45.0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 65. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 65. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 57. 5 ' 100 . 0 ' 57. 5 ' 100 . 0 ' 25. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 25.0 ' 125 . 0 ' 25. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 25. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 160 . 0 ' 310 . 0 ' 160. 0 ' 310 . 0 ' 115 . 0 ' 75.0 ' 115. 0 ' 75.0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 50.0 ' 115 . 0 ' 37.5 ' 115 . 0 ' 37.5 ' 115 . 0 ' 37.5 ' 115 . 0 ' 37.5 ' 115.0'50.0'115.0'50.0' 46. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 46. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 50. 0 ' 125 . 0 ' 6 25 229 5 228 5 231 4 - 234 0 228 2 - 2 2 8 8 239 4 239 2 239 0 239 6 236 9 236 1 235 3 237 7 239 3 234 5 72 0 - 74 0 75 2 - 7 6 0 75 0 85 0 860 86 8 - 87 6 78 0 232 1 80 0 2310 230 1 231 7 233 1 2330 233 3 - 2 3 3 7 234 2 234 4 62 4 64 2 65 8 234 3 - 234 7 238 5 239 5 550 227 7 2251 227 1 234 0 233 0 235 7 235 3 234 5 232 0 234 9 232 5 229 5 228 5 222 6 - 224 8 70 7 70 3 73 9 75 7 224 1 225 5 226 0 228 0 223 9 230 0 225 2 225 4 71 5 - 72 7 2215 232 4 238 5 228 9 229 1 64 4 234 6 YALE STREET WI L L I A M S S T R E E T CAL I F O R N I A A V E N U E W E L L E S L E Y S T R E E T PF This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts Project Site 0'71' 2321 Wellesley St CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O R AT E D C ALIFOR NI A P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1 894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto sgutier, 2018-12-06 14:26:08 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\sgutier.mdb) RMD (NP) R-1 Proj e c t S i t e 4.a Packet Pg. 112 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 2321 Wellesley 18PLN-00174 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 RMD zoning code and requires no exceptions to the development standards. The project is subject to the Neighborhood Preservation Combining District (NP) Design Guidelines. The purpose of design review of properties in an (NP) combining district is to achieve compatibility of scale, silhouette, façade articulation, and materials of new construction with existing structure on the same property or on surrounding properties within a combining district. The proposed project is generally consistent with the 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 Single Family (SF) Residential which applies to residential neighborhoods primarily characterized by detached single- family homes. Accessory dwelling units or duplexes are allowed subject to certain size limitations and other development standards and duplexes may be allowed in select, limited areas where they would be compatible with neighborhood character and do not create traffic and parking problems. The project consists of a two family residential development (duplex), which is consistent with the Comp Plan land use designation. 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. This is an infill project that would develop an existing vacant lot with low density residential uses. The project proposes a duplex with an architectural style and massing that fits within the character of the neighborhood. Goal L-2 An enhanced sense of “community” with development designed to foster public The design of the project fits into the character of the neighborhood and provides 4.b Packet Pg. 113 life, meet citywide needs and embrace the principles of sustainability two new units of housing in the City. Policy L-3.1 Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. The design of the two family dwelling with its two story craftsmen style is compatible with the adjacent multiple family developments and the single family developments in the area as it would be an intermediary between the massing of the adjacent single family residential and multi-family residential developments in the neighborhood. Goal L-3 Safe, attractive residential neighborhoods, each with its own distinct character and within walking distance of shopping, services, schools and/or other public gathering places. The project will develop a vacant parcel within a residential neighborhood, directly adjacent to a public facility (College Terrace Library) with a craftsman styled two family dwelling that is consistent in scale with the surrounding neighborhood character. 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 neighborhood is comprised of various residential buildings one to two stories in height. The project proposes to construct a building that is taller than the single family homes across the street, although the proposed height of 28 feet tall is consistent with the adjacent RMD zoned properties with multifamily buildings. Though the project proposed two dwelling units, the second (smaller) dwelling unit is proposed in the basement and is accessed via lightwells on each side of the proposed residence, allowing the proposed building to be consistent with the single family homes in the area, while providing larger residences within walking distance of City amenities. The context-based design criteria are not applicable to the RMD(NP) zoning district. 4.b Packet Pg. 114 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 new duplex with a classic craftsmen inspired two story style with appropriate architectural features such as exposed rafters and wood shingle siding. This would allow the new building to blend in with the existing homes, the College Terrace Library, and a neighborhood that has an eclectic collection of architectural styles. 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 sufficient parking on site that is accessible to both dwellings within the proposed duplex. The project also provides sufficient open space for each unit in both private and common areas on-site. 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 provides a variety of low to moderate water usage plants. Some of the plantings that are selected in the landscape plan are California native plants such as the Hearst's Ceanothus, Pacific Wax Myrtle, and the Western Columbine. In addition, the plant selection includes some species that attract pollinators such as Dwarf English Lavender, Citrus limon 'Meyer Improved', Hearst's Ceanothus, Star Jasmine, and the Cecil Brunner Climbing Rose when they flower. 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. In addition, as shown on sheet 1 of the submitted plans, the project includes solar panels on the roof. 4.b Packet Pg. 115 ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2321 Wellesley 18PLN-00174 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "2321 & 2323 Wellesley Street” stamped as received by the City on December 11th, 2018 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. Project plans submitted for Building permits shall incorporate the following changes: 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. REQUIRED PARKING: All RMD zoned two family residential developments shall be provided with a minimum of two covered parking space (10 foot by 20 foot interior dimensions) and one uncovered parking space (8.5 feet by 17.5 feet). 6. UTILITY LOCATIONS: In no case shall utilities be placed in a location that requires equipment and/or bollards to encroach into a required parking space. In no case shall a pipeline be placed within 10 feet of a proposed tree and/or tree designated to remain. 7. BAY WINDOWS: The proposed bay windows shall have an interior base at least 18 inches above the floor joists, have no exterior skirt wall, projecting no more than two feet, and with more than 50% window surface. Bay windows that do not meet this definition will be counted towards the homes floor area ratio (FAR), which may cause the home to be out of compliance with required Zoning standards. Any changes to proposed bay windows must first be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. 8. NOISE PRODUCING EQUIPMENT: All noise producing equipment shall be located outside of required setbacks, except they may project 6 feet into the required street side setbacks. In accordance with Section 9.10.030, No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device, or any combination of same, on residential property, a noise level more than six dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. 4.c Packet Pg. 116 9. FENCES. Fences and walls shall comply with the applicable provisions of Chapter 16.24, Fences, of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Heights of all new and existing fencing must be shown on the Building Permit plans. 10. BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION WALLS: Any walls, temporary or otherwise, installed to facilitate construction of a basement shall be removed or constructed in such a way as to not significantly restrict the growth of required landscaping, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 11. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the ARB approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. 12. ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE: Estimated Development Impact Fees in the amount of $_______ plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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, Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. 4.c Packet Pg. 117 PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY 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. 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, 4.c Packet Pg. 118 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. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 25. EXCAVATION & 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. Applicant shall prepare and submit an excavation and grading permit to Public Works separately from the building permit set and prior to building permit issuance. The permit application and instructions are available at 4.c Packet Pg. 119 the Development Center and on our website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp. 26. 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 and 3-feet from side and rear property lines, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. Include these dimensions on the plan. 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. 27. The site drainage system that collects runoff from downspouts and landscape area shall be separated from the pump system that discharges runoff from light wells. Plot and clearly label the two separate systems and include the separate outfalls for each system. 28. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring Plans prepared by a licensed professional are required for the Basement Excavation and shall be submitted with the Grading and Excavation Permit. 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. 29. DEWATERING: Contact Public Works as soon as possible to set up a meeting to discuss new dewatering regulations. Excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is not allowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level. We recommend that a piezometer be installed in the soil boring. The contractor shall determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using a piezometer or by drilling an exploratory hole. Based on the determined groundwater depth and season, the contractor may be required to dewater the site or stop all grading and excavation work. In addition Public Works may require that all groundwater be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. 30. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations and drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of 5% or 2% per 2013 CBC section 1804.3. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales, area drains, bubblers, etc. Grading that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from neighboring properties will not be allowed. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. 4.c Packet Pg. 120 31. 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 32. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: This project creates or replaces 500 square feet or more of impervious area, the applicant needs to fill out the impervious area worksheet and submit it 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. http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2718 33. RESIDENTIAL&SMALL PROJECTS STORMWATER TREATMENT: This project may trigger the California Regional WaterQuality Control Board’s revised provision C.3 for stormwater regulations(incorporated into the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section16.11) that apply to residential land development projects that create or replace between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. The applicant must implement one or more of the following site design measures: •Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse. •Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas. •Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas. •Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas. •Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces. •Construct driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces. 34. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and/or Grading and Drainage Plan:“Contractor shall not stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of-way.” Construction phasing shall be coordinated to keep materials and equipment on-site. 35. 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 PermitfromPublic 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. 36. Provide the following note on the SitePlan and adjacent to the work within the Public road right-of- way:“Any construction within the city’s public road right-of-way shall have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.” 37. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Provide a note adjacent to street trees:“Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within10 feet of street trees must be approved by PublicWorks' arborist (phone:650-496-5953).”Show construction protection of the trees per City requirements. 4.c Packet Pg. 121 38. 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 the Public Works’ Inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so the inspector can determine the extent of replacement work. Include a scan copy of the Site Inspection Directive from the PW Inspector in the plan set whether replacement work is required or not. If replacement work is required, 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. 39. Provide the following as a note on the Site Plan: “The contractor may be required to submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, stormwater pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected surrounding properties, and schedule of work. The requirement to submit a logistics plan will be dependent on the number of applications Public Works Engineering receives within close proximity to help mitigate and control the impact to the public right-of-way. If necessary, Public Works may require a Logistics Plan during construction.” UTILITIES WGW 40. Any water service, gas service, or wastewater lateral not in use must be disconnected and abandoned. 41. The City’s gas and sewer main only reach half way of the property on Wellesley St. (owner to contact CPAU for water & gas meter and sewer clean out locations). 42. Each unit shall have its own water and gas meter. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service, and wastewater lateral connection. (all WGW utility services/meters/lateral per CPAU latest standards) 43. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 44. The contractor/applicant shall not disconnect any part of the existing water, gas, or wastewater mains except by expressed permission of the WGW utilities inspector and shall submit a schedule of the estimated shutdown time to obtain said permission. 45. If the existing utility service/s will cross one property to serve another property after the property line is moved, the utility service/s has to be relocated or the applicant will need a PUE across the impacted property. 46. Only City Staff can work on the City gas distribution system. 4.c Packet Pg. 122 GREEN BUILDING This section contains general information to assist the applicant team in understanding the requirements that will be applicable to the project at plan check, inspection, and post-occupancy. Requirements are subject to change. You may also email Melanie Jacobson or Kelsey Anderson at greenbuilding@CityofPaloAlto.org for specific questions about your project. Please also visit the Green Building Compliance page for more details: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp Local Energy Reach Code for Residential Projects There are two options for compliance with the local Energy Reach Code: 1. Energy Efficiency Option 1: No Photovoltaic System. If the project includes new construction, then the project triggers the Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. For all new single-family residential and multi- family residential, non-residential construction, the performance approach specified within the 2016 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed new-single family residential or multi-family construction is at least: 10 percent less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design if the proposed building does not include a photovoltaic system. (Ord. 5383 § 1 (part), 2016) 2. Energy Efficiency Option 2: With a Photovoltaic System. If the project includes new construction, then the project triggers the Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. For all new single-family residential and multi-family residential, the performance approach specified within the 2016 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed new-single family residential or multi-family construction is at least: 20 percent less than TDV Energy of the Standard Design if proposed building includes a photovoltaic system. (Ord. 5383 § 1 (part), 2016) Green Building Requirements for Residential Projects The following conditions apply to the project: 3. CALGreen Checklist: If the project is a new construction residential building, then the project must meet the California Green Building Code Mandatory requirements outlined in Chapter 4, (with local amendments) plus Tier 2 minimum pre-requisites and electives outlined in Appendix A4* (with local amendments). The project must hire a Green Building Special Inspector for a pre-permit third-party design review and a third-party green building inspection process. The project must select from the City’s list of approved inspectors found on the Green Building Compliance Webpage. PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) *Note: Projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 shall not be required to fulfill any requirements outlined in Appendix A4.2 Energy Efficiency. All energy efficiency measures are found in the 2016 California Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18. 4. Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance: If the rehabilitated project has an aggregate (combined) landscape area of greater than 2,500 square feet, the project is subject to the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) and the project will require an separate permit for Outdoor Water Efficiency. See Outdoor Water Efficiency Submittal Guidelines and permit instructions at the following link. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/outdoor_water_efficiency_.asp 4.c Packet Pg. 123 5. Recycled Water Infrastructure for Landscape: If the project is either a new construction or a rehabilitated landscape and is greater than 1,000 square feet, then the project must install a dedicated irrigation meter related to the recycled water infrastructure. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 6. Recycled Water Infrastructure for Landscape: If the project is outside the boundaries of the recycled water project area and is greater than 1,000 square feet, then the project must install recycled water infrastructure for irrigation systems. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 7. Construction & Demolition: For residential construction projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 requirements, the project must meet the enhanced construction waste reduction at 80% construction waste reduction. PAMC 16.14.260 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. https://www.greenhalosystems.com 8. Deconstruction Survey: If the project is a single-family residential dwellings of any size applying for a demolition permit, a deconstruction survey is required. PAMC 16.14.135 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) Projects shall comply with the instructions found on the following page: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/cnd_debris_diversion_program.asp 9. EVSE: If the project is a new detached single-family dwelling, then the project shall comply with the following requirements for electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) as shown in: a) The property owner shall provide as minimum a panel capable to accommodate a dedicated branch circuit and service capacity to install at least a 208/240V, 50 amperes grounded AC outlet (Level 2 EVSE). The raceway shall terminate in close proximity to the proposed location of the charging system into a listed cabinet, box, enclosure, or receptacle. The raceway shall be installed so that minimal removal of materials is necessary to complete the final installation. The raceway shall have capacity to accommodate a 100-ampere circuit. (b) Design. The proposed location of a charging station may be internal or external to the dwelling, and shall be in close proximity to an on-site parking space. The proposed design must comply with all applicable design guidelines, setbacks and other code requirements. PAMC 16.14.420. (Ord. 5393 § 2, 2016) 10. OPTIONAL: The project may be eligible for several rebates offered through the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department. These rebates are most successfully obtained when planned into the project early in design. For the incentives available for the project, please see the information provided on the Utilities website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/residents/resrebate 4.c Packet Pg. 124 ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 2321 Wellesley, 18PLN-00174 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.10 (RMD DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 5,000-9,999 sf area, 50 foot width, 100 foot depth 6,251 sf No change Minimum/Contextual Front Yard (2) 20 feet - 20 feet Rear Yard 20 feet - 20 feet Interior Side Yard 6 feet - 6 feet Street Side Yard 16 feet - - Special Setback None - - Max. Building Height 35 feet - 28 feet Side Yard Daylight Plane 15 feet at interior side lot line then 45 degree angle - Conforms Front and Rear Yard Daylight Plane 15 feet at rear setback line then 45 degree angle Conforms Max. Site Coverage 40% for single story, 40% for multi-story - 33.7% (2,094 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 50% for first 5,000 sf lot size and 50% for lot size in excess of 5,000 sf (2,915 sf) and additional 200 sf for one covered parking space (1) - 100% of allowed FAR + 200 sf parking (3,115 sf) Minimum Usable Open Space (sf) 450 sf per dwelling unit (900 sf) 174 sf Main unit, 192 sf second unit, 1400 sf common yard space (total of 1,766 sf) Max. House Size 6,000 sf (2) 2,915 sf Main unit, 1,126 sf for basement unit (basement FAR exempted)(3) Minimum site area permitting two-family use 5,000 sf 6,251 sf 4.d Packet Pg. 125 (1) Exemption from Floor Area for Covered Parking Required for Two-Family Uses: In the R-2 and RMD districts, for two-family uses, floor area limits may be exceeded by a maximum of two hundred square feet, for purposes of providing one required covered parking space. (2) Maximum House Size: The gross floor area of attached garages and attached accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units are included in the calculation of maximum house size. If there is no garage attached to the house, then the square footage of one detached covered parking space shall be included in the calculation. This provision applies only to single-family residences, not to duplexes allowed in the R-2 and RMD districts. (3) Basement Inclusion as Gross Floor Area: Basements shall not be included in the calculation of gross floor area, provided that: basement area is not deemed to be habitable space, such as a crawlspace; or basement area is deemed to be habitable space but the finished level of the first floor is no more than three feet above the grade around the perimeter of the building foundation. Grade is measured at the lowest point of adjacent ground elevation prior to grading or fill, or finished grade, whichever is lower; or basement area is associated with a historic property as described in Section 18.04.030(a)(65)(D)(vii) Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 18.10.060 and CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Single Family Residential Uses Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 3 spaces total, of which at least two must be covered Not Applicable 2 covered parking spaces (Carport), one uncovered 4.d Packet Pg. 126 4.e Packet Pg. 127 4.e Packet Pg. 128 4.e Packet Pg. 129 4.e Packet Pg. 130 4.e Packet Pg. 131 Attachment D Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to the PTC. These plans are available to the public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll to find “2321 Wellesley Street” 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=4411&TargetID=319 4.f Packet Pg. 132 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8311) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/20/2018 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Vinculums/Verizon - Cluster 2 (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 2 in Barron Park, Palo Alto Orchards, and Charleston Meadows Neighborhoods, and Next to Stanford Shopping Center [17PLN- 00170 File Uses 250 Hamilton Address]: Request by Vinculums (for GTE Mobilnet dba Verizon Wireless) for Seven Small Cell Node Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permits on Existing Wood Utility Poles in the Public Right of Way. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15303. Zoning Districts: Node Locations are Adjacent to R-1 Zones and CC Zone. R-1 Zone: 4206 Suzanne Dr, 3715 Whitsell Av, 785 Barron Av, 792 Los Robles Av, and 3993 Laguna Av; R-1(S) Zone: 4193 Wilkie Wy; CC Zone: Across from 213 Quarry Road Next to Stanford Shopping Center Parking Structure (180 El Camino Real). Alternative Node Locations for Three Primary Node Locations are Adjacent to R-1(S) Zone (362 Carolina Ln, Alternate for 4193 Wilkie Wy Node), R-1 Zone (4013 Amaranta Av, Alternate for 792 Los Robles Av Node, and R-1(10,000) Zone (904 Los Robles Av, Alternate for 3993 Laguna Av Node). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Rebecca Atkinson at Rebecca.atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) conduct a public hearing to review Vinculums’ Cluster 2 proposal for seven “small cell node” Wireless Communication Facilities 5 Packet Pg. 133 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 (WCF) comprised of pole top antennas and pole-mounted equipment on six (6) existing wood utility poles in the Barron Park, Palo Alto Orchards, and Charleston Meadows neighborhoods, plus one (1) pole top antenna, pole-mounted equipment, and ground mounted electrical equipment adjacent to a wood utility pole at the Stanford Shopping Center, and take the following action(s): 1. Recommend conditional approval of the following four small cell node wireless communication facilities: Node 101 (4193 Wilkie Way), Node 153 (3715 Whitsell Avenue), Node 155-F (4013 Amaranta Avenue), and Node 157-E (904 Los Robles Avenue), for which the applicant asserts that vaulting is infeasible. 2. Recommend conditional approval of Node 163 (180 El Camino Real), to the extent that all of the proposed ground-mounted equipment can be placed underground or eliminated, consistent with the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Design Guidelines. 3. Review and comment on the following two nodes:  Node 104 (4206 Suzanne Drive), which would be highly visible at the intersection and may partially overhang a narrow, 4-foot sidewalk. The ARB may comment on any alternative node location presented at the hearing; and  Node 154 (785 Barron Avenue), which would be highly visible at the intersection and is proposed to face the street. The ARB may comment on any alternative node location presented at the hearing. Report Summary This report provides background information for the first formal ARB meeting on Vinculum’s “Cluster” of seven WCF small cell nodes using existing wood utility poles in three neighborhoods and next to Stanford Shopping Center (aka Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 2). The application proposes a deployment of a total of seven (7) small cell node locations on existing wood utility poles in the public street rights of way (application file 17PLN-00170). Three additional locations are proposed as alternative locations to Nodes 101, 155, and 157. 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: Vinculums on behalf of GTE Mobilnet dba Verizon Wireless Representative: Jeremy Stroup (Vinculums) and Joseph Guyer (Verizon) Legal Counsel: Paul Albritton, Mackenzie & Albritton LLP Property Information Address: Public rights-of-way frontages at 4193 Wilkie Way, 4206 Suzanne Drive, 3715 Whitsell Avenue, 785 Barron Avenue, 792 Los Robles Avenue, 3993 5 Packet Pg. 134 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Laguna Avenue, and 180 El Camino Real, with alternate locations at 362 Carolina Lane, 4013 Amaranta Avenue and 904 Los Robles Avenue. Neighborhoods: Barron Park, Palo Alto Orchards, and Charleston Meadows neighborhoods Lot Dimensions & Area: NA Housing Inventory Site: NA Located w/in a Plume: NA Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes (Node 153 Redwood; Node 157E coast live oaks; Node 163 oaks) Historic Resource(s): Poles, no. Existing Improvement(s): Seven existing wood utility poles and three existing alternative wood utility poles Existing Land Use(s): Residential and commercial Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: Single family residential (R1 and subdistricts); CC next to Node 163 Location Map: File #17PLN-00170 – – to see zoning map please see Attachment A Source: Vinculums/Verizon Project Plans, October 31, 2018. Note that Node 100 (near 4104 El Camino Way), Node 102 (near 4010 Villa Vera), and Node 103 (near 3715 Star King Circle) were removed from consideration with the October 31, 2018 resubmittal. Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Public rights of way within multiple zoning districts: R-1 Single Family Residential Zone: 4206 Suzanne Drive, 3715 Whitsell Avenue, 785 Barron Avenue, 792 Los Robles Avenue, and alternate node (4013 Amaranta Avenue); R-1 (S) Single Story Overlay Zone: 4193 Wilkie Way and alternate node (362 Carolina Lane);R-1(10,000) zone: 3993 Laguna Avenue and alternate node (904 Los Robles Avenue); Community Commercial (CC) zone: across from 213 Quarry Road next to Stanford Shopping Center (addressed 180 El Camino Real). Comp. Plan Designation: Various, Predominantly Single Family Residential and Commercial 5 Packet Pg. 135 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Context-Based Design Criteria: Not Applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Within residential districts and a commercial district Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: June 27, 2016 Master License Agreement GTE Mobilnet dba Verizon Wireless https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52893 May 21, 2018 Council approved Vinculums Verizon Cluster 1 application. Links to the staff report, meeting minutes and video are provided (in that order) below: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/65023 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=53707.18&BlobID=65890 http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-152-2-3-2-2-5-2-2-2/ PTC: None HRB: None ARB: May 18, 2017: Preliminary Review (application 17PLN-00033) of conceptual siting criteria and project design. Links to the ARB agenda, staff report, and video of the ARB meeting can be found at the following weblinks: Agenda:http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57843 Report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57840 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-62/ Administrative Review: The PCE Director approved AR application 17PLN-00063 to allow the installation of Pole #7423 (1350 Newell Road, near the Art Center). This non-live, one-year mock-up of a WCF node (Configuration 1) was installed before the May 18 ARB meeting initially with exposed pole-mounted equipment - “unshrouded” to allow public viewing of the equipment; later, the applicant installed custom shrouding to cover some wires and equipment, responding to preliminary ARB feedback. Previous Review of Similar Pole-Mounted Equipment Design - Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 1 On May 21, 2018, City Council denied the appeals of the applications (file 17PLN-00169) and upheld the Director’s Decisions to conditionally approve the Vinculums/Verizon’s first cluster of small cell nodes (see above table for links to the Council report, minutes and video). The Council report provides links to the earlier ARB reports, minutes and videos for Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 1 (17PLN-00169). The ARB meetings on Cluster 1 were held December 7, 2017 and March 15, 2018. The following 11 nodes were conditionally approved within the Mid-Town, South of Mid-Town, St. Claire Gardens, and Palo Verde neighborhoods:  Node #129: CPAU Pole# 3121 (near 2490 Louis Road APN 127-30- 062)  Node #130: CPAU Pole #2461 (near 2802 Louis Road APN 127-28-046) 5 Packet Pg. 136 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5  Node #131: CPAU Pole #3315 (near 891 Elbridge Way APN 127-26-067)  Node #133E: CPAU Pole #2856 (near 949 Loma Verde Avenue APN 127-24-020)  Node #134: CPAU Pole #2964 (near 3409 Kenneth Drive APN 127-09-028)  Node #135: CPAU Pole # 3610 (near 795 Stone Lane APN 127-47-001)  Node #137: CPAU Pole #3351 (near 3090 Ross Road APN 127-52-031)  Node #138: CPAU Pole #2479 (near 836 Colorado Avenue APN 127-27-063)  Node #143: CPAU Pole #3867 (near 419 El Verano Avenue APN 132-15-017)  Node #144: CPAU Pole #1506 (near 201 Loma Verde Avenue APN 132-48-015) and  Node #145: CPAU Pole #3288 (near 737 Loma Verde Avenue APN 127-64-039). Streetwork and encroachment permits were issued for all of the above eleven nodes and construction is ready to commence. Additional Pending Vinculums/Verizon WCF Applications Vinculums, on behalf of Verizon Wireless, has one other pending application (‘Cluster 3’, File #17PLN-00228), for 12 small cell node locations within the Old Palo Alto and Triple El neighborhoods. Vinculums/Verizon intends to apply for approximately 93 small cell node locations throughout the City. Project Description The proposed “Cluster” is comprised of seven (7) WCF small cell nodes and three (3) alternative nodes located within the Barron Park, Palo Alto Orchards, and Charleston Meadows neighborhoods, and adjacent to Stanford Shopping Center, as shown on the map on the previous page and Attachment A.1 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). 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 mutually agree to a longer time. For the nodes in 17PLN-00170, the parties have agreed that the City will take final actions on the planning entitlement within 74 days of October 31, 2018 (the date of the latest resubmittal). In the event the Planning Director issues a decision that is appealed to the City Council, the “shot clock” would be automatically extended to permit the appeal. Streetwork and encroachment permits are processed with their own separate shot clock, per a mutual agreement between the City and Vinculums/Verizon. 1 The address for this application 17PLN-00170 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. 5 Packet Pg. 137 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 2 Node Locations The application proposes a deployment of a total of seven (7) small cell node locations. Three of the locations listed in Table 1 are proposed as alternative locations for Nodes 101, 155, and 157. According to the applicant project description (Attachment B), if an alternative pole is recommended, then the associated primary node location would no longer be proposed. 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. The project plans (Attachment C) include visual simulations for each node. Each small cell is served by both fiber and electrical power; in most cases, this is accomplished via an aerial drop on the pole. Table 1: Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 2 Seven Primary Nodes, Three Alternative Nodes Node Address of Adjacent APN Color Proposed for Pole-Mounted Equipment CPAU Pole # Adjacent APN Node 101 4193 Wilkie Way Clay Bath 1608 132-45-083 Node 101-B 362 Carolina Lane Railroad Ties 1606 132-45-045 Node 104 4206 Suzanne Drive Railroad Ties 0002 167-07-018 Node 153 3715 Whitsell Avenue Railroad Ties 0302 137-11-001 Node 154 785 Barron Avenue Railroad Ties 0238 137-13-022 Node 155 792 Los Robles Avenue Railroad Ties 0112 137-13-113 Node 155-F 4013 Amaranta Avenue Railroad Ties 0107 137-21-001 Node 157 3993 Laguna Avenue Log Cabin 0523 137-14-012 Node 155-E 904 Los Robles Avenue Railroad Ties 0540 137-19-077 Node 163 180 El Camino Real Clay Bath 6884 142-01-009 5 Packet Pg. 138 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Figure 1: Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 2 Example Proposed Design Configuration (Node 153): Source: Vinculums/Verizon Project Plans, October 31, 2018. 5 Packet Pg. 139 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Figure 2: Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 2 Example Visual Simulation (Node 153) Source: Vinculums/Verizon Project Plans, October 31, 2018. 5 Packet Pg. 140 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Formal Review Project Plans and Changes Post Preliminary Review The applicant team substantially modified the project design after the May 18, 2017 preliminary review, and modified the design again after submitting the formal Tier 3 application for Cluster 2 nodes in 2017. The applicant removed several originally proposed nodes from consideration, provided three additional alternative locations for consideration, and proposed 24-inch box amenity trees near nodes 101 (1 tree), 104 (1 tree across the street from the node), 155 (1 tree), and 163 (1 tree). The applicant also submitted an analysis of equipment vaulting feasibility, for staff’s consideration. The project plans (Attachment C) show the proposed node locations and show the following above-ground equipment for all nodes proposed in residential zones:  1 antenna with azimuths facing one or multiple directions,  1 antenna shroud,  1 wooden bayonet extension,  Safety signage,  Cabling in external conduits,  Standoff bracket kit for mounting equipment to side of pole,  3 Remote Radio Units, and  1 disconnect box. The applicant proposes the above items for the commercially zoned Node 163 near Stanford Shopping Center, but also proposes an additional ground-mounted electrical equipment cabinet for Node 163 as part of establishing connection to a power supply. 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 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). To approve each Tier 3 WCF permit, all findings must be made. The Director may require project design or issue a denial if any one of the required findings cannot be made. Staff requests the ARB’s recommendations with respect to the Development Standards in PAMC Section 18.42.110(i) (Attachment D) and Architectural Review findings in PAMC Section 18.76.020(d) (Attachment E). Staff requests project consistency review with the following plans, guidelines, and requirements, to the extent 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) 5 Packet Pg. 141 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10  Urban Forest Master Plan (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/36187)  Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Design Guidelines Analysis2 Staff scheduled this ARB meeting to facilitate timely processing of the application and to provide the public an opportunity to provide comments in a public meeting. Staff will continue its analysis following the ARB meeting, taking into account the ARB’s recommendation and public feedback. 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, Hammett & Edison. Noise The City’s Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan EIR, and Municipal Code note the ambient noise environment in goals, policies, requirements, and thresholds to address potential noise impacts from new development. The proposed nodes would not be a source of new ambient noise because the proposed configurations include equipment that can be passively cooled. However, if all equipment (except the antenna) were to be placed in an underground vault, staff would need to analyze the design for consistency with noise-related Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and thresholds, and for compliance with the noise ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10). 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, as 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. 5 Packet Pg. 142 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 Wireless Communication Facility Development Standards and Architectural Review Findings Staff reviews proposed small cell 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 equipment enclosures, minimization of visibility, utilization of stealth or camouflage design, and architectural compatibility. To that end, staff engaged a consultant (CTC Technology & Energy) to prepare a report with information on potential alternative design configurations. The draft report is underway and will not be available prior to the ARB meeting. The report will be submitted prior to the Director’s decision on the application. The design changes reflected in the October 31, 2018 project plans address the following important items that were previously raised:  Discussion of equipment vaulting feasibility,  Ensuring that no sky shall be seen through the mounting and the attachment equipment for the antennas and conduits,  Reduction of the standoff distance for pole mounted equipment,  Utilization of shrouding for pole mounted equipment,  Reduction of the volume of pole mounted equipment, and  Painting of the shroud, sled, cabling, other equipment, and conduits in a color that closely matches the color of the existing pole. If the ARB recommends pole-mounted equipment for all nodes, staff suggests adding conditions of approval to affirm and clarify the project design components mentioned above. Additionally, conditions may be added to address the following items:  Maintain required climbing space while also not having pole mounted equipment face directly toward adjacent private property or extend over sidewalks,  Maintain 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. Trees and landscaping in the public right of way can help screen unattractive equipment and utility poles in the right of way. Some nodes have heritage trees (Oaks/Redwoods) to be protected. Regarding landscaping compliance and the further screening of nodes from public view, there are opportunities to plant ornamental amenity trees to interrupt direct views of some nodes, contribute to a more cohesive site specific design, and help maintain neighborhood character. As noted previously, the applicant proposes 24-inch box amenity trees at the following nodes: Node 101 (1 tree), Node 104 (1 tree across the street from the node), Node 155 (1 tree), and Node 163 (1 tree). Staff suggests additional amenity trees and 5 Packet Pg. 143 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 replacement landscaping, such as at Node 101 (total of 2 trees), at Node 101-B (total of 2 trees and/or tall replacement landscaping), Node 153 (1 tree), possibly at Node 154 (1 tree) and possibly Node 163 (1 tree). Staff suggests adding conditions of approval requiring planting of “amenity” trees where possible in the right of way planter strips, as well as tree watering during their early establishment period. Similar conditions of approval were required of Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 1 (17PLN-00169). Alternatives Alternative Design Configurations – Vaulting Instead of Pole-Mounting Equipment Staff, the ARB, members of the public, and City Council all raised concerns with the applicant during the review process for 17PN-00170 and 17LN-00169, including in regard to the design of the pole mounted equipment and vaulting. Placing equipment in underground vaults might be an effective way to meet the PAMC Section 18.42.110 standards and Comprehensive Plan goals and policies (noise aside). The current Comprehensive Plan promotes a bicycle and pedestrian friendly environment, a cohesive streetscape design, and compatibility with surrounding contexts. The applicant removed several nodes pending further equipment vaulting feasibility studies and submitted an analysis of equipment vaulting feasibility for the remaining nodes. For those remaining nodes, the applicant revised the project design and proposed amenity trees for additional screening where possible. Staff would appreciate feedback from members of the public and the ARB as to whether or not the applicant adequately demonstrated vaulting infeasibility, and whether or not the applicant should continue searching for locations where vaulting might be possible in the Cluster 2 vicinity. Alternative Locations Since their initial submittal in 2017, the applicant team researched alternative locations for all nodes. They outlined this research in Appendix C. This research resulted in the opportunity for members of the public, staff, and the ARB to consider alternative locations for Node 101 (4193 Wilkie Way), Node 155 (793 Los Robles Avenue) and Node 157 (3993 Laguna Avenue), although alternative locations were not surfaced for the remaining nodes. Staff recommends conditional approval of the original Node 101, the alternative Node 155-F (4103 Amaranta Avenue), and the alternative Node 157-E (904 Los Robles Avenue). Staff recommends conditional approval of the original Node 153 (3715 Whitsell Avenue) and Node 163 (180 El Camino Real). Staff seeks additional feedback from the ARB on Nodes 104 (4206 Suzanne Drive) and 154 (785 Barron Avenue). If the ARB does not believe the required findings can be made for the proposed locations, staff seeks ARB feedback on any potential alternatives presented at the hearing. Node 101 (4193 Wilkie Way) or Alternate Node 101-B (362 Carolina Lane) The applicant proposes a primary or an alternative location to meet their coverage and capacity objective in this vicinity. Both nodes are mid-block locations and offer some screening 5 Packet Pg. 144 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13 opportunities. Node 101 is located at two side yards. Staff recommends conditional approval of Node 101, although staff would appreciate feedback from members of the public and the ARB as to which location better meets the Development Standards and Architectural Review Findings. Node 155 (792 Los Robles Avenue) or Node 155-F (4103 Amaranta Avenue) The applicant proposes a primary or an alternative location to meet their coverage and capacity objective in this vicinity. Both nodes are mid-block locations and offer some screening opportunities for the antenna due to existing tall street trees. Node 155 proposes a new amenity tree, grounding rod, and a power connection in a manner that is near or traverses the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) easement on Los Robles Avenue. The SCVWD is reviewing these items. Staff recommends conditional approval of Node 155-F, although staff would appreciate feedback from members of the public and the ARB as to which location better meets the Development Standards and Architectural Review Findings. Node 157 (3993 Laguna Avenue) or Node 157-E (904 Los Robles Avenue) The applicant proposes a primary or an alternative location to meet their coverage and capacity objective in this vicinity. During the review of previous wireless applications, the ARB indicated that street corners were disfavored. Staff prefers mid-block alternatives and generally does not prefer use of street corners. Node 157 is located on a street corner and does not offer significant screening opportunities. Node 157 proposes equipment and a grounding rod near or above the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) easement on Los Robles Avenue. The SCVWD is reviewing these items. Staff recommends conditional approval of Node 157-E, although staff would appreciate feedback from members of the public and the ARB as to which location better meets the Development Standards and Architectural Review Findings. Node 153 (3715 Whitsell Avenue) The applicant did not propose an alternative location for Node 153. The applicant excluded other nearby locations, citing technical reasons indicated by the City’s Electrical Engineering staff. The applicant is proposing an amenity tree to screen direct views of pole mounted equipment. Staff requests feedback from members of the public and the ARB and otherwise recommends conditional approval of Node 153. Node 104 (4206 Suzanne Drive) The applicant did not propose an alternative location for Node 104. The applicant excluded other nearby locations for the following reasons: 104-A due to the lower height of a street light or due to technical limitations indicated by the City’s Electrical Engineering staff. The applicant proposes an amenity tree across the street from the proposed node in a manner that would not provide immediate direct screening. Staff requests feedback from members of the public and the ARB and otherwise recommends denial of this location due to visual prominence/lack of screening, visibility at an intersection without screening, proximity to the rolled curb and existing driveway, and reducing clearance for the already narrow 4-foot sidewalk. Node 154 (785 Barron Avenue) 5 Packet Pg. 145 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 14 The applicant did not propose an alternative location for Node 154. The applicant excluded other nearby locations due to technical limitations indicated by the City’s Electrical Engineering staff. The City’s Electrical Engineering staff indicated that it would be possible to rotate the orientation of the pole-mounted equipment on Node 154 by 90 degrees counter-clockwise in order for the equipment to not face the street. Staff requests feedback from members of the public and the ARB and otherwise recommends denial of this location due to visual prominence/lack of screening, visibility at an intersection without screening, proximity to an existing driveway, and due to the equipment being proposed to face the street. Node 163 (180 El Camino Real/Across from 213 Quarry Road) and the SUMC Design Guidelines Node 163 is in a location subject to the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Design Guidelines. These Guidelines call for a boulevard “treescape” design on Quarry Road. As proposed, Node 163 is in conflict with SUMC Design Guidelines due to the green, ground mounted electrical equipment cabinet ( 4’7” wide x 2’2” deep x 5’ tall – not a faux mailbox) proposed in the Quarry Road right-of-way. New ground mounted equipment has not been approved in the right-of-way since the SUMC Design Guidelines were approved and other applicants have modified the locations of equipment onto private property in order to comply. Staff recommends that the ARB recommend conditional approval of this node with an additional condition requiring that any currently proposed ground-mounted equipment would be eliminated or placed underground with proper tree protection and without impacting the “treescape” discussed in the Design Guidelines. Staff requests that the applicant further review this node in order to ensure that the pole and any pole-mounted equipment would meet the required 1.5 foot minimum horizontal clearance from the curbline. 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 preparing the requisite CEQA documentation. The project may 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 or installation of small new equipment. 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, must 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 Palo Alto Daily Post on December 7, 2018, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on December 10, 2018, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. 5 Packet Pg. 146 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 15 The applicant team conducted additional outreach. The applicant team sent notices to owners and occupants within six hundred feet (600') of the originally proposed node locations announcing an April 26, 2017 community meeting held at the Palo Alto Art Center. On November 19, 2018, the applicant team also sent notices to residents within 600 feet of the newly proposed alternate nodes. Public Comments A significant number of public comments and inquiries were submitted by telephone and email. Many members of the public noted their preference to gather more information before commenting. Supporters generally cited a desire for improved wireless coverage. Opposed persons generally cited concerns regarding alternatives analysis, aesthetics, noise, and radio frequency emissions/health and safety. Staff has compiled public correspondence received through noon on December 12, 2018, which is viewable online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4000&TargetID=319. Any additional correspondence received after noon on December 12th will be provided at ARB member places at the December 20, 2018 meeting. Alternative Actions and Appeals of PCE Decisions Instead of the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may recommend: 1. Continue the project review to a future hearing date of January 10, 2019, which is prior to the expiration of the existing tolling agreement, in order for the Vinculums/Verizon applicant to respond to public, ARB, and staff feedback, or 2. Recommend denial of more or all nodes based on findings suggested via an ARB motion and affirmative vote, or 3. Recommend approval of more or all nodes 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 ARB3 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, Chief Planning Official Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2575 amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Project Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Applicant Project Description (Dated 11-02-18) (PDF) 3 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 5 Packet Pg. 147 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 16  Attachment C: Applicant Project Plans and Equipment Vaulting Feasibility Analysis (Dated 10-31-18) (DOCX)  Attachment D: Palo Alto Municipal Code Section Wireless Communication Facilities (DOC)  Attachment E: Palo Alto Municipal Code Section Architectural Review Findings (DOCX) 5 Packet Pg. 148 10750' 45'540 160640' 230555' 35'165619740' S e r r a B o u l e v a r d Road E l C a m i n o R e a l C h a O r e g o n E x p r e s s w a y M i d d l e f i e l d R A l m a S t r e e t F o o t h h o E m b a r c a d e r o R o a d SOLANA DRIVE FLORALES DRIVE CEREZA DRIVEENCINA GRANDE DRIVE CEREZA DRIVE AMARANTA AVENUE AMARANTA AVENUE FLORALES DRIVE GEORGIA AVENUE GEORGIA AVENUE FRANDON COURT MAYBELL WAY MAYBELL AVENUE DONALDDRIVE MAYBELL AVENUE FLORALES DRIVE GEORGIA AVENUE GEORGIA AVENUE ABEL AVENUE BAKER AVENUE MAYBELL AVENUE MAYBELL AVENUE CLEMO AVENUE COULOMBE DRIVE ARASTRADERO ROAD ROAD POMONA AVENUE ARASTRADERO ROAD IRVEN COURT ALTA MESA AVENUE ARASTRADERO ROAD LOS PALOS AVENUE SUZANNE DRIVE SUZANNE DRIVE EL CAMINO REAL KELLY WAY SUZANNE DRIVE EL CAMINO REAL McKELLAR LANE EL CAMINO REAL SECOND STREET MACLANE WILKIE WAY WEST MEADOW DRIVE VICTORIA PLACE EL CAMINO WAY EL CAMINO REAL CAMINO CT EL CAMINO WAY THAIN WAY THAIN WAY EL CAMINO REAL MAYBELL AVENUE PENA COURT WEST MEADOW DRIVE DAVENPORT WAY JAMES ROAD WILKIE WAYWILKIE COURT TENNESSEE LANE WEST CHARLESTON ROAD ALMA STREET PARK BOULEVARD TENNESSEE LANE WILKIE WAY CAROLINA LANE WEST CHARLESTON ROAD WILKIE WAYDULUTH CIRCLE WILKIE WAY DINAH'S COURT EL CAMINO REAL MONROE DRIVE CESANO COURT EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL MONROE DRIVE MILLER CESANO COURT WHITCLEM CT WHITCLEM WAY MONROE DRIVE EAST CHARLESTON ROAD CAROLINA LANE PARK BOULEVARD WEST CHARLESTON ROAD RUTHELMA AVENUE LUNDY LANE PARK BOULEVARDNEWBERRY COURT EDLEE AVENUE WRIGHT PLACEALMA STREET WHITCLEM DRIVE ALM ELY PLA ALMA STREET ALMA STREET EMERSON STREET PARK BOULEVARD MACLANE EAST MEADOW DRIVE EAST MEADOW DRIVE RAMONA STREET AMES AVENUE ROSS AMES AVENUE ASHTON AVENUE MIDDLEFIELD ROAD MURDOCH DRIVE ALGER DRIVE WAVERLEY STREET ALGER DRIVERAMBOW DRIVE COWPER COURT ASHTON AVENUE MAUREEN AVENUEKIPLING STREET COWPER STREET ST MICHAEL DRIVE ST MICHAEL DRIVE ST MICHAEL COURT ST CLAIRE DRIVE MIDDLEFIELD ROAD TORREYA COURT TOYON PLACE MIDDLEFIELD ROAD LOMA VERDE AVENUE EMERSON STREET RAMONA STREET BRYANT STREET SOUTH COURT MIDDLEFIELD ROAD MORENO AVENUE MORENO AVENUE MARION AVENUE COASTLAND DRIVE MIDDLEFIELD ROADWEBSTER STREET BRYSON AVENUE COLORADO AVENUE BYRON STREET COLORADO AVENUE COWPER STREET ELDORADO AVENUE KIPLING STREET WAVERLEY STREET COWPER STREET TOWLE WAY GARY COURT SOUTH COURT WAVERLEY STREET EL VERANO AVENUE WAVERLEY STREET EL VERANO AVENUE KIPLING STREET LOMA VERDE AVENUE MACKALL WAY WELLSBURY CT TOWLE WAY AVALON COURT LOMA VERDE AVENUE MIDDLEFIELD ROAD MIDDLEFIELD ROAD COWPER STREET LAYNE COURT LOMA VERDE AVENUE ROSS ROAD ROSS COURT RICHARDSON COURT ROSEWOOD DRIVE ROSS ROAD MIDDLEFIELD ROAD SUTTER AVENUE STERN AVENUEPRICE COURT ELLSWORTH PLACE (PVT) COLORADO AVENUE SUTTER AVENUE ROSS ROAD CLARA DRIVE COLORADO AVENUE MARSHALL DRIVE ROSS ROAD RANDERS COURT ALLEN COURT ROSS ROAD MANCHESTER COURT LOMA VERDE AVENUE LOUIS ROAD LOUIS ROAD STOCKTON PLACE MORRIS DRI MADDUX DRIVE BAUTISTA COURT HANOVER STREET HANOVER STREET HILLVIEW AVENUE HILLVIEW AVENUE PAGE MILL ROAD PORTER DRIVE PORTER DRIVE PORTER DRIVE MIRANDA AVENUE PAGE MILL ROAD PORTER DRIVE FOOTHILL EXPRESSWAY COLLEGE AVENUE PRINCETON STREET CORNELL STREET CALIFORNIA AVENUE OBERLIN STREET HARVARD STREETHANOVER STREET DARTMOUTH STREET CALIFORNIA AVENUE PAGE MILL ROAD COLLEGE AVENUE COLLEGE AVENUE DARTMOUTH STREET COLUMBIA STREET COLLEGE AVENUE BOWDOIN STREETCOLLEGE AVENUE CALIFORNIA AVENUE AMHERST STREETSTANFORD AVENUE HANOVER STREET HANSEN WAY HANSEN WAY CALIFORNIA AVENUE YALE STREET CAMBRIDGE AVENUE CALIFORNIA AVENUE WILLIAMS STREET CALIFORNIA AVENUE GRANT AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL SHERMAN AVENUE SHERMAN AVENUE JACARANDA LANE ASH STREET NEW MAYFIELD LANE NEW MAYFIELD LANE EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL CALIFORNIA AVENUE CALIFORNIA AVENUE PERAL LANE MIMOSA LANE SEDRO LANE CAMBRIDGE AVENUE COLLEGE AVENUE WELLESLEY STREET CALIFORNIA AVENUE PAGE MILL ROAD PAGE MILL ROAD HANSEN WAY PAGE MILL ROAD HANOVER STREET HANOVER STREET HANOVER STREET PAGE MILL ROAD CHIMALUS DRIVE JOSIN A A V E N U E MATADERO AVENUE JULIE COURT MATADERO AVENUECHIMALUS DRIVE KENDALL AVENUE JOSINA AVENUE JOSINA AVENUE BARRON AVENUE ILIMA COURT LA CALLE BARRON AVENUELAGUNA AVENUE LAGUNA AVENUE LAGUNA OAKS PLACE ILIMA WAY PARADISE WAY PARADISE WAY MCGREGOR WAY CHIMALUS DRIVE MATADERO AVENUE MATADERO AVENUE LA MATA WAY MATADERO AVENUE LAGUNA AVENUE BARRON AVENUE WHITSELL AVENUE KENDALL AVENUE LA DONNA AVENUE BARRON AVENUE BARRON AVENUE CASS WAY LA PARA AVENUE EL CENTRO STREET PAUL AVENUE TIMLOTT LANE TIMLOTT CT LA PARA AVENUE LAGUNA AVENUELOS ROBLES AVENUE LOS ROBLES AVENUE CERRITO WAY EL CERRITO ROAD BARRON AVENUE EL CENTRO STREET LA JENNIFER WAY SAN JUDE AVENUE GEORGIA AVENUE DONALD DRIVE WILLMAR DRIVE GEO MAGNOLIA DRIVE NORTH MAGNOLIA DRIVE MILITARY WAY LA DONNA AVENUE LA DONNA AVENUE SAN JUDE AVENUE LA PARA AVENUE PAUL AVENUE LA PARA AVENUE LOS ROBLES AVENUE LOS ROBLES AVENUEARBOL DRIVE ENCINA GRANDE DRIVE AMARANTA AVENUE ORME STREET LOS ROBLES AVENUE LAGUNA WAY MANZANA LANE VENTURA AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL LA SELVA DRIVE MAGNOLIA DRIVE SOUTH VILLA VERA VILLA REAL (PRIVATE) VILLA VISTA (PRIVATE) LOS ROBLES AVENUE LA DONNA AVENUE CAMPANA DRIVEENCINA GRANDE DRIVE VERDOSA DRIVE VISTA AVENUE WISTERIA LANE VILLA VISTA (PRIVATE) ORINDA STREET MATADERO AVENUE MARGARITA AVENUE WILTON AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL MATADERO AVENUE FERNANDO AVENUE BARRON AVENUE CURTNER AVENUEWILTON AVENUE KENDALL AVENUE MATADERO AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL LAMBERT AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL HANSEN WAY EL CAMINO REAL CHIMALUS DRIVE MATADERO AVENUE WHITSELL AVENUE HANSEN WAY HANSEN WAY ALMA STREET ALMA STREET VENTURA COURT VENTURA AVENUE CURTNER AVENUE ASH STREET OXFORD AVENUE STANFORD AVENUE CORNELL STREET WELLESLEY STREET PRINCETON STREET OBERLIN STREET HARVARD STREET EL CAMINO REAL STANFORD AVENUE CHURCHILL AVENUE MADRONO AVENUE MANZANITA AVENUE PORTOLA AVENUE MIRAMONTE AVENUE PORTOLA AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL ALMA STREET ALMA STREET CHURCHILL AVENUE ALMA STREET MARIPOSA AVENUE CASTILLEJA AVENUE CASTILLEJA AVENUE ESCOBITA AVENUE ESCOBITA AVENUE MIRAMONTE AVENUE MIRAMONTE AVENUE SEQUOIA AVENUE MADRONO AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL PARK AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL ASH STREET LELAND AVENUE PARK BOULEVARD STANFORD AVENUE BIRCH STREET OXFORD AVENUE BIRCH STREET STANFORD AVENUE EMERSON STREET COLERIDGE AVENUE EMERSON STREET LOWELL AVENUE ALMA STREETMARIPOSA AVENUE SEQUOIA AVENUE PARK BOULEVARD BIRCH STREET LELAND AVENUE LELAND AVENUE ASH STREET LOWELL AVENUE EMERSON STREET TENNYSON AVENUE ALMA STREET COLERIDGE AVENUE BRYANT STREET BIRCH STREET NEW MAYFIELD LANE CAMBRIDGE AVENUE BIRCH STREET BIRCH STREET COLLEGE AVENUE COLLEGE AVENUE PARK BOULEVARD CALIFORNIA AVENUE ALMA STREET PARK BOULEVARD SHERMAN AVENUE JACARANDA LANE PARK BOULEVARD ALMA STREETPARK BOULEVARD PARK BOULEVARD OXFORD AVENUE TENNYSON AVENUE TENNYSON AVENUE BRYANT STREET BRYANT STREET EMERSON STREET SEALE AVENUE SEALE AVENUE EMERSON STREET RINCONADA AVENUE ALMA STREET SEALE AVENUE BRYANT STREET WAVERLEY STREET RINCONADA AVENUE EMERSON STREET SANTA RITA AVENUE SANTA RITA AVENUE ALMA STREET HIGH STREET HIGH STREET EMERSON STREET LOWELL AVENUE WAVERLEY STREET LOWELL AVENUE WAVERLEY STREET TENNYSON AVENUE COWPER STREET SEALE AVENUE EMERSON STREET RAMONA STREET COLORADO AVENUE COLORADO AVENUE EMERSON STREETHIGH STREETALMA STREET ALMA STREET OREGON EXPRESSWAY BRYANT STREET SOUTH COURT EL DORADO AVENUE OREGON AVENUE SANTA RITA AVENUE COWPER STREET SANTA RITA AVENUE WASHINGTON AVENUE BRYANT STREET WAVERLEY OAKS (PVT) EMERSON STREETWASHINGTON AVENUE NORTH CALIFORNIA AVENUE NEVADA AVENUE OREGON AVENUE HIGH STREET WASHINGTON AVENUE NORTH CALIFORNIA AVENUE NORTH CALIFORNIA AVENUEWAVERLEY STREET SOUTH COURT RAMONA STREET OREGON AVENUE BRYANT STREET SEALE AVENUE WEBSTER STREET TASSO STREET SANTA RITA AVENUE BYRON STREET RAMONA STREET WAVERLEY STREET OREGON EXPRESSWAY BRYANT STREET SOUTH COURT WAVERLEY STREET MARION AVENUE COLORADO AVENUEWAVERLEY STREET COWPER STREET KIPLING STREET COLORADO AVENUE WAVERLEY STREET COWPER STREET COWPER STREET NORTH CALIFORNIA AVENUE WEBSTER STREET WEBSTER STREET WASHINGTON AVENUE NEVADA AVENUE TASSO STREET TASSO STREET OREGON EXPRESSWAY OREGON AVENUE ANTON COURT COWPER STREET NEVADA AVENUE MIDDLEFIELD ROAD MIDDLEFIELD ROAD BYRON STREET OREGON AVENUE OREGON EXPRESSWAY OREGON EXPRESSWAY OREGON AVENUE OREGON EXPRESSWAY GREEN MANOR COWPER STREET MARION AVENUE MARION AVENUE MARION PLACE TASSO STREET SANTA RITA AVENUE BYRON STREET MIDDLEFIELD ROAD NORTH CALIFORNIA AVENUE MIDDLEFIELD ROAD OREGON AVENUEGARLAND DRIVE GARLAND DRIVE ROSS ROAD OREGON AVENUE ROSS ROAD COASTLAND DRIVE OREGON EXPRESSWAY WARREN WAY MORTON STREET BELLVIEW DRIVE NORTH CALIFORNIA AVENUE LOUIS ROAD ELSINORE DRIVE EL CAJON WAY GARLAND DRIVE MARSHALL DRIVE MARSHALL DRIVE MORENO AVENUE NORTH GREER ROAD ELSINORE DRIVE ELSINORE COURT BLAIR COURT OREGON EXPRESSWAY LOUIS ROAD WARREN WAY MORENO AVENUE MARSHALL DRIVE LOUIS ROAD AGNES WAY DENNIS DRIVEOREGON AVENUE BLAIR COURT SANTA ANA STREET BRUCE DRIVE FIELDING DRIVE LOUIS ROAD AMARILLO AVENUE SYCAMORE DRIVE CELIA DRIVE MORENO AVENUE COLONIAL LANE BURNHAM WAY GREER ROAD OTTERSON COURT HIGGINS PLACEGREER ROADCOLORADO AVENUE B WEST BAYSHOR SIMKINS COURT OREGON AVENUE OREGON EXPRESSWAY OREGON EXPCATALINA STREET INDIAN DRIVE ARROWHEAD WAY CARDINAL WAY AZTEC WAY AST BAYSHORE ROAD AMHERST STREET PAGE MILL ROAD PAGE MILL ROAD FOOTHILL EXPRESSWAY PAGE MILL ROAD QUARRY ROAD QUARRY ROADWELCH ROAD ARBORETUM ROAD KINGSLEY AVENUE ALMA STREET ALMA STREET STANFORD AVENUE ANGELL CT CHURCHILL AVENUE EL CAMINO REALEL CAMINO REAL QUARRY ROAD HIGH STREET RAMONA STREET LINCOLN AVENUE LINCOLN AVENUE RAMONA STREET EMERSON STREETHIGH STREET EMBARCADERO ROAD EMERSON STREET COLLEGE AVENUE HANOVER STREET COLUMBIA STREET BOWDOIN STREET STANFORD AVENUE DARTMOUTH STREET STANFORD AVENUE STANFORD AVENUE BOWDOIN STREET QUARRY ROAD QUARRY ROAD QUARRY ROAD EMERSON STREET HOMER AVENUE EAL A STREET LYTTON EL CAMINO REALQUARRY ROAD ALMA STREET ETIGH STREET ALMA STREET EMERSON STREET HIGH STREET HIGH STREETHAMILTON AVENUE HAMILTON AVENUE EMERSON STREET T STREET FOREST AVE FOREST AVENUE BRYANT STREET RAMONA STREET RAMONA STREET MELVILLE AVENUE EMERSON STREET KELLOGG AVENUE EMERSON STREET KELLOGG AVENUE CHURCHILL AVENUE CHURCHILL AVENUE BRYANT STREET BRYANT STREET COLERIDGE AVENUE GREER ROAD LAWRENCE LANE COLORADO AVENUE CLARA DRIVESANDRA PLACE SYCAMORE DRIVE LOUIS ROAD LOUIS ROAD COLORADO AVENUE CLARA DRIVE CLARA DRIVE CLARA DRIVE DAVID AVENUECLARA DRIVE WINTERGREEN WAY ROSS ROAD STELLING DRIVE CHURCHILL AVENUE WAVERLEY STREET CHURCHILL AVENUE CHURCHILL AVENUE WAVERLEY STREET KELLOGG AVENUE BRYANT STREET EMBARCADERO ROAD EMBARCADERO ROAD WAVERLEY STREET MELVILLE AVENUE EMBARCADERO ROAD EMERSON STREET KINGSLEY AVENUE BRYANT STREET BRYANT STREET COWPER STREET SCOTT STREET ADDISON AVENUEBRYANT STREET BRYANT STREET ADDISON AVENUE LINCOLN AVENUE BRYANT STREET HOMER AVENUE WAVERLEY STREET CHANNING AVENUE RAMONA STREET RAMONA STREET C WAVERLEY STREET ADDISON AVENUE WEBSTER STREET WEBSTER STREET KELLOGG AVENUE TASSO STREET EMBARCADERO ROAD TASSO STREET MELVILLE AVENUE MELVILLE AVENUE WAVERLEY STREET COWPER STREET COWPER STREET KINGSLEY AVENUE KINGSLEY AVENUE WAVERLEY STREET LINCOLN AVENUE COWPER STREET KELLOGG AVENUE LINCOLN AVENUE A COWPER STREET MIDDLEFIELD ROAD BYRON STREET EFIELD ROAD MELVILLE AVENU MELVILLE AVENUEWEBSTER STREET KINGSLEY AVENUE KINGSLEY AVENUE BYRON STREET WEBSTER STREET PORTAL PLACE WEST GREENWICH PLACE NORTHAMPTON DRIVE MIDDLEFIELD ROAD SEALE AVENUE FULTON STREET SEALE AVENUE WEBSTER STREET WEBSTER STREET MIDDLEFIELD ROAD TENNYSON AVENUE TENNYSON AVENUE FULTON STREET LOWELL AVENUE MIDDLEFIELD ROADCOLERIDGE AVENUE LOWELL AVENUE COWPER STREET WEBSTER STREET WEBSTER STREET EMBARCADERO ROAD GUINDA STREET SEALE AVENUE NEWELL ROAD NORTHAMPTON DRIVE NORTHAMPTON DRIVE BARBARA DRIVE NORTH CALIFORNIA AVENUE EAST GREENWICH PLACE NEWELL ROAD SOUTHAMPTON DRIVE NORTH CALIFORNIA AVENUE SOUTHAMPTON DRIVE SOUTHAMPTON DRIVE AMARILLO AVENUE GREER ROAD COLONIAL LANE AMARILLO AVENUE VAN AUKEN CIRCLE GREER ROAD HOPKINS AVENUEHOPKINS AVENUE MIDDLEFIELD ROAD EMBARCADERO ROAD BYRON STREET T NEWELL ROAD EMBARCADERO ROAD STREET HOPKINS AVENUE NEWE NEWELL ROAD EMBARCADERO ROAD MORTON STREET EMBARCADERO ROAWALTER H SEALE AVENUE BRET HARTE STREETMARK TWAIN STREET EMBARCADERO ROAD SEALE AVENUE LOUIS ROAD CHABOT TERRACE ROAD REEWAY TANLAND DRIVE AMARILLO AVENUE MORENO AVENUE ELMDALE PLACE WILLIAMS STREET YALE STREET GRANT AVENUE SHERMAN AVENUE SHERIDAN AVENUESHERIDAN AVENUE ASH STREET BIRCH STREET BIRCH STREET GRANT AVENUE WPER STREET COWPER STREET SOUTH COURT BRYANT STREET WAVERLEY STREET BRYANT STREET SOUTH COURT EL DORADO AVENUE EL DORADO AVENUE RAMONA STREET EMERSON STREET EL CARMELO AVENUE EL CARMELO AVENUE EL CARMELO AVENUE EMERSON STREET EMERSON STREET RAMONA STREET RAMONA STREET WAVERLEY STREET ORE LOMA VERDE AVENUE LOMA VERDE AVENUE LOMA VERDE AVENUE EL VERANO AVENUE BRYANT STREET RAMONA STREET NORTH CALIFORNIA AVENUE EL CAJON WAY UNIVERSITY CIRCLE MARGARITA AVENUE PARK BOULEVARD FERNANDO AVENUE LAMBERT AVENUE CHESTNUT AVENUE ASH STREET BIRCH STREET BIRCH STREET PARK BOULEVARD PARK BOULEVARD ALMA STREET ALMA STREET ALMA STREET PARK BOULEVARD PARK BOULEVARD PARK BOULEVARD DARLINGTON COURT BARCLAY COURT GEORGE HOOD LANEWEST CHARLESTON ROAD WHITCLEM PLACE ALMA STREET MILLER AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL MONROE DRIVE EAST MEADOW DRIVE EAST MEADOW DRIVE LOS PALOS CIR ACACIA AVENUE PORTAGE AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE PEPPER AVENUE ASH STREET NORTH CALIFORNIA AVENUE BRYANT STREET PAGE MILL ROAD PAGE MILL ROAD EL CAMINO REAL MADELINE COURT LANE B EAST LANE 7 EAST LANE 5 EAST LANE 6 EAST ALMA STREET MARTINSEN CT COWPER STREET LOUIS ROAD STAUNTON COURT MITCHELL LANE LANE 12 WEST LANE 11 WEST LANE D EAST LANE D WEST LANE 59 EAST WHITMAN COURT MIDTOWN COURT SAN CARLOS COURT TOWLE PLACE SAND HILL ROAD PLUM LANE ORCHARD LANE DRISCOLL PLACE ORCHARD LANE ER WAY PEAR LANE SWEET OLIVE WAY VINEYARD LANE TENNYSON AVENUE SOUTH COURT ORINDA STREET CAMPANA DRIVE TANLAND DRIVE TANLAND DRIVE VERDOSA DRIVE FAIRMEDE AVENUE CAMPESINO AVENUE GASPAR COURT COLERIDGE AVENUE CYPRESS LANE DRISCOLL CT DYMOND COURT JACOBS COURT (PRIVATE) INTERDALE WY MATADERO CT LAGUNA COURT BAYSHO LORABELLE COURT PIERS COURT STELLING CT ROBLE RIDGE EL CAMINO REAL MORAGA CT PAGE MILL ROAD PAGE MILL ROAD PAGE MILL ROAD LOMA VERDE PLACE PAGE MILL ROAD LINDERO DRIVE NOGAL LANE LANE 66 LANE 66 ALMA STREET BRYANT STREET SOUTH COURT ROOSEVELT CIRCLE STARR KING CIRCLE CARLSON CI REDWOOD CIRCLE COWPER STREET ASHTON COURT MURDOCH CT CORK OAK WAY AMES AVENUE HOLLY OAK DRIVE HOLLY OAK DRIVE FLOWERS LANE WELLSBURY WAY COASTLAND DRIVE ROSEWOOD DRIVE WALNUT DRIVE MORENO AVENUE METRO CIRCLE MOFFETT CIRCLE SUTTER AVENUE ELBRIDGE WAY MURRAY WA DAVID AVENUE STELLING D R I V E LOS PALOS PLACE VE EDLEE AVENUE WHITCLEM DRIVE KELLY WAY SUZANNE CT CHERRY OAKS PLACE KING ARTHURS CT GEORGIA AVENUE DONALD DRIVE FOOTHILL EXPRESSWAY FOOTHILL MIRANDA AVENUE MIRANDA AVENUE RINCON CIRCLE LOS ROBLES AVENUE EL CERRITO ROAD SHAUNA LANE CARLITOS CT LA SELVA DRIVE TIPPAWINGO STREET LONDON PLANE WAY SHOPPING CENTER WAY SHOPPING CENTER WAY SHOPPING CENTER WAY SANDHILL ROAD SANDHILL ROAD David Court Ramos Way (Private) JACARANDA LANE LA CALLE PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD C SEVYSON CT OREGON AVENUE COLORADO AVENUE OXFORD AVENUE DEODAR STREET DEODAR STREET ALDER LANE SPRUCE LANE RICKEY'S LANE JUNIPER WAY RICKEY'S WAY RICKEY'S WAY RICKEY'S WAY JUNIPER LANE Hettinger Ln Pratt LnNoble St Cashel St EMMA COURT AMARANTA COURT ABRAMS COURT ALVARADO ROW ALVARADO ROW ALVARADO ROW ARBORETUM ROAD ARGUELLO WAY ARGUELLO WAY AYRSHIRE FARM LANE BARNES COURTBONAIR SIDING BOWDOIN STREET CAMPUS DRIVE CAMPUS DRIVE CAMPUS DRIVE CAMPUS DRIVE CAMPUS DRIVE CAMPUS DRIVE CAMPUS DRIVE CAMPUS DRIVE CAMPUS DRIVE CAMPUS DRIVE CAPISTRANO WAY CASANUEVA PLACE CATHCART WAY CATHCART WAY CEDRO WAY CEDRO WAY CEDRO WAY CEDRO WAY ALVARADO COURT ALVARADO ROW ALVARADO ROW BLACKWELDER COURT CABRILLO AVENUE CABRILLO AVENUE CAMPUS DRIVE CAMPUS DRIVE CAMPUS DRIVE CAMPUS DRIVE CAMPUS DRIVE CAMPUS DRIVE CAMPUS DRIVECAMPUS DRIVE CAMPUS DRIVE ARBORETUM ROAD ARBORETUM ROAD COSTANZO STREET CORONADO AVENUE CORONADO AVENUE COTTRELL WAY COTTRELL WAY COWELL LANE CROTHERS WAY CROTHERS WAY DOLORES STREET DOLORES STREET DUENA STREET EL ESCARPADO ESCONDIDO MALL ESCONDIDO MALL ESCONDIDO MALL ESCONDIDO ROAD ESCONDIDO ROAD ESCONDIDO ROAD ESCONDIDO ROAD ESCONDIDO MALL ESPLANADA WAY ESPLANADA WAY ESPLANADA WAY ESTUDILLO ROAD FRENCHMANS ROAD FRENCHMANS ROAD GALVEZ MALL GALVEZ MALL GALVEZ MALL GALVEZ STREET GERONA ROAD GERONA ROAD GERONA ROAD HULME COURT JENKINS COURT JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD JUNIPERO SERRA BOULEVARD KNIGHT WAY ARGUELLO WAY LAGUNITA DRIVE LAGUNITA DRIVE LANE B LANE B LANE C LANE C LANE W LASUEN MALL LASUEN MALL LASUEN MALL LASUEN MALL LASUEN MALL LATHROP DRIVE LATHROP DRIVE LATHROP DRIVE LATHROP PLACE LOMITA COURT LOMITA DRIVE LOMITA DRIVE LOMITA DRIVE LOMITA DRIVE LOMITA DRIVE LOMITA DRIVE LOMITA DRIVE LOMITA DRIVE LOMITA MALL LOMITA MALL MAYFIELD AVENUE MAYFIELD AVENUE MAYFIELD AVENUE MAYFIELD AVENUE MAYFIELD AVENUE MAYFIELD AVENUE MAYFIELD AVENUE MAYFIELD AVENUE MAYFI ELD AVENUEMAYFIELD AVENUE MCFARLAND COURT MEARS COURT MEARS COURT MEMORIAL WAY MIRADA AVENUEMIRADA AVENUE MIRADA AVENUE MIRADA AVENUE MIRADA AVENUE MUSEUM WAY N SERVICE ROAD N TOLMAN LN NORTH-SOUTH AXIS OBERLIN ST OLMSTED ROAD OLMSTED ROAD OLMSTED ROAD OLMSTED ROAD OLMSTED ROAD OLMSTED ROAD OLMSTED RD OLMSTED ROAD OLMSTED ROAD OLMSTED ROAD OLMSTED ROAD OLMSTED ROAD COMSTOCK CIRCLE ESCONDIDO RD PALM DRIVE PALM DRIVE PANAMA MALL PANAMA MALL PANAMA MALL PANAMA MALL PANAMA MALL PEARCE MITCHELL PLACE PETER COUTTS CIRCLE PINE HILL COURT PINE HILL ROAD QUARRY EXTENSION QUILLEN CT RAIMUNDO WAY RAIMUNDO WAY RAIMUNDO WAY RAIMUNDO WAY RAIMUNDO WAY RAIMUNDO WAY ROBLE DRIVE ROTH WAY ROTH WAY ROTH WAY ROTH WAY RUNNING FARM LANE RYAN COURT RVICE ROAD S TOLMAN LN SALVATIERRA STREET SALVATIERRA STREET SALVATIERRA STCONSTANZO ST DOLORES STREET DOLORES STREET SALVATIERRA WALK SAMUEL MORRIS WAY SAN FRANCISCO COURT SAN FRANCISCO TR SAN JUAN ST SAN JUAN STREET SAN RAFAEL PL SANTA FE AVENUE SANTA MARIA AVENUE SANTA TERESA STREET SANTA TERESA STREET SANTA YNEZ STREET SANTA YNEZ STREET SANTA YNEZ STREET SANTA YNEZ STREET SEQUOIA WAY SERRA MALL SERRA MALL SERRA MALL SERRA MALL SERRA MALL SERRA MALL SERRA STREET SERRA STREET SERRA STREET SERRA STREET SERRA STREET SERRA STREET SERRA STREET SERRA STREET SONOMA TERRACE MAYFIELD AVENUE MAYF IELD AVENUE STANFORD AVENUE STANFORD AVENUE STANFORD AVENUE STANFORD AVENUE THOBURN COURT TOLMAN DRIVE TOLMAN DRIVETOLMAN DR VALDEZ PLACE VALPARAISO STREET VERNIER PLACE VIA PALOU VIA PALOU EBLO MALL VIA PUEBLO MALL WELLESLEY ST OLMSTED RD DUDLEY LANE WING PLACE YALE ST WILBUR WAY BOWDOIN STREET ALLARDICE WAY RAIMUNDO WAY SANTA YNEZ STREET SANTA YNEZ STREET ROSSE LANE GERONA ROAD ESCONDIDO ROAD CAMPUS DRIVE CONSTANZO STREET COOKSEY LANE GERONA ROAD PAMPAS LANE PETER COUTTS ROAD PETER COUTTS ROAD QUARRY ROAD QUARRY ROAD MUSEUM WAY ROTH WAY PALM DRIVE PALM DRIVE PALM DRIVE PALM DRIVE PALM DRIVE PALO ROAD ARBORETUM ROAD ARBORETUM ROAD ARBORETUM ROAD AVERY MALL CAMPUS DRIVE CAMPUS DRIVE CAMPUS DRIVE CAMPUS DRIVE CAMPUS DRIVE CAMPUS DRIVE CAMPUS DRIVE CAMPUS DRIVE CAMPUS DRIVE CAMPUS DRIVE CHURCHILL MALL CHURCHILL MALL COMSTOCK CIRCLE GALVEZ STREET GALVEZ STREET GALVEZ STREET GALVEZ STREET HOSKINS COURT LASUEN STREET LASUEN STREET LASUEN STREET MASTERS MALL MASTERS MALL NELSON ROAD NELSON ROAD NELSON MALL NELSON MALL PETER COUTTS ROAD SERRA STREET EMERSON STREET EMERSON STREET HIGH STREET HIGH STREET HIGH STREET ALMA STREET ALMA STREET ALMA STREET ALMA STREET ALMA STREET FOREST AVENUE CHANNING AVENUE HOMER AVENUE ADDISON AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EMBARCADERO ROAD WELLS AVENUE URBAN LANE URBAN LANE ENCINA AVENUE ENCINA AVENUE MEDICAL FOUNDATION WAY GREER ROAD NATHAN ABBOTT WAY SAM MCDONALD ROAD SAM MCDONALD MALL REET BOWDOIN LANE BOWDOIN LANE BOWDOIN LANE ARGUELLO WAY NORTH-SOUTH AXIS LAGUNITA DRIVE ALMA VILLAGE CIRCLE ALMA VILLAGE CIRCLE ALMA VILLAGE LANE ALMA VILLAGE CIRCLE ALMA VILLAGE CIRCLE OLMSTED ROAD RESERVOIR ROAD FRENCHMANS ROAD RYAN LANE O'CONNOR LANE O'CONNOR LANE COLE COURT BRASSINGA COURT GENE COURT LANE 7 WEST LANE 8 WEST LANE A WEST LANE B WEST CHANNING AVENUE FIELDING CT SAM MCDONALD ROAD Columbia Place Columbia Court Columbia Street Bowdoin Street Bowdoin Street Amherst StreetAmherst Street Bowdoin Place Amherst Way Drake Way Bowdoin Court Amherst Ct A MALL PF PF PF PF RP(L) PF RP(L) CC(2) PF RP RP RMD(NP) RP PF(AS3) CS(AS1) R-1 PF(R) PF(R) RM-15 R-2 R-2 RM-15 RM-30 CN RM-30 R-2 PF(R) CC(2)(R) RM-30 CC(2) PF R-2 PF(R) CC(2)(R) PC-4127 PF(R) R-1 CC(2)(R) R-2 CC(2) (R)(P) RM-30 PF RM-40 R-2 PF RM-15 RM-15 R-1 CS PFRP(L) CS RM-30 RM-30 RM-15 RE CNRM-30 RM-15 PF PF CS(H) RM-30 R-1(10000) CS R-1 R-1 PF PC-2930 R-1(S) RM-30 R-1 PF (WH)CN CC RM-40 CC(2)(R) CN PC-2224 RM-15 R-2 PF PF PC-4268 PC-2293 RM-40 PC-4354 PC-4463 PC-3028 PC-4637 PF RM-30 RM-30 PC-2952 RM-30 PF RM-15 PF R-2 PF RM-30 RM-30 PF RM-15 R-1 RM-30 R-2 RM-30 R-2 CS RM-15 RM-30(L) GM GM RM-30 RM-15 CS CS RM-40 ROLM GM CS R-1 RP R-1 R-2 R-2RM-15 RM-15 R-1 CN CN (GF/P) PC-1992MOR CS CC R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 RP R-2 RM-15 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-1(10000) R-1 R-1(10000)PF R-2 PC-2967PC- 3266 PF PFPF RM-15 HD CN 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 R-1 PF CC PF CC CN(L)(GF/P) PF R-1 PF PFCD-C (P) PF PF (P) PF P PC-3429 PFAMF DHS RP(AS2) CN R-1 (S) RM-30 PC-2656 R-2 R-1 CN RM-15 RM-30(L) PC-2218 PC-5116 PF R-1 PC-3023 RM-15 PC-4511 R-1 PC-3041 RM-15 PF RM-30 PC-5034 RM-30 CS CS(H) RM-15 PC-3133 RM-40 RM-30 PC-4190 RM-40 RM-30CS CS(L) R-1(S) R-1 PC-4448R-1 CS(L) PC-3036CS CS RM-30 CS PF RM-15 CS(H) R-1(10000) RM-15 R-1(8000) R-1 R-1 R-1(S) PF CS(L) RM-15 RM-30 PC-3517 PF CN RM-15 R-1(S) PC-4782CS PC-4753 RT-50 CD-S(P) RT-50 RT-35 RT-35 R-2 RT-50 RT-50 CC(2)(P) R-1(S) GM GM(AD) CS(AD) CS CS CS(AD) PC-4779 PC-4831 RMD PF RM-30 RM-15 RM-30 RM-15 PC-3405 RM-30 PC-4956 R-1(80 R-1(7000) R-2 R-1 R-1 PC-2197 R-2 R-1 R-2 RM-15 RM-30 RM-15 R-2 PF PF PC- 1752 PC- 1889 R-1 RM-15 PF PC-3726 R-2 PF PC-4973 CN (R) PC-5069 CN RM-15 CS(L)(D) RM-40 PTOD CC(2)(R) CC(2)(R) PTOD(R) CS(D) CD-C (P)CD-C(GF)(P) CD-S(GF)(P) PF(D) R-1 (7000)R-1 (7000) (S) CC(2) CC(2) CC(2) R-1 (7000) Greg TanakaCity Council Gregory ScharffCity Council Liz KnissCity Council Liz KnissCity Council Lydia KouCity Council Tom DuboisCity Council 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 8 Proposed Cell Site/Nodes Application (17PLN 00170) 3 Alternate Cell Site/Nodes(17PLN 00170) 3 Originally Proposed Nodes Removed from application City Jurisdictional Limits abc Zone District Labels 0' 2000' 17 P L N - 0 0 1 7 0 Vi n c u l u m / V e r i z o n Cl u s t e r 2 Lo c a t i o n M a p v2 0 1 8 1 2 1 0 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, 2018-12-10 12:58:28 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) 5.a Packet Pg. 149 Cluster 2 Project Description – Page 1 of 22 October 25th, 2018 Verizon Wireless – Project Description Cluster 2 October 25th, 2018 Verizon Wireless is seeking approval for the design of proposed small cell attachments to wood utility poles owned and operated by the City of Palo Alto Utilities (“CPAU”). A brief overview is provided of Verizon Wireless’ citywide efforts to provide more robust wireless service to the City of Palo Alto through the attachment of radios and antennas on existing city-owned utility poles and streetlights located in the public Right-of-Way (“ROW”). This application for Architectural Review encompasses the second “Cluster” or grouping of small cells which contains seven (7) proposed nodes with three (3) alternate nodes (SF Palo Alto 101-B, SF Palo Alto 155-F, SF Palo Alto 157-E) on wood utility poles in the Barron Park, Palo Alto Orchards, Charleston Meadows, Fairmeadow, and Stanford Shopping Center neighborhoods. These three (3) alternate nodes are made available to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to determine the most appropriate pole location in relation to primary nodes. If ARB chooses an alternate pole, the primary pole will be removed from project consideration. Three (3) nodes (SF Palo Alto 100, SF Palo Alto 102, SF Palo Alto 103) were removed from the original Cluster 2 submittal due to insufficient vaulting solutions at these locations. Current Design for Consideration Verizon Wireless’ currently proposed design is the direct result of feedback from the December 7th, 2017 and March 15th, 2018 Architectural Review Board hearings. The design consists of one (1) narrow four-foot cylindrical antenna mounted at the top of each wood utility pole. Existing poles require a bayonet extension to provide clearance from the electrical service; in each of those cases, a shroud covering the bayonet streamlines the connection of the antenna and pole. Replacement utility poles require a one-foot concealment cage between the antenna and pole, eliminating the need for the bayonet. The three (3) required radios and ancillary equipment will be placed in underground vaults to the extent feasible, and when unachievable, they will be placed on the pole and covered with a box shroud, which will cover the necessary cabling and streamline the equipment. To protect the aesthetic qualities of adjacent homes, all pole mounted equipment, including antennas and shrouding, is painted to match the existing pole color. We have worked closely with Urban Forestry to propose amenity trees, which provides screening, should pole mounting of the radios be required. Emergency battery backup has been removed from the design altogether to eliminate the associated noise component due to direct feedback acquired from our community meetings. Each small cell is served by both fiber and electrical power; in most cases, this is accomplished via an aerial drop on the pole. Screening—Bayonet Shrouds The consensus from the ARB was the desire for a more streamlined appearance, between the pole and the antenna, by shrouding the required bayonet pole top extension for most nodes. In response, Verizon Wireless has custom designed a bayonet shroud unique to the Palo Alto project. This shroud will create the desired uniform appearance between the antenna and the pole top. Vaulting At the Architectural Review Board on December 7th, 2017, staff was directed to have Verizon Wireless propose underground equipment to the greatest extent feasible. Verizon has submitted vault feasibility 5.b Packet Pg. 150 Cluster 2 Project Description – Page 2 of 22 October 25th, 2018 reports indicating possible vault locations. Where vaulting is determined to be infeasible, Verizon Wireless will pole mount the equipment with the preferred shrouding. Determination of feasibility includes a review of existing conditions within forty (40) feet of either side of the pole, as this is the maximum distance the vault can be located away from the pole, while not compromising network performance. Some critical concerns during feasibility assessment include the width of the sidewalk, flooding potential, and existing city or resident landscaping. Vaults must be placed within a reasonable distance for equipment to function properly. Placement in sensitive areas such as pedestrian access points or near driveways must be considered because construction and ongoing maintenance necessitate blocking access and opening the vault. The location of existing infrastructure is another critical element in determining feasibility. Verizon Wireless has extensively researched existing underground utilities depicted on page A-1.1 of the plan set. In addition, feedback from departments who may have underground facilities such as CPAU, Public Works, and WGW is essential to the process. We have also extensively researched the location of both public and private trees within forty (40) feet of either side of the pole with the aid of Palo Alto Urban Forestry approved Arborist, Anderson’s Tree Care Specialists, Inc. Vault Specifications: Vault Dimension and Excavation Requirements: Vault Equipment: Western Utility Vault ID-717 Vault Interior Dimensions: 4' x 6'-6" x 4' to accommodate required three (3) radios Vault Exterior Dimensions, including Lid with Hatch: 5'-8" x 8'-2" x 1' Approximate Vault Excavation Requirements: 10' x 18' x 8'-1"  Depth to accommodate 1'-8" x 1'-8" x 2'-6" drywell for sump, located under vault  Width to accommodate two (2) intake and exhaust vents on either end of the vault lid, both 2'-6" x 2'-6" x 5'-7" Venting Requirements: (2) underground vent stacks for intake and exhaust at 2'-6" x 2'-6" x 5'-7", separation from vault required for temperature regulation Vault Sump Pump Drainage: (2) underground sump pumps required, located on top of drywell, core drilled to curb release to gutter 5.b Packet Pg. 151 Cluster 2 Project Description – Page 3 of 22 October 25th, 2018 Vault Search Area Requirements: The following technical conditions dictate that the maximum search area for the existing pole for a proposed vault within the public right- of-way. Placement of the radios underground requires larger sized coaxial cable and associated conduit. Additionally, all conduits will run down the entire pole to reach the vault. Search Area: RRU technology was designed to be close to antennas to minimize coaxial cable loss and more critically, to improve uplink performance. If very long coaxials are to be used, then large diameter coaxial cables are preferred to minimize performance losses. The loss factor in determining length and diameter was derived by no more than 3 dB of loss. MAXIMUM CABLE USAGE = 100' used as follows (See Diagram on Right): CABLE SECTION A: Antenna height to base of pole ≈ 51'. CABLE SECTION B: Underground boring ≈ 5'. CABLE SECTION C: Distance to radios = 100' minus (A+B+D) CABLE SECTION D: Slack-loop inside vault to elevate radios for maintenance ≈ 10'. REQUIRED CABLE USAGE ≈ 66' Subtracting the required cable usage of 66’ from the maximum of 100’ results in viable distance to the furthest radio of 34’. The result is a viable distance of ≈ 40’ on either side of each CPAU pole available to excavate for a vault. Verizon Wireless has analyzed an 80’ search area for each pole. Cable and Conduit Requirements (Distance <100’): The pole-mounted design allows for housing 1/2” cable in a 3” diameter conduit flush with the top portion of the pole, from the radios to the antenna. To meet technical requirements for placing radios in an underground vault, Verizon RF Engineering requires an increased cable size of 7/8” for cable distances of less than 100’. To accommodate the increased cable size, the cables must be housed in two separate 4” diameter conduits that will run from the vault up the entire length of the pole. Additionally, power and fiber conduits, which generally only run up the top portion of the pole will also run down the entire length of the vault. Cable and Conduit Requirements (Distance > 100’): The pole-mounted design allows for housing 1/2” cable in a 3” diameter conduit flush with the top portion of the pole from the radios to the antenna. Cable distances greater than 100’ require the utilization of cable over twice as thick as standard cable (increasing diameter from 1/2” to 1 5/8 “). The increased cable size for distances over 100’ would require the six oversize cables to be housed in 2 separate 6” diameter conduits that will run from the vault up the entire length of the pole. Additionally, power and fiber conduits, which generally only run up the top portion of the pole will also run down the entire length of the vault. 5.b Packet Pg. 152 Cluster 2 Project Description – Page 4 of 22 October 25th, 2018 Screening—Radio Shrouds Verizon Wireless is presenting the Architectural Review Board approved shroud design screening the pole mounted equipment. From among the four (4) options presented at the December 7th, 2017 hearing, the Architectural Review Board preferred this streamlined “box” radio shroud. A single shroud of uniform width conceals three (3) vertically-stacked radios, associated ancillary equipment, and cabling. This box shroud is depicted in the photo simulations and zoning drawings where underground vaulting of radios cannot be achieved. Reduced Footprint/Volume(Size) Verizon Wireless has altered its design proposal to address overall volume(size) and footprint of equipment. The original design proposed included emergency battery backup cabinets ideally placed on the ground at all nodes. As outlined below, the footprint of this equipment was much larger than our current proposals. Because of direct feedback acquired from our community meetings, to eliminate the noise element, it was determined that battery backup cabinets would be removed from consideration. Additionally, after the Preliminary ARB hearing of May 18th, 2017, Verizon Wireless completed a mockup of a sun shield shroud which would conceal the cabling between radios. In the design reduction of pole mounted equipment without battery backup cabinets, the equipment volume was reduced considerably. In our current proposal, a new and smaller radio has become available for network use and has been incorporated into the proposal in the interest of reducing overall volume(size) of any equipment that must be mounted on the pole. • Configuration 1 (original design with battery): approx. 68 ft3 • Sun Shroud Design (no battery, only pole mounted): approx. 24.8 ft3 • Proposed Box Shroud Design (with new, smaller radio): approx. 15.38 ft3 Landscaping Verizon Wireless has worked closely with the Urban Forestry Department, the Palo Alto Urban Forestry approved project arborist, and the Planning Department to propose trees in the public Right-of-Way, where deemed appropriate. This will help to screen the proposed equipment from various surrounding views and preserve the existing aesthetics of the neighborhood. The proposed trees have been added to the Site Plan (page A-1 of each node) and the updated Tree Table for ease of reference. Careful consultation with Urban Forestry resulted in the species selection and size. Color As currently conceived, wood pole designs would require all pole mounted equipment, including conduits to encase the fiber and power, to be painted brown to blend closely with the color of the existing pole. Upon review of existing small cells in Palo Alto, and the proposed utility poles for this cluster, it seemed appropriate to select various shades of brown to more closely match the existing poles. In recognition that brown is not just brown, paint samples (Kelly Moore: Railroad Ties KMA67, Log Cabin KMA76, and Clay Bath KM4595) are included in Attachment E – Proposed Paint Samples. These are a digital approximation of the color, and actual samples have been provided with our application. 5.b Packet Pg. 153 Cluster 2 Project Description – Page 5 of 22 October 25th, 2018 Design Evolution of Project Over the last year, Verizon Wireless has been working with the City to refine the design for small cells. In the fall of 2016, Verizon Wireless attended two Development Review Committee meetings to discuss the preliminary design. The mock site constructed to the Palo Alto Art Center was built to obtain feedback from staff and members of the public. Verizon Wireless applied for Preliminary Review for Cluster 1 and appeared before the Architectural Review Board on May 18th, 2017. Feedback generally centered on shrouding the cabling between the radios to create a more streamlined appearance in the equipment. Verizon Wireless has attended multiple Development Review Committee meetings and received feedback from city staff, which has been incorporated into the current design. For example, the proposed landscaping to cover any required pole mounted equipment is the result of a thoughtful discussion during a DRC meeting that resulted in close collaboration with the project arborist, Urban Forestry and Planning Departments. Design feedback from the public remains a top priority for Verizon in its endeavors to site small cells. Verizon Wireless sent Cluster 2 notices to owners and occupants within six hundred-fifty (650') for an April 26th, 2017 community meeting, held at the Palo Alto Art Center. Also, a personalized package was sent to each residence directly adjacent to a node, even if across the street (usually 3-6 packages per node). Community feedback was obtained both at the meeting and through direct contact where residents reached out. The most considerable concern expressed by residents related to noise-producing equipment of any kind. There was also a smaller percentage of residents who felt very strongly that the tradeoff for some noise was worth the security of emergency battery backup during a disaster resulting in a significant power outage. Verizon ultimately decided to remove the emergency batteries to eliminate the noise. In response to feedback from the Preliminary ARB Hearing of May 18th, 2017 to screen the cabling between the radios, Verizon Wireless amended its permits and installed a solar sun shield at its mock site adjacent to 1350 Newell Road. As shown by the currently proposed Configuration and based on direct feedback at the formal hearing before the Architectural Review Board on December 7th, 2017, the sun shield has now been altered to create a uniform and streamlined appearance along the pole “Box shroud.” In addition to all these changes, based on the availability of a new, much smaller radio in this newly proposed Configuration, Verizon Wireless has been able to exchange this new radio for the originally proposed radio. The result is a Configuration with a significantly reduced equipment footprint. Removal of Underground Fiber Box The project was initially proposed with a 17" x 30" Christy fiber box near each node for fiber equipment to connect to the demarcation. After extensive discussions with neighbors and the Palo Alto Urban Forestry Department, it was determined the most tree-friendly approach would be to exclude the small underground boxes from the project. The underground vaulting of radios requires a much larger vault that this Christy box, but the same diligent consideration of tree preservation was considered during the vaulting feasibility analysis. 5.b Packet Pg. 154 Cluster 2 Project Description – Page 6 of 22 October 25th, 2018 Cluster 2 Proposed Nodes Project Overview Verizon Wireless has entered a Master License Agreement (“MLA”) with the City of Palo Alto allowing the attachment of antennas and other equipment (“small cells”) on city-owned poles in the public Right- of-Way. Based on the need to provide network coverage and capacity, Verizon Wireless Radio engineers identify locations throughout the city that require service. Ninety-three (93) such wireless communication facility (“WCF”) installations are currently planned to be co-located on wood utility poles and metal streetlights. Approximately seventy-nine (79) of these small cells are proposed to be co- located on existing wood utility poles; fourteen (14) small cells are proposed to be installed on existing city streetlights. As such, no streetlight attachments are part of this application. These proposed small cells will provide the City of Palo Alto much needed improvements in network capacity and coverage. Community Need for Small Cells The unprecedented current and future demand for wireless service require the densification of existing cellular networks. As a result, wireless communication facilities are diminishing in height and being located closer to the user to meet both daily needs and provide essential coverage for emergency personnel. While the terrain is relatively flat, the dense foliage of the tree canopy combined with the difficulty in permitting macro wireless communication facilities presents unique challenges in the provision of wireless service to the City of Palo Alto. Verizon Wireless must increase both coverage and capacity throughout the city to meet current and future customer demand. Attachment A – Existing & Proposed Coverage Maps contains coverage maps that depict this need in the city. As the map demonstrates, there are significant gaps in the coverage area where Verizon Wireless has proposed the ten (10) Cluster 2 small cells. Small Cells are the least visually intrusive method to provide the City of Palo Alto the required capacity and coverage. The miniaturization of the equipment used for cellular communications allows for these small cells to be located on existing infrastructure, reducing the need for new WCF structures and minimizing visual impact to the surrounding community. Additionally, these small cells can be located in areas where traditional “macro” wireless communication facilities cannot be located, so that essential communication services can be provided to critical areas all while co-locating on existing infrastructure. Furthermore, the addition of these small cells will both meet the current coverage and capacity needs, as well as provide the roadmap to future technologies for the next generation of wireless capability to the community in Palo Alto. Verizon Wireless fully supports the undergrounding of utilities and the Master License Agreement requires this when city facilities are scheduled for undergrounding. In this circumstance, Verizon Wireless is required to relocate its equipment. In this event, attachment to light poles is the most likely solution. Small Cell Node Design Requirements Verizon Wireless has engineered small cells utilizing the most streamlined equipment currently available to meet the capacity and coverage requirements. For each small cell, Verizon Wireless network engineering requires one (1) antenna, three (3) radios, one (1) small electrical disconnect box, and associated conduit for RF and electrical cabling. 5.b Packet Pg. 155 Cluster 2 Project Description – Page 7 of 22 October 25th, 2018 Even though these proposed small cells will be submitted in clusters and are linked to the greater Verizon Wireless network, it is important to note that each wireless communication facility (WCF) acts independently of any other small cell. The utility of each node is therefore not dependent on a neighboring node. PAMC Section 18.42.110(d)(8) requires that “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.” For reasons set for in Attachment G, this is not feasible, as Verizon Wireless is currently proposing all of the required equipment for these small cells. No lighting or additional lighting is required and therefore not proposed for this project. Code Compliance The proposed project meets the requirements of PAMC 18.42.110 regarding Wireless Communication Facilities and supports the goals of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, including Goal B-3 for Palo Alto to serve as a Regional Shopping, Services, and Employment Center. Reliable wireless service is a critical aspect of the city’s infrastructure, and these state-of-the-art installations will provide essential communication capability for the citizens of Palo Alto, as well as emergency services for years to come. The proposal for a small cell network in Palo Alto is consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan to contribute to economic vitality in the area. The proposed antenna node will provide additional network capacity and enhanced wireless communications services, which will benefit the public health, safety, convenience, and welfare. The proposed antenna and equipment will be attached to existing wood utility poles in the public Right-of-Way. The equipment will blend in with the existing utility services to provide essential public infrastructure to the City of Palo Alto. The proposed small cells are an extension of existing utility service and will not conflict with adjacent uses or impede the normal use and development of surrounding properties. The public will be served with enhanced wireless communications services and additional network capacity. Safety Many of the design criteria for a small cell relate to safety. Because all pole mounted equipment must maintain a minimum mounting height of eight (8) feet, the public will not have access to the equipment, which will prevent vandalism and graffiti. Periodic maintenance (1-2 times per year) is performed by Verizon Wireless technical staff. If maintenance is required, the Network Operations Center (NOC) contact information is located on the signage for each node. All sites require a structural analysis, signed and stamped by a California Registered Professional Engineer, and then reviewed by city engineering staff. For all configurations, climbing pegs are placed above eight and one-half feet (8.5') to prevent unauthorized access. 5.b Packet Pg. 156 Cluster 2 Project Description – Page 8 of 22 October 25th, 2018 Attachment A – Existing & Proposed Coverage Maps Three (3) nodes (SF Palo Alto 100, SF Palo Alto 102, SF Palo Alto 103) were removed from our original Cluster 2 submittal due to insufficient vaulting solutions at these locations. They’ve been replaced with three (3) alternate nodes (SF Palo Alto 101-B, SF Palo Alto 155-F, SF Palo Alto 157-E). NOTE: Due to the proximity of alternate poles to primary poles, coverage maps only represent primary pole locations. In the event alternate poles are selected by the Architectural Review Board, Verizon Wireless will provide updated coverage maps. Cluster 2 Map with Node ID’s (1/2) Coverage is not depicted on this map. For Node location purposes only. The map below depicts six proposed nodes from Cluster 2 and three existing macros sites. Blue circles represent a proposed node that would transmit signal in all directions. The blue “pie shapes” represent small cell nodes with fewer than three (3) sectors, i.e., the antenna has a directional signal pattern. 5.b Packet Pg. 157 Cluster 2 Project Description – Page 9 of 22 October 25th, 2018 Cluster 2 Map with Node ID’s (2/2) Coverage is not depicted on this map. For Node location purposes only. The map below depicts Palo Alto 163 located near the Stanford Shopping Center. Due to the geographical distance between the location of Palo Alto 163 and the remaining Cluster 2 nodes, separate maps were necessary. The blue “pie shape” represents the small cell node with less than three (3) sectors, i.e., the antenna has a directional signal pattern. 5.b Packet Pg. 158 Cluster 2 Project Description – Page 10 of 22 October 25th, 2018 Cluster 2 Existing Coverage Map (1/2) The map below depicts Cluster 2 with existing coverage provided by “macro” sites. As demonstrated by the map, coverage is marginal or poor in many locations. Existing coverage area – proposed small cells in Cluster 2 turned OFF. 5.b Packet Pg. 159 Cluster 2 Project Description – Page 11 of 22 October 25th, 2018 Cluster 2 Existing Coverage Map (2/2) The map below depicts Palo Alto 163 located near the Stanford Shopping Center. Due to the geographical distance between the location of Palo Alto 163 and the remaining Cluster 2 nodes, separate maps were necessary. As demonstrated by the map, in-building coverage is marginal or poor in within the Stanford Shopping Center. Existing coverage area – proposed small cells in Cluster 2 turned OFF. 5.b Packet Pg. 160 Cluster 2 Project Description – Page 12 of 22 October 25th, 2018 Cluster 2 Proposed Coverage Map (1/2) The map below depicts six proposed nodes from Cluster 2 and three existing macros sites. Blue circles represent a proposed node that would transmit signal in all directions. Blue “Pie-shapes” represent small cell nodes with fewer than three (3) sectors, i.e., the antenna has a directional signal pattern. As demonstrated by the map, coverage is significantly improved in many locations with the addition of small cells. Proposed Coverage – small cells in Cluster 2 turned ON. 5.b Packet Pg. 161 Cluster 2 Project Description – Page 13 of 22 October 25th, 2018 Cluster 2 Proposed Coverage Map (2/2) The map below depicts Palo Alto 163 located near the Stanford Shopping Center. Due to the geographical distance between the location of Palo Alto 163 and the remaining Cluster 2 nodes, separate maps were necessary. Blue “Pie-shapes” represent small cell nodes with fewer than three (3) sectors, i.e., the antenna has a directional signal pattern. As demonstrated by the map, in-building coverage is significantly improved within the Stanford Shopping Center. Proposed Coverage – small cells in Cluster 2 turned ON. 5.b Packet Pg. 162 Cluster 2 Project Description – Page 14 of 22 October 25th, 2018 Attachment B – Small Cell Selection Process Pole Selection Based on the need to provide network coverage and capacity, Verizon Wireless Radio Frequency engineers identify target locations or “nodes” throughout the city to improve and optimize network performance. Each proposed node is then visited by a team to identify existing city-owned structures available for attachment within the target engineering area. During this fielding walk, guidelines are applied by the City of Palo Alto Utilities Engineering Department, as well as Verizon Wireless’ Engineering, Real Estate and Construction teams to determine the most suitable pole, subsequently identified as the “primary” location. The criteria used to select a pole in a given area have been compiled into the Small Cell Siting Guidelines below. Much of the design for the pole-mounted equipment has been dictated by regulatory agencies, such as the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). It would be impossible within the scope of this document to cover the breadth, but in its General Order 95, the CPUC outlines a set of standards for utility pole attachments meant to ensure safety to the public, utility workers, and equipment. To maintain the required clearance from power distribution, the antenna is mounted “above conductor” on a GO95 approved seven-foot (7') pole-top bayonet mount. If the antenna were to be mounted below conductor, then a two-foot (2’) offset from the pole would be required. The arrangement of the radios and associated equipment along the length of the pole is also constrained. All pole mounted equipment must be located a minimum seven-foot (7') clearance from the ground; in this case, CPAU requires a minimum of eight (8) feet. The required minimum four-inch (4") horizontal offset from the pole is maintained using a sled-style mount. Radios and associated equipment are attached flush mounted with 4" of clearance from the pole. This equipment must also be arranged on the pole in a manner that will preserve clear climbing space (90-degree quadrant), ensuring utility workers have safe and reliable access to poles. Required small cell equipment specifications further constrain the way equipment can be attached. For example, the coaxial cable used to connect radios to the antenna must maintain a minimum bend radius of six inches (6"); anything less would cause damage to the cable compromising the performance of equipment. Collocation with Other Small Cells As mentioned above, the first step when a location is identified by Verizon Engineering is to visit the area and assess suitable structures for attachment. In some cases, there may be an existing WCF or small cell located on a utility pole in the area. While it may appear to make sense to collocate on the same pole as an existing WCF, this is not feasible for many reasons. First, Right-of-Way poles are small and can only support limited equipment. Placing additional equipment on a pole will very likely exceed the structural limits of the pole. Additionally, per CPUC General Order 95, a small cell is required to be attached to the pole in a way that preserves climbing space, defined as a quadrant (90-degree section) on the pole, and collocation would not allow for clear climbing space. Additionally, interference can present a problem in locating multiple carriers’ equipment on the same structure. Some carrier antennas and frequencies need significant separation to avoid interference, and most ROW poles don’t have enough space to allow for this separation. Additionally, we strive to provide the most seamless aesthetic design possible. Having multiple carriers on a pole means more antennas and more equipment boxes on the pole. For these reasons, Verizon Wireless has not proposed collocation on an existing WCF. 5.b Packet Pg. 163 Cluster 2 Project Description – Page 15 of 22 October 25th, 2018 Additional Considerations Beyond the Engineering Criteria, pole selection is based on thoughtful consideration of the surrounding environment in which the proposed small cell is located. Poles with existing favorable site features such as landscaping and tree foliage are prioritized to provide natural screening to reduce the visual impact of small cell attachments. Wherever possible, poles are selected to reduce the impact on views from streets as well as adjacent residences. Site selection was further constrained to avoid poles located in private residential easements (e.g., backyards) and proximity to second story windows. Because small cells provide service over a small area, approximately six hundred (600) to twelve hundred (1200) feet, there is less flexibility in how far they can be moved from a defined engineering target. As a result, there are a limited number of existing structures, i.e., existing wood utility poles or streetlights that will meet the required engineering objective for any given small cell node. As these Alternative Site Analyses demonstrate, many seemingly suitable poles must be eliminated for engineering or other reasons. As these examples demonstrate, there is quite often only one suitable pole for a small cell within a designated coverage area. Siting Guidelines Our team has drafted a list of criteria and constraints used in selecting a pole, presented in Small Cell Siting Guidelines below. Small cells differ from traditional “macro” cells in that their miniature quality dictates that they cover only a very small area and therefore can only move a short distance (measured in feet) within an identified area of need. In selecting a specific pole to serve an area, Verizon Wireless performs a thorough analysis of the existing infrastructure utilizing the to determine the most appropriate location. The standards contained in the Small Cell Siting Guidelines working document have been developed by compiling the criteria and constraints of various regulating agencies. In siting small cells, Verizon Wireless is required to adhere to the standards of the California Public Utilities Commission (General Order 95 Requirements, Rule 94); the engineering and real estate requirements of property owner City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU); Development Standards for wireless communication facility (WCF) locations from PAMC §18.42.110(i); and the Architectural Review Findings of PAMC §18.76.020. Criteria have been further adjusted as city staff from Planning, Urban Forestry, CPAU, and the Art Department have all made time to attend site walks with Verizon Wireless real estate, engineering, and construction teams in their fielding efforts. Additionally, previous small cell and DAS installations in the City of Palo Alto were analyzed to consider previous findings and recommendations by staff, the public and reviewing bodies. Small Cell Siting Guidelines Drafted by Vinculums Services, on behalf of Verizon Wireless Vinculums Services has created this working document on behalf of Verizon Wireless, a compilation of criteria and constraints of various regulating agencies, regarding the selection of poles for small cells in Palo Alto. Verizon Wireless is required to adhere to the standards of the California Public Utilities Commission (General Order 95 Requirements); the engineering and real estate requirements of property owner City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU); and City of Palo Alto Development Standards for wireless communication facility (WCF) locations from PAMC §18.42.110(i); and the Architectural Review Findings of PAMC §18.76.020. 5.b Packet Pg. 164 Cluster 2 Project Description – Page 16 of 22 October 25th, 2018 Engineering Criteria Nature of Small Cells--small cells differ from traditional “macro” cells in that their miniature quality dictates that they can only move a minimal distance (measured in feet) and still serve their intended purpose. Verizon Wireless engineering proposed locations are fielded using the criteria below to select a utility pole or streetlight from existing city infrastructure: City of Palo Alto Utility (Pole Owner) Pole Attachment Mandates • All Attachments must meet California Public Utilities General Order 95 o Clear climbing space – minimum of 90-degree quadrant o Clearances between power conduction and/or other attachments o Required distances for separation between pole and equipment o Required distances for separation between the equipment o Minimum height of attachment • City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) prioritizes the provision of service to its customers. The siting of attachments on poles is secondary and therefore: o No attachments allowed on poles with primary power risers o Attachments on poles with transformers or other special equipment are only acceptable when no other viable poles exist o Primary Line and Buck (primary power lines attaching to the pole at 90 degrees or in perpendicular fashion) situations have a modified climbing space requirement and are only acceptable when no other viable poles exist. Various other situations where the provision of electrical service would be compromised by attachment City of Palo Alto Utility Preferences (in order of importance) 1. Guy stubs - Poles that do not have any electrical or communications; they only provide a structural tie point for a guy wire for a neighboring pole 2. Poles with overhead secondary power conductors only – Secondary power (typically) being the second from the top level of power on the pole and which provides residential power (120/240 Volts AC) 3. Primary dead-end poles – A pole at the end of a line of poles which no poles further down the line 4. Primary poles with no transformers downstream on the poles to end of the line of poles 5. Primary poles with no electric utility equipment on the poles on either side of the proposed pole Development Criteria Development Standards from PAMC §18.42.110(i) • Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible • Shall be designed to minimize the overall height, mass, and size of the cabinet and enclosure structure 5.b Packet Pg. 165 Cluster 2 Project Description – Page 17 of 22 October 25th, 2018 • Be screened from public view • Be architecturally compatible with the existing site • Be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the Zoning Code • An Antenna, Base Station, or Tower shall be designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the Antenna, Base Station, or Tower into the surrounding area Planning and Residential Considerations • Poles preferred in the public Right-of-Way are selected. Poles on Public Utility Easements are not generally selected for attachment • Prioritize poles which have tree foliage close to help camouflage the pole mounted equipment • Prioritize poles that are located near evergreen trees, rather than deciduous trees • Face the pole mounted equipment away from direct views of the adjacent home, toward the street when no foliage is present to hide the equipment • Consolidate equipment to reduce the visual clutter; move the ground mounted equipment onto the pole when there is not enough Right-of-Way or deemed too obtrusive to the residents • In general, prefer locations mid-block instead of at more visible corners/intersections • Determine the most advantageous location that is least disruptive to views from both pedestrian and the adjacent residences 5.b Packet Pg. 166 Cluster 2 Project Description – Page 18 of 22 October 25th, 2018 Attachment C – List of Cluster 2 Nodes Cluster 2 contains ten (10) proposed small cell nodes. This application for Architectural Review encompasses the second “Cluster” or grouping of small cells which contains seven (7) proposed nodes with three (3) alternate nodes (SF Palo Alto 101-B, SF Palo Alto 155-F, SF Palo Alto 157-E) on wood utility poles in the Barron Park, Palo Alto Orchards, Charleston Meadows, Fairmeadow, and Stanford Shopping Center neighborhoods. These three (3) alternate nodes are made available to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to determine the most appropriate pole location in relation to primary nodes. If ARB chooses an alternate pole, the primary pole will be removed from project consideration. Three (3) nodes (SF Palo Alto 100, SF Palo Alto 102, SF Palo Alto 103) were removed from the original Cluster 2 submittal due to insufficient vaulting solutions at these locations. 5.b Packet Pg. 167 Cluster 2 Project Description – Page 19 of 22 October 25th, 2018 Attachment D – Map of Cluster 2 Configurations 5.b Packet Pg. 168 Cluster 2 Project Description – Page 20 of 22 October 25th, 2018 Attachment E – Proposed Paint Samples Pole Mounted Equipment (all Kelly Moore durable metal paint) Railroad Ties (KMA67) Log Cabin (KMA76) Clay Bath (KM4595) 5.b Packet Pg. 169 Cluster 2 Project Description – Page 21 of 22 October 25th, 2018 Attachment F – Model Small Cell Location Verizon Wireless has constructed a non-operational “mock” site for public and staff viewing. The central location adjacent to 1350 Newell and across from the Palo Alto Art Center, was selected in conjunction with CPAU because that particular pole has no overhead transmission. Additionally, Verizon Wireless has selected the auditorium at the Palo Alto Art Center as a location to host community meetings. 5.b Packet Pg. 170 Cluster 2 Project Description – Page 22 of 22 October 25th, 2018 Attachment G – Statement Regarding Spectrum Act Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.42.110(d)(8) provides: “For Tier 3 WCF Permits, the plans shall include a scaled depiction of the maximum permitted increase in the physical dimensions of the proposed project that would be permitted by the Spectrum Act, using the proposed project as a baseline.” Verizon Wireless cannot submit a scaled depiction of the maximum permitted increase in the physical dimensions of the proposed small cell facilities on Palo Alto utility poles under the Spectrum Act for the following reasons: 1. Spectrum Act “Substantial Change” Criteria Are Indeterminate Spectrum Act “substantial change” criteria theoretically allow the expansion of a wireless facility in the Right-of- Way by ten feet in height and six feet in width. However, any such expansion cannot defeat existing “concealment elements” of the facility (see 47 C.F.R. §1.40001). Verizon Wireless small cells are designed with vertically integrated and oriented radio equipment as well as a vertical cylindrical antenna that matches the shape and size of the utility pole to which it is mounted. It is not clear what increase in size, if any, could be accomplished without defeating the concealment elements of the Verizon Wireless design. 2. Modifications to The Verizon Wireless Small Cell Allowed Under The Spectrum Act Must Comply With Health And Safety Requirements (CPUC G.O. 95) The Spectrum Act accommodates regulations for health and safety, such as the requirements of G.O. 95, that are generally observed by the City. G.O. 95 places strict limitations on the placement of attachments on utility poles. Specifically, continuous climbing space must be maintained in one quadrant of the pole from top to bottom. A six- foot separation is required between antennas and transmission lines. Equipment must be more than seven feet from the ground, and pole capacity must be restricted to accommodate the structural limitations of each pole. These limitations severely restrict the modifications that can be made to the Verizon Wireless small cell and would likely prevent modifications of the scale allowed under the Spectrum Act. Any modification that requires the replacement of the utility pole, for structural reasons or lack of space, is disqualified as an eligible facility request under the Spectrum Act. In nearly all cases, Palo Alto utility poles are near capacity and cannot accommodate modifications of the dimensions allowed under the Spectrum Act. 3. Verizon Wireless Has No Plans to Modify Its Small Cell Design And Any “Spectrum Act” Modification Would Be Speculative Verizon Wireless cannot predict the customer demand or technological changes that would lead to a modification of the proposed small cell design. Similarly, Verizon Wireless cannot predict what another utility or wireless provider may propose to add or attach to a utility pole. In the same way, the City cannot be obligated to pre- approve hypothetical designs as “eligible facility requests” under the Spectrum Act that may or may not defeat existing concealment or violate health and safety laws. 4. Hypothetical Maximum Build-Out Under the Spectrum Act Is Irrelevant To Required Approval Findings For Verizon Wireless Small Cells While theoretically interesting, the potential future expansion of a project is not the subject of any of the 16 Architectural Review findings nor the two conditional use findings required for approval of the Verizon Wireless small cell design under the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Projects must be evaluated as proposed and not on hypothetical future modification. There are no reasonably foreseeable modifications to the proposed Verizon Wireless small cell design that can be reviewed by the City at this time. Simply put, speculation cannot form the basis for any findings. Similarly, speculative future modifications do not constitute the substantial evidence required to deny approval of a wireless facility under federal law. For all of the reasons stated above, Verizon Wireless will not revise plans to show a scaled depiction of the maximum permitted increase in the physical dimensions of its small cell project. 5.b Packet Pg. 171 ATTACHMENT C APPLICANT PROJECT PLANS AND EQUIPMENT VAULTING FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS File No. 17PLN-00170 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 the Project Plans and the Equipment Vaulting Analysis online: Project Webpage https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4000&TargetID=319 Permit Tracking System 1. Go to Citizen Portal: https://aca.accela.com/PALOALTO/Cap/CapHome.aspx?module=Planning&TabName=Planning&Tab List=Home%7C0%7CBuilding%7C1%7CPlanning%7C2%7CFire%7C3%7CPublicWorks%7C4%7CCurrent TabIndex%7C2 2. Go to the Planning tab within Palo Alto Citizen Portal and type in the application number 17PLN-00170. 3. Both current and superseded files are listed under Record Info and Attachments 4. The current and latest project plans are named:  “17PLN-00170 Cluster 2 Resubmittal Plans 10-31-18 PART 1of 5”  “17PLN-00170 Cluster 2 Resubmittal Plans 10-31-18 PART 2of 5”  “17PLN-00170 Cluster 2 Resubmittal Plans 10-31-18 PART 3of 5”  “17PLN-00170 Cluster 2 Resubmittal Plans 10-31-18 PART 4of 5”  “17PLN-00170 Cluster 2 Resubmittal Plans 10-31-18 PART 5of 5”  “17PLN-00170 Cluster 2 Resubmittal Vault Feasibility 10-31-18 Node 101 & 101-B”  “17PLN-00170 Cluster 2 Resubmittal Vault Feasibility 10-31-18 Node 104”  “17PLN-00170 Cluster 2 Resubmittal Vault Feasibility 10-31-18 Node 153”  “17PLN-00170 Cluster 2 Resubmittal Vault Feasibility 10-31-18 Node 154”  “17PLN-00170 Cluster 2 Resubmittal Vault Feasibility 10-31-18 Node 155 & 155-F”  “17PLN-00170 Cluster 2 Resubmittal Vault Feasibility 10-31-18 Node 157 & 157-E”  “17PLN-00170 Cluster 2 Resubmittal Vault Feasibility 10-31-18 Node 163” Note: The address for this application 17PLN-00170 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. 172 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-00170 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. 173 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. 174 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. 175 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. 176 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. 177 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. 178 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. 179 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. 180 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 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Members Alexander Lew and Robert Gooyer. Absent: Osma Thompson. Chair Furth: Good morning, and welcome to the November 1, 2018, regular meeting of the Architectural Review Board. Would the staff please call the roll? [Roll Call] Oral Communications Chair Furth: Oral communications. This is the time for any member of the public to speak on an item not on the agenda but within our purview. You have three minutes. I have no cards. Is there anyone who wishes to speak this morning? If you could come to the podium and give us your name. Yes, please, the microphone over there. ??: (inaudible) Chair Furth: Are you able to wait for the hearing on that one? ??: (inaudible) Chair Furth: We can flip the agenda to accommodate the public. Or at least we could open the hearing. When are we expecting the applicants? ??: (inaudible) Chair Furth: Okay. Well, I would suggest...Excuse me. Are you able to stay until 9:30, or do you need to leave? ??: (inaudible) Chair Furth: They have 10 minutes to speak. There is a staff report, and then it would be you. And if you're not able to remain...About 15 minutes, so 9:45? ??: Okay. Chair Furth: Would that be all right? ??: (inaudible) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: November 1, 2018 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 Chair Furth: Thank you. If you'd give your name to the staff and they can call you if you need to leave. ??: (inaudible) Chair Furth: Thank you. Anybody else? All right. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Furth: Agenda changes, additions and deletions. Anything? We will have a report under Board Member questions, comments or announcements. We will have a report back from Vice Chair Baltay about the deliberations of the subcommittee on the Public Safety Building at the end of our meeting, under that item. All right. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative Future Agenda items. Chair Furth: City Official Reports. That's the transmittal of the ARB meeting schedule, tentative future agendas. Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: Yes, so, you'll see... Chair Furth: We have three meetings left this year. Ms. Gerhardt: Correct, and it does look like we're going to need all three because we do have some wireless projects that are coming up at the end of the year. Also, as far as the next meeting, we will have the hotel project at 4256 El Camino, will be going ahead, and we've let the community know about that. We also have the Peninsula Corridor Electrification. However, the 2321 Wellesley will need to be pushed off, likely to the next hearing. Chair Furth: All right. Is the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project report already prepared, or is there anything we can be reading as background before that meeting? Ms. Gerhardt: I will work with Amy French, who is leading that project, and see if we can email you some background information. Chair Furth: I know there is a lot of, lot of deliberations have already taken place. I want to catch up. Anything else? Okay. And our first meeting in January is January 4th. Is that right? Yep. Ms. Gerhardt: The January 3rd meeting, we normally cancel that meeting. So, unless you're excited to have such a meeting. But, we also do need to...yeah. The other thing we were looking at is potentially at the end of January, having an extra hearing then. But we'll have to kind of see as time goes on if we need that extra meeting at the end of January. Chair Furth: Thank you. Okay. Action Items 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 City of Palo Alto Page 3 (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. 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. City of Palo Alto Page 4 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. 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 City of Palo Alto Page 5 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... 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? City of Palo Alto Page 6 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. 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. City of Palo Alto Page 7 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. 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? City of Palo Alto Page 8 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. 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- City of Palo Alto Page 9 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 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. City of Palo Alto Page 10 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. 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 City of Palo Alto Page 11 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. 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. City of Palo Alto Page 12 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. 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. City of Palo Alto Page 13 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. 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 City of Palo Alto Page 14 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 [phonetic], 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. [The Board took a short break.] 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 744-748 San Antonio [18PLN-00347]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of Architectural Review to Allow Revisions to a Previously Approved Major Architectural Review for Two New Hotels. Scope of Revisions: Change in Façade Modulations, Decks, Rooftop Equipment Screening, Driveway, Parking, and Landscaping. Environmental Assessment: Covered by Previously Certified Environmental Impact Report. Zoning District: CS (Commercial Service). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@mgroup.us. Chair Furth: We're ready to go to item #3. I realized that I should probably explain that when I use a computer in these meetings, I am looking at either the staff report or the City documents, all things that are part of the official record. I am not soliciting public opinion on what I should do. Which would be illegal. All right. Our second public hearing, item #3 on our agenda, also quasi-judicial, concerns 744-748 San Antonio. We are asked for our recommendation on the applicant's request for approval of architectural review to allow revisions to a previously-approved major architectural review for two new City of Palo Alto Page 15 hotels. The revisions involve changes to the façade modulations, decks, rooftop equipment screening, driveway, parking, landscaping, including, I believe from the staff report, pedestrian amenities along that area, such as benches. And environmental assessment. This project is still covered by the previously- certified environmental impact report. The zoning district is CS Commercial. The project planner is Sheldon Ah Sing. Sheldon Ah Sing, Project Planner: Yes, good morning, and thank you... Chair Furth: Just a second here. Thank you, Sheldon. Has everybody visited the site? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. Chair Furth: Everybody is indicating that they have visited the site. Now, are there any communications concerning this project that anybody wishes to disclose? Vice Chair Baltay: Sure. I'd like to disclose that I've met with Randy Popp regarding elliptically this project's parking situation, where he expressed to me interest in the applicant, of reducing the required number of parking places, based on evidence they have that the hotel doesn't need it. We didn't go beyond just listening to that statement, but I wanted to relay that to the Board. Chair Furth: Thank you. And to staff, this application does not include reduction of parking, or does? Mr. Sing: It does not. The project description from the applicant does describe, in the future, coming back for some signage and reduction of parking, but that's not... Chair Furth: That is not before us today. Mr. Sing: Not before us today. Staff does not have any response to that. Chair Furth: Thank you. Appreciate that. Sheldon. Mr. Sing: Thank you for the introduction. The applicant is here with their presentation. Just to mention that the public notices did go out within 600 feet, as required by the code. And, I did have conversations with a couple of residents adjacent to the project regarding this process. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Sing: The project was approved in June of 2017, and is for two hotels, two separate hotels, branding hotels, five stories each, with 294 rooms and basement parking. Included, actually, two levels at the time it was proposed. As part of the conditions of approval, the City Council did require that the project eliminate one of the basement levels of parking. In lieu of that, the cost savings from that basement construction would go toward traffic mitigation funds for San Antonio Road. A grading permit was issued to excavate the basement, which would be the one level, and currently, the building permit is in review. That's what triggered some of these revisions coming back to you today. The biggest change is the site plan. On the left, you have the 2017 version, and the plan was changed from a circular driveway to an oval driveway. This arrangement allows for more curb space and for drop-offs, as well as to make a much more efficient parking valet operation. This would also alleviate the potential for spillover onto San Antonio Road. There was a condition of approval to discourage spillover onto San Antonio. In doing so, creating this oval driveway, that shifted some of the footprint of the buildings, some of the site layout there. Landscaping essentially stayed the same. The pool got a little bit smaller and is more of an operational aspect that the applicant can describe. Going through some of the elevations of this...I had a preview of the applicant's PowerPoint, and they'll go through this much more in detail. But, just to generally say that some of these changes regarding the fenestrations were because of changes to the interior space, because of more refinement of the plans as they went from the entitlement to the building permit, as well as the changes to the placement of the rooftop equipment, and the necessity of having City of Palo Alto Page 16 screening. That changed the parapet, and also screening material. Again, here it is, very minimal changes to the first and second levels. The fourth and fifth levels have more significant changes due to some structural constraints that the applicant will go into detail about. That required some of the...The roof and guest room areas are extended to be more of these beams that had to be put in because of the type of construction they are doing. The parapet here was raised as sort of, as also a mechanical screening equipment. You'll notice that the height of those are taller than 50 feet, but again, they are acting as screening for the equipment. The lighter color along the walls was included for internal circulation of the (inaudible). This is within the color palette that was approved. These changes are just like some of the other ones, with changes to the fenestration because of the interior spaces that were changed, and a lighter color was introduced on the first level for accent, but other than that, changes at the other levels are basically the same. This was very similar to the Courtyard Hotel, where you have some of the structural changes due to the type of construction that they are doing. On the east elevation, is more of a color change of significance, making the color lighter on the left side, and also the parapet there was also raised for the mechanical equipment screening. There were a couple of subcommittee items. One of them is addressed here, has to do with the terraces, and having to provide landscaping details. Those are included in the plans. The other subcommittee is with the lighting, and there is no information on that in this packet, so they have to come back as part of the condition of approval for the subcommittee. Given the nature of the changes to the project, the revisions, the project is consistent with the architectural review findings, and the context based design and performance standards. We do have a condition of approval #6 for pedestrian access, and that is in your Attachment C. Chair Furth: Could you give us the packet page? Mr. Sing: It's 57. Number 6, just restated here, that the owner or designee, prior to issuance of building permits, demonstrate that the direct pedestrian access is provided form the San Antonio Road sidewalk to the Courtyard Hotel, which is the north building. A separate accessible ramp is required unless a more centralized ramp is provided to serve both hotels that is closer to the central driveway. The issue with that is, before they had two separate entrances. Now, a person, say, is disabled, or so, would have to go completely south of the driveway and kind of circle back. We're just thinking there wasn't really any reason to eliminate that just for additional landscaping, but the applicant may have some other reasons to that. The project scope is covered by the Certified Environmental Impact Report for the previously- approved project, so no additional documentation is necessary. And then, we recommend that the Board recommend approval of the project. That concludes my presentation. Be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Chair Furth: Any questions of staff before we hear from the applicant? I have one. On packet page 42, you say that semi-public seating areas in front of the hotels along San Antonio are removed. Could you show us where they were and what they were replaced with? Mr. Sing: Sure. On page 42, you will notice in front of the hotel, between the hotel and San Antonio, there is some brown, round tables, or seating. It's right adjacent to the building. And then, if you look on the new, on page 43 of the report, those have been removed. [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Actually, given the scale of the plan, I'm not seeing it, but...It's at the bottom of the page, right next to the trees? Mr. Sing: That's correct. And then, for the... Chair Furth: [crosstalk] Mr. Sing: For the AC, it's, again, kind of more north along the building front. Chair Furth: And they've been replaced with...? Mr. Sing: It's just vegetation now. City of Palo Alto Page 17 Chair Furth: Thank you. Okay, are we ready to hear from the applicant? I believe so. You have 10 minutes. And if you would spell your name for our transcriber. Randy Popp: Sure. My name is Randy Popp. [spells name] I am the entitlement consultant for this project, not the architect. I'm working with the team. Greg LeBon is here with me today from the ownership group. He is the Vice President of Design for T2 Hospitality. I'm going to read from my presentation here just a little bit so that I move through quickly and try to stay with my 10 minutes. Sheldon has done a great job here of running you through kind of the meats and bones of what we're proposing. But, let me just very briefly tell you that our goal here today is to identify what we've revised -- which Sheldon has outlined pretty clearly -- and seek a rapid approval, if possible, because we are trying to keep the project on track. I think you'll see that most of what we're proposing here today is pretty minor. In most ways, I think you'll agree, it's really an improvement to what we had previously been showing you. Just by way of updating you on what is happening now, construction has begun. We are complete with the demotion of the existing building. Secant walls have been installed in the project. The watering is ready to begin. And, we're in process with our plan check. We've achieved approval for some of the phases of work and are working through the process for others. The critical element for us right now is that we are trying to achieve a structural permit approval so that we can begin the concrete work. We can't start the dewatering without that because we need to immediately fill the hole in with concrete so that it doesn't fill in with water. I'll start off by sharing some kind of exciting images, I think. These photos are from just a week ago. As you can see, the excavation is completed to just above the water table. Secant walls have been installed to 25 feet in depth. Tie-backs are being placed, and we're ready to launch the deeper excavation and start the dewatering. I'll bring up a couple more images quickly to just sort of remind you what we last agreed to. This is San Antonio Road looking south. And then, again, the view looking to the north. And these are the final versions of the rendered perspectives we last generated. We're here again to show you some refinements we've made. We're not proposing any major shifts from what you approved. We were very happy with what we achieved, but in the course of refining, we found the need to make some changes to the fenestration and the glazing. You can see the changes are very subtle. I included vignettes of the plan so you can clearly see the level of articulation occurring along the frontage. We worked hard to make it interesting, further enhancing the character and richness of the skin, and anticipating and featuring the shadow lines. Overall, we've maintained the general organization, has remained consistent in most ways, with only minor changes being made. From the south side of the AC, which will, in fact, be very hard to fully perceive; we've been pretty thoughtful, regardless. Attending to the mantra of giving all the sides an appropriate level of attention, particular improvement has been made at the first level. This is a good spot to point out the changes at the terrace levels. As with most projects you see, the structural design is considered, but really conceptual. Now that we are more developed, it became clear we could not build exactly what we drew. We've extended the roof and wall approximately three to five feet in different areas to stretch to a column line. We did this in a way which would be similar to what we'd agreed to in regard to overhang and shadow area. After studying this so carefully, I'm confident this change will be almost imperceptible, particularly at the height at which it occurs. Overall, the top of the building is still stepping in a terraced and generous way. Similar refinement on the north side for the courtyard because we shifted stair and services areas. The pattern of windows extends further to the east and adds to the overall rhythm of this façade. I think this side in particular is much improved. At the east, we have included elements, as available, to break down the building, but truly, the large open area at the shared courtyard is the feature that makes this side unique. Beyond that, elements like recessed slot glazing at the stair or two- story mechanical vent for laundry in the garage enlivens this more service-dependent façade. As Sheldon mentioned, we've made some adjustments to the mechanical screening, and it's important as part of this presentation to show you our roof plans. This is the AC. As you can see, our mechanical is distributed, but we worked hard to keep it central to the building, and as low as possible. In fact, we're using portions of the parapet edge, particularly within the court area, to screen tall elements like stair or elevator features, which we could not otherwise shift. From the pedestrian level at the street, virtually none of this will be visible as a result of our approach. Similar tact was taken at the Courtyard, with the mechanical screen closely profiling that of the roof edge, again, to limit the perception of rooftop elements from pedestrian level of the street. This is the piece I’m most excited to tell you about. We really took your comments seriously and have made some very positive improvements to the site plan. City of Palo Alto Page 18 We've elongated the vehicle stacking space for pick-up and drop-off and shifted the entry of the lobbies further back and off the access to reduce the opportunity for interaction between pedestrian and vehicles. More outdoor activity space has been added and features like water walls, fire tables, shady areas. All of this has been incorporated without decrease to the landscape or impact to the site circulation. Along the San Antonio edge, we really thought about the pedestrian experience of people walking by. The staff report mentions a draft condition #6 that says a ramp should be required. Of all the times I've been to ARB, this may be the first time I've challenged a staff condition. My team and I believe strongly this is not needed. Because we are substantially through plan check, I can say it's actually not required. We've determined the front would benefit more by being densely landscaped, rather than covering the edge with rows of pathways we know will be seldom used. And I'll just briefly digress from what I planned to talk about and mention that Sheldon is correct. We did take away some of these areas. And I think, Wynne, you were asking about more...I don't know if my pointer can work here. I can't seem to see it. We had previously shown some outdoor seating, out in front of the buildings, but in the course of experiencing the site a little more, talking to the internal team, we've determined that having doorways on the frontage there, which would leak sound into the building in a way that's hard to control, would be less desirable. So, we have removed the openings that come from the interior of the building out to that space and have decided rather to just landscape that in a nice way. As pedestrians walk by on San Antonio, we've maintained all the benches and other things that we had along that frontage, but once you step up onto the podium and essentially go up that height, we don't have those outdoor seating areas any longer. I'll just say, again, we feel strongly that a more robust landscape area will be better in this location. Safe pedestrian movement within the inner circulation diagram satisfies all the needs as we see them. A single ramp provided as part of the thoughtful circulation we've developed internally is more than adequate for convenience and the likely use it will receive. We had one...I thought there was one outstanding condition; it sounds like we need to come back and talk about the lighting. One outstanding conditional of approval which we needed to resolve with you. Using this hearing as an opportunity to do that, we'd like to share our intent for the fourth and fifth floor balconies. Using a combination of the callistemon and acacia, we're creating a visually-interesting landscape element with two very different species and contrast. Both are low maintenance, so they'll continue to look good, but are robust enough to be perceived from the street, again, almost 40 feet distant from that location. As a final note, we've shared some color swatches with you to confirm our palette. We've made some very subtle adjustments to the tone and saturation, but otherwise, it will remain consistent with the earlier approved colors. I would describe these as earthy and warm, aligned with the brand standards, and interesting in their variation and contrast. That's it for my presentation. This is actually a pretty simple change that we're trying to make, so I will look forward to any questions you might have. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. I'm going to ask my colleagues to hold our questions until we hear from the public, and then, we can continue that. We have a speaker card. Jyanhwa Myau. Good morning, and if you could spell your name for the person who transcribes our minutes, that would be helpful. Jyanhwa Myau: Sure. My name is Jyanhwa Myau. [spells name] Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Myau: Good morning. I would like to... Board Member Gooyer: If you could pull the microphone up closer to you. There you go. Mr. Myau: I didn't know I'm that tall. I'd like to present some of our concerns about this mechanical device. First, I guess we're not fully understand what's the rationale that we're trying to ask for a mechanical device. I guess our main concern is then, what if there is a malfunction, and it may cause the (inaudible) to overflow to the adjacent area. In a sense, we actually care about the parking space nearby. What would be a follow-up plan, you know, just in case the mechanical device is failing? The other thing is, I wasn't quite sure that, how can we possibly eliminate the whole floor, in a sense? There's 108 mechanical device. I tried to do some calculation myself. There's 294 slots available. I mean, as a plan. But then, excluding some of the surface level, then I would assume there would be, like around 100 or City of Palo Alto Page 19 120, each floor, originally planned. But then, there's 108 mechanical device. So, how the mechanical device is going to save a whole ground-floor parking from there. I have seen, you know, there's a rotating device, or up and down mechanical device, or what exactly this mechanical device is. The other concern is I'm not sure if that's related to this review right now, is the, again, is the parking space. I don't know if the Board has approved they're going to eliminate the parking space adjacent to the, just nearby the San Antonio Road. There are 21 of them (inaudible) street. We never hear any confirmation. Are we going to take it out to ease the traffic congestion? Or not? To summarize, I think the concern has been, what's the rationale? Do we want to eliminate the whole basement, to move the (inaudible) to ease the traffic. I scratch my head. I couldn't think about any way you can ease the traffic because the parking space still (inaudible). And everybody is coming down from San Antonio Road, and most likely, they're going to make a U-turn in between San Antonio and Middlefield there. If those Board can address those concerns, that would be great. Yeah. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you very much, Mr. Myau. Does staff have any comments before we ask more Board questions? Mr. Sing: Regarding what the...? Chair Furth: I'm sorry...That's all right. We will go back to the applicant, who has a response time. Another 10 minutes, if you wish. Mr. Popp: Sure. I don't need 10 minutes. Is this a response to the...? Chair Furth: You are allowed another 10 minutes to do what you wish, essentially. Mr. Popp: All right. I certainly... Chair Furth: To advocate for your project. Mr. Popp: I think I've explained our project pretty clearly. I think the one thing I would say is that we're not here today to talk about parking. That portion of the project is already approved and complete, so we're passed that at this stage. We will come back, and I'll just briefly explain that at other nearby hotels that this company has produced, and according to studies that well-respected traffic consultants, parking consultants in this area have done, it's becoming pretty clear that the impact of Lyft and Uber and other types of transportation that are available to people who use these hotels have reduced the requirement for parking, to a point that is roughly around .3. It's dramatically lower than what our standards require. Just in terms of what we have approved -- just briefly for all of you -- we are 100 percent parked on this project. We're doing that through a combination of valet, physical stalls and stacker stalls and mechanical spaces. We have 80 percent of our parking achieved in physical stalls, the combination of single stall or mechanical stackers. And then, the remaining 20 percent is valet spaces in the aisles. At this stage, we are compliant with all of the requirements for parking. We will be coming back with discussion about whether or not those stackers are necessary, with the concept that we may suggest that we do a study at six months and decide whether the stackers are actually necessary. That's something that we will come back to you with in short order. But, the goal for today was really to just focus on the architecture because we need to get these building permits issued. That's all we're asking you to really consider. That was the scope of this application, and that's where I'll leave it. Thank you. Chair Furth: Are there any questions for the applicant's representative? Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, I've got one. You know, you keep mentioning, "We'll come back for that," but the problem is, by the time you come back, if you've got three-quarters of a building up, and all of a sudden, it turns out you should have put in that second basement, you can't very well do it at that point. I mean, you know, that's easy to say now, and then we're going to be stuck. If you come back to us in six months and you've got the frame up, you can't very well take that down and put the basement in. City of Palo Alto Page 20 Mr. Popp: Let me just... Board Member Gooyer: Hang on. Mr. Popp: Sorry. Board Member Gooyer: The second comment is, I keep hearing "valet." Valet is fine, but you still have to put the vehicle somewhere. I mean, when you remove an entire floor, that's a whole lot less square footage. Now, I've seen situations where valets run around into the neighborhood and park cars, but I really don't think the neighborhood is going to appreciate that. Chair Furth: Okay. Any other questions? I'll let you comment back in a minute. Board Member Lew: Can I...? I think staff has a comment, but also, I reviewed the previously-approved plans, and I just want to make it clear that the previous approved design was not two full floors of parking. It was a ramp down, and it was just a partial area that was two levels, right? Everything was ramping down. It was just...I have the plan. I mean, there was just a little overlap, right? Mr. Popp: Yeah, I would... Board Member Lew: I mean, I have the sections... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Let me see if I can say something, as well, which might be helpful. It's our City Council which made the decision to accept the use of on-site valet parking -- in other words, you can't take the cars off site -- and stacking parking, mechanical lifts, instead of the second layer of parking. So, our Board did not make that decision, and we cannot alter that decision. We are being asked to look at a change in their, a number of changes in the appearance of the building, and a significant change in the entry courtyard, which the applicant believes will -- and presumably staff, but we'll ask them -- will reduce the chances of traffic from this site backing into San Antonio and having a serious impact on local traffic. Is that correct, staff? Mr. Sing: Yeah. Just to back up a little bit, with all this discussion going on. You're absolutely correct that the condition approvals are from the Council, to revise the project and eliminate that...It was a partial level of basement parking. That kind of left it to, well, you have to provide all the parking, code compliant, in one level, or on the surface level. The applicant is using the provisions in the code regarding the mechanical parking, and they are compliant with that, and we're reviewing that through the building plan check review at this point. We are working with the applicant regarding the other condition approval that goes with this, that says that the cost savings from not doing that basement level go towards a fund for traffic mitigations on San Antonio Road. Chair Furth: And can you answer Mr. Myau's question about the possible elimination of parking spaces across the street? Was that the question? The 21 space? Yes. Is that a considered mitigation measure or response? Mr. Sing: I'm not familiar about anything off-site. We're just...Everything was, for this project, on site. We don't have any... Chair Furth: The City is not studying a proposal to remove the parking along San Antonio? Mr. Sing: I'm not aware of anything. City of Palo Alto Page 21 Chair Furth: Staff is not aware of such a study. It would be a separate project that would not come to us, but our staff is saying that they are not aware of that proposal. And I’m sure they would notify the neighborhood before implementing something like that. Questions for the applicant's representative? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, good morning. I have a question for the architect. I'm trying to understand the changes to the façade along San Antonio. I'm looking at Drawing A-1.0 or Drawing 2.0. You're showing on the partial floor plans of the fourth and fifth floor, on the left, the originally-proposed area, is sort of a cross-hatched, what I would indicate to be an open patio. On the right, you show that as a gray area shaded in. What does the gray area represent? What does that mean on the plans? Mr. Popp: Just to make sure I’m clear on what you're talking about, and for anybody in the public here. What we're describing is these areas here? Vice Chair Baltay: Exactly. Mr. Popp: Yeah. Those are the open terrace areas, the balconies. There are open terrace areas on the upper level. We just changed the, you know, this is the result of lifting drawings from the construction plan set, versus the design plan set. It's the same areas that were shown here, are shown here. We're just using a different shade/shadow. You can see there was one, two, three, four balconies previously, and there are one, two, three, four balconies currently proposed. At the upper level, there were one, two, three balconies proposed earlier, and we've extended those just a little bit to be larger -- one, two, and a larger one that's on this side now, at the Courtyard side. Just walking you through each of the two buildings. That's what that reads as. Vice Chair Baltay: And then, the gray, the dark-gray shaded area is still an open balcony that's accessible to the people in the room. Mr. Popp: Yeah. Vice Chair Baltay: It really could have the same...graphics to shading is on the right... Mr. Popp: It's just a matter of graphic representation. I think, you know, we're sort of showing the tile pattern. Board Member Gooyer: I don't mean to interject, but I have one question with that. Why are all the doors then gone, onto those areas? Mr. Popp: We just simplified the drawing at this stage. There are doors that are there. It's all open balconies. Those are, sort of the special units that have a nice balcony out to the views. All of those will have views. Board Member Gooyer: Is that what it is? Mr. Popp: They are. Board Member Gooyer: (inaudible) Mr. Popp: Yeah. Board Member Gooyer: Okay. Mr. Popp: I think it's just hard to see at the scale we produced it, but they are all accessible balconies. They've been enlarged to the degree that we can enlarge them. They are actually going to be very nice spaces with great views. City of Palo Alto Page 22 Vice Chair Baltay: And then, I suppose it's asking too much, but you originally showed us some very nice renderings of these upper corners of the building as we approved them. Do you have similar renderings for the proposed situation now? Mr. Popp: I'm sorry to say we don't. We were crunched for time in getting this presentation and it wasn't possible for us to have a set of renderings that were matching produced for this. I can share with you that we've got some three-dimensional perspective views, but they are not as desirable to me because they are shown at a funny angle. I'm going to go ahead and bring those up... Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Popp: ...with the caveat that, normally I only show you things that are either from the perspective of a pedestrian walking by, or some sort of artificial close-in view, the way we had done before. I don't typically show these because it doesn't really describe the building in a way that anyone could actually see it. But, let me just flip to it for you here, in my pocket slides. Chair Furth: These are your back-pocket slides. Mr. Popp: That's right. Okay, so, Board Member Baltay, I think this is what you're asking for, is a bit of a more perspective... Vice Chair Baltay: This is exactly what I'm asking for. Mr. Popp: ...a perspective representation of what... Vice Chair Baltay: Please leave this on the screen for a minute so we can study it. Mr. Popp: Sure. And I'll just mention to you, I've got this view, and then, I've got a second one that is more oriented toward the AC. If you'd like me to flip back and forth between those, I'm happy to. The current design is on the lower edge of the screen. It's a little hard to read that. Vice Chair Baltay: What I’m struggling with, Architect Popp, is that on the elevations, as best I can make out on these one-inch tall elevations of a 50-foot building, the roof overhangs and the amount of modulation on the fourth and the fifth floors just seem to be less, by a lot. By five feet or so. And I just can't quite figure out what's really going on. Mr. Popp: Okay. Vice Chair Baltay: And if you recollect during our initial set of meetings, that was a big issue for the Board. And it was only your renderings that really convinced, at least me. I'm very leery of going backwards on that, and I'm looking for you to convince me otherwise. Just to give you some background for what I'm looking at. Maybe you could go to another slide like this, of the other corner of the building. Mr. Popp: And perhaps as you're studying that, I can explain, or I can even ask Greg to come up and talk a little bit about the decision to... Chair Furth: Why don't you give us a couple of minutes, or a minute or so to look. [crosstalk] Vice Chair Baltay: ...comment to staff that this is exactly the kind of thing that really needs to be in the public record. These images show much more than one-inch-tall elevations. I'm done with my questions. Chair Furth: Okay. All right. I will confirm with staff that drawings of the size we had are very difficult to use in evaluating the building. Okay. Go ahead. Alex? City of Palo Alto Page 23 Board Member Lew: I have a question on the renderings that's being shown right now. Is there a change to the wall height? The landscape wall? It seems like it's taller and closer to the street. Is there a design change? Greg LeBon: If there was... Board Member Lew: Please come to the microphone. Mr. LeBon: If there was, it was... Chair Furth: I'm sorry, you need to be very close to our microphone, and if you could introduce yourself for our transcriber. Mr. LeBon: I'm Greg LeBon with T2 Development. If there were any adjustments to that wall height, it was specifically to address the pathway and the necessity for a sloped walkway. And possibly grades. Chair Furth: I'm sorry, I didn't quite hear your name. Mr. LeBon: My name is Greg LeBon. I am with T2 Development, the developer. Chair Furth: And LeBon is spelled...? Mr. LeBon: [spells last name.] Chair Furth: You'd be amazed, how much time we spend correcting misspelled names in our minutes. Mr. LeBon: It means "the good" in French. Chair Furth: That part, we got. Thank you. Additional questions? Board Member Lew: Randy... Mr. Popp: I'm sorry, Alex, let me just give you...I'm just going to briefly say. Sheldon did ask for these perspectives. It came after we had submitted our initial application, and he suggested that we should try and include some perspective renderings. Unfortunately, these came to my email about four o'clock yesterday afternoon, so, definitely would have included them if they had been available. I apologize for that. I agree that they are easy to read in some ways, but again, the refinement I would have made is I would have shifted our station point so that we're really looking at the terraces and could really explain it in the right way for you. I apologize that they're just, they just weren't available to me. Board Member Lew: They are very useful, though, so, thank you for that. And then, if you could remind us how, sort of the entry/drop-off area, how much higher is that above the street level grade? Like, the sidewalk. Mr. Popp: Are you asking about the actual driving surface? Board Member Lew: I think it's, the staff condition of approval #6 is to add a pedestrian walkway there, and I'm assuming that you're not doing it because there is a grade issue. I was just wondering what...? Mr. Popp: Yeah, it's not about the grade. Board Member Lew: It's not about the grade. Mr. Popp: It's not about the grade issue for us. It's about the fact that people who come and go from this hotel generally are coming and going in a vehicle. People arrive at hotels in a car, and if someone is City of Palo Alto Page 24 going to go out for a walk or a run or do any of those things, they're pretty intentional about it. They're going out for some exercise. We felt that the larger goal of having a really nice frontage and some dense landscaping, all of those things, rather than having this big gap in the wall and a ramp on both sides, and duplicate layers of pedestrian pathway, impervious area, etc., in really what is the only pervious area of our site, right? There's the special setback of 24 feet right at the front of the site that this occurs within. And it's really valuable to us, to have that as landscaped area rather than just paved area. So, we made a decision internally to maintain that walkway. And you can see that, you know, we've shown this sort of dashed line of circulation, and how that occurs, and out to San Antonio through this gap here in the wall. It takes that amount of length to get a code-compliant ramp between the pedestrian way at San Antonio and the podium height above curb at the entrances. We would literally have to mirror that on this side. And you can see, it eats up a lot of that landscape area, and it's not required by code. Board Member Lew: Okay. Thank you for that. Mr. Popp: Thank you. Chair Furth: Robert, do you have any questions? Board Member Gooyer: [no audible response] Chair Furth: As a courtesy to our member of the public here, could you explain how the hotel does cope with failures in the mechanical parking system, if they occur? Mr. Popp: Yeah, I'd be happy to. The parking systems that we're using are very common today in this area. It's something that has gained a lot of acceptance in this region. There are local maintenance groups that manage these. The best way to explain this is that they are a lot like the Coke dispensing machines. They have a monitoring system built into them, and long before we would realize there's something wrong with them, they signal to the maintenance company that there is a failure occurring, or maintenance is required in some way. And they trigger a notification and a call for service. That's managed pretty effectively just electronically. Beyond that, you know, we have provided all of the required parking in the combination of valet within the aisles. We haven't counted every space that a valet could park. In fact, there's ample extra space. We just... Chair Furth: You're not arguing that you would have enough parking without the stackers, though. Mr. Popp: No. Chair Furth: Thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to do that for us. Looking at Sheet A-8.0, landscape plan 2018, current. How long is your frontage, along the street? Roughly. Does staff know? Mr. Sing: I think it's roughly 280 feet. Chair Furth: I think so, too. I see a bench, public bench seating up toward the top of the page, which would be north, and I don't see any on the other side of the parcel. Is that right? Or am I misreading this? Mr. Popp: If you don't mind, Chair Furth, I'll show you on this plan. Chair Furth: Sure. Mr. Popp: This is an architectural drawing of the site that clarifies a little more easily because it doesn't have all the landscape shown. There is a... Chair Furth: I'm sorry, which sheet are we looking at? City of Palo Alto Page 25 Mr. Popp: It’s in my presentation. I'm not sure it was in your packet. This is a... Again, we were rushing to put this together a little bit, so I apologize for that. There are benches and a seating area shown in front of the Courtyard, and similarly in front of the AC. It's on both sides of the site. Chair Furth: They just aren't called out on Sheet A-8, or am I just missing it? Because we don't have our presentation as part of the packet we're approving. Mr. Popp: Yeah, so here, on Sheet A-8, this is referencing the landscape, the pedestrian seating on this side, and then, over on this side. Chair Furth: It's just not called out. Mr. Popp: It may not be. Chair Furth: It isn't. Thank you. That's helpful. Mr. Popp: It's there. Chair Furth: That seating with arms... Mr. Popp: It's there on the construction document. Chair Furth: That seating has arms so that a person can stand up. Mr. Popp: It is. Chair Furth: I'm sure everybody will be happy to know that my mobility and (inaudible) is getting better, so I may be less focused on these issues. But not much. Mr. Popp: I don't mind that. I do think that what you focus on in terms of this sort of pedestrian experience and having the ability to move down San Antonio in a comfortable way is important. It's part of why we thought about that circulation route into the site, and really what the appearance of the building will be for people who are passing by. It's helpful. Chair Furth: And then, you explained that the relocated mechanical equipment will not be visible from the sidewalk. Just to confirm, what will the visibility be from the Greenhouse neighborhood? Mr. Popp: The Greenhouse neighborhood is roughly, you know, the closest building to ours is roughly the distance of a football field away. Chair Furth: A hundred yards. Mr. Popp: A hundred yards, almost 300 feet. So, when you get back that distance, the oblique view toward the roof is enhanced, right? You can see more of the roof than you would if you were on San Antonio, walking by. I can see... Chair Furth: This is why I asked the question. Mr. Popp: Right. I mean, as you're traveling around Palo Alto, you can't see Hoover Tower, but when you get up on these balconies, you'll see the whole thing, right? I think it's all about perspective and where you're standing to see these things. You will definitely see a bit of the mechanical screen. You won't see any mechanical equipment at all, but in the Palo Alto regulations, of course, there is an exception for up to 15 feet of mechanical screen height. What we've tried to do, as I mentioned, was to orient that as much as possible away from the edge of the building, to help minimize the perception of that. City of Palo Alto Page 26 Chair Furth: Comparing your previous submittal to this one, what would be the change in that perspective from the Greenhouse neighborhood? Mr. Popp: Let me share that with you. From the Greenhouse neighborhood, I would say that you're almost getting an elevation view of the building. Right? You can see that, you know, where the screening is shown at the roof here... Chair Furth: (inaudible) Mr. Popp: Well, sorry. Again, it's what I put in the presentation... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: It's difficult. Mr. Popp: Let me flip back and see if these other views are any larger. I hate flipping around the presentation like this for you guys. I'm sorry. Chair Furth: Take what time you need. Mr. Popp: Yeah, thank you. I don't know if this is any better, but you can see that...That's not the right one. Yeah, it's not much better. You can see the roof screening elements that we have at the top of the building, hopefully. They're very light because that's the color they will be. We've tried to really help diminish that in every way possible. Previously, what we had shown was primarily the, kind of doghouses for the elevators, and some stair towers that were going up. Again, conceptually, we had an idea about what the mechanical might be. That's why I brought you these detailed roof plans, is to show you we really have worked out all the mechanical elements of the roof of the building, and we have to screen all of that. We have done that in the best way, I think, we could, by pulling that screening back, trying to focus it toward the middle of the building. In any places where we couldn't do that, we were using the edge of the parapet in a way to sort of enhance the architecture, I think. Create some articulation [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: Before, it was a series of intermittent pop-up doghouses, and now, it's much more continuous. Is that right? Mr. Popp: More continuous. More continuous, and even. Chair Furth: And you changed the... Mr. Popp: But less chaotic. Chair Furth: ...color a bit. Thank you. Mr. Popp: Thank you. Chair Furth: Any other questions of the applicant's representative? Board Member Lew: Great. Randy, I was wondering if you could show us where the front doors are to each hotel, maybe on the landscape plan? Mr. Popp: Sure, happy to. Maybe I'll start with where they previously were, if you don't mind. On the earlier scheme, we had this circular drive, and at the access of the circle at each side was the entrance to the hotel, the AC on this side and the Courtyard on this side. In elongating this driveway, we've relocated the entries to the hotel to this pocket that's much farther back, to allow for room for people to come in, City of Palo Alto Page 27 drop off their bags, meet the bellman, and have space for significantly more car stacking separate from where the pedestrian interaction might occur. Board Member Lew: But there are secondary doors as well, in the lobby spaces? Are there extra, or...? Mr. Popp: No. Board Member Lew: Okay. Mr. Popp: No. Controlled entrance and exit. Board Member Lew: Secure [crosstalk]. Mr. Popp: Yeah, it's less for security. It's really more that it's not necessary to have multiple. We certainly have emergency exits and those sorts of things, which will be used in a different way. Primarily, this is the entrance and exit to the hotel. Board Member Lew: Great. Thank you very much. Chair Furth: Any other questions? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. Chair Furth: Vice Chair Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: I have one question for staff, I suppose. I'm looking at the east elevation, that's Sheet A-4.0. It's the Courtyard building on the right. But I’m noticing on the new proposal, is that the parapet of the building seems to be a story taller. I understood you to say that's now considered a mechanical screen. I just want to understand if that's really the case. It looks to me like the building is just taller. It's the lower right-hand elevation on this image. And I just want to understand what the logic was behind that. Mr. Sing: The roof heights are actually better depicted on the...If that's the AC roof plan, it's A-5.0. Board Member Lew: I think it's the Courtyard, actually. Mr. Sing: The Courtyard? Board Member Lew: Yeah. Mr. Sing: Then that would be 6.0. All the mechanical screens, the parapets, the heights are depicted there. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, so, looking at Sheet A-6.0, there is some notation. It says, "Top of parapet," and I can't read the number. It must be...Somebody can help me there. How tall is the top of that parapet? Board Member Lew: It's (inaudible) 56.8. Vice Chair Baltay: Fifty-six-point-eight feet. And that's determined to be, considered a mechanical screen, not part of the building? Is that the staff interpretation of that? Ms. Gerhardt: That was staff interpretation because that portion of the building is more interior to the site. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 28 Chair Furth: Any other questions? All right, then we will bring it back to the Board. Thank you. Mr. Myau: (inaudible) Chair Furth: You may. Just come up to the microphone, please. Mr. Myau: We do have a concern about the watering. I saw the continuous wall had been built, I guess. I wasn't sure that the walled-in closet stop. This is new to me. If possible, can we ask for any monitoring well around the surrounding construction? Chair Furth: Let me tell you that the technical issues of dewatering are not something we address, but staff, I'm sure, will be happy to discuss it with you. Mr. Myau: Thank you. Chair Furth: And there's a less-deep excavation than originally proposed, so impacts should be reduced with this revision. But staff should be able to discuss that with you. I have a question for my colleagues. As you know, this project caused enormous concern to residents in the neighborhood. They were concerned about traffic, they were concerned about visual impacts. Courtyard is the project closest to the Greenhouse? Board Member Lew: Yes. Chair Furth: And I’m concerned that this is going to look a lot taller to them than the previously-reviewed project. In your judgment as architects, is that true? I mean, you can't tell me what they're going to think, but is my concern unreasonable? Board Member Lew: My take on it was, the back of the Marriott Courtyard is what actually looks, will look larger. That was the most striking difference to me. And I don't think that they would necessarily see that. Chair Furth: Since I do not experience San Antonio as going north and south, I always have trouble with the elevations here. I think it goes east and west. The west elevation fronts on the street. The rear elevation is...which one? Would it be the east elevation? Board Member Lew: Because if you're looking...If you're going down...If you look at, let's say the north elevation... Chair Furth: I'm looking at Sheet A-3. Board Member Lew: Right. And you're looking at the revisions, you'll see, like, a big mechanical screening. But then, if you look at the roof plan... Chair Furth: (inaudible) Board Member Lew: Right, but if you look at the roof plan, it's set back substantially. Chair Furth: Right. Board Member Lew: But, on the east elevation, I think as Peter was pointing out, it is flush with the wall. Mr. Popp: I apologize for the (inaudible). Board Member Lew: Yeah. City of Palo Alto Page 29 Mr. Popp: It's actually north/south. Chair Furth: I know. Board Member Lew: Yeah. Chair Furth: It's just my experience. Not knowing which way to go when I see the San Antonio offramp. Yes. Who would like to start? Peter? Vice Chair Baltay: Sure, I’m happy to start, but I have one more question. As I've looked at these fine- tuned elevations on the roof plans, it seems to me there's at least half a dozen spots on each building where the parapet is above the 50-foot height limit. I can't see that they are mechanical screens. They look like building elements. I’m just wondering, again, if there is some...? I thought we have a 50-foot height limit in town. Mr. Sing: I believe the idea is, in using the parapet as a mechanical screen, you would need to have some uniformity to it. That was the approach explained regarding why that was done. But, the alternative to that is then to just have the parapets brought down and have mechanical screens tucked closer to the equipment. Vice Chair Baltay: As I'm looking at the drawing on the screen right now, what's the little jog-out in the middle, that entrance to the building down below, I presume, it says that the parapet is 54 feet, 2 inches. And I've got to think that that's a decorative feature. That's why it's there. It's got to be 30 feet from the mechanical equipment. What am I missing? Mr. Sing: An additional alternative then is to have a DEE request. A Design Enhancement Exception. Vice Chair Baltay: Was this part of the original proposal, parapets of this height? Mr. Sing: No. No. At the time, they were 49 feet, 4 inches, was the parapet. Then, during the design, past entitlement, trying to figure out where the equipment was going to go, that's where this came up. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. I guess it's obvious, but I'm troubled by that. Chair Furth: (inaudible) Vice Chair Baltay: I'm concerned that the parapets, to me, are part of the building, and we have a 50- foot height limit. I think we have to abide by that, even if it's part of the building that's in the back and people aren't going to see it, or even if it's internal to the Courtyard and there are architectural reasons why they want it, it should have been a design enhancement exception coming to us. It’s not okay to just say it's there. And I think we're on a very slippery slope if we call parapets mechanical screens. Then every building in town is going to come in with a 65-foot-high parapet wall because that's a mechanical screen, and that's not the case. I just can't support that use of height exception for parapets. I think that the modulations to the building facades on the fourth and fifth floors are okay. I say that based on the renderings that were shown to me just 30 minutes ago, because it's very hard to judge on the elevations. But, given what I see, I think that meets our original design intent. I've made notes all over my plans to the contrary, but I think understanding what's really going to happen, it will be okay. I think the changes to the site plan are for the better. Having the large oval area enhances the functionality of the building, and it enhances the impact, or reduces the impact it will have on traffic on San Antonio. That's all for the better. With the exception of the parapets, I can support this revision. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Robert. Board Member Gooyer: I agree. I think the undulations, I think actually have gotten a little less, which is something I didn't want. One of the biggest things when we went through this in the first place was the City of Palo Alto Page 30 whole thing that the neighborhood was very upset and wanted the third, fourth and fifth stories to drop back or step back as much as possible. And now, it seems like we're coming in here with a design that basically adds to that bulk of the building again, which is going exactly opposite of what the entire neighborhood wanted, and what the initial agreement was, or the compromise was. And part of it bothers me a little bit, just the whole idea that we approve a building, and then, a year later, while they're under construction, all of a sudden, we get a proposal that says, "Oh, by the way, we want to change the façade modulation, fenestration placement, terraces, rooftop equipment screening, driveway arrangement, parking, and landscaping. That's pretty much starting from scratch. That's the part that bothers me a little. I don't mind a little minor modulation or some changes like that. It's just the process bothers me. I agree that probably the site plan is better in this new design than it was in the old one, but just all in all, I can't really approve it the way it is right now. Chair Furth: Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: My recollection is that when this last came to ARB, that the applicant had asked for, or had mentioned that they would need to make some modifications to the front stepping, so I'm willing to work with them on that. I'm not sure the Board acknowledged how difficult it is to step a hotel. Hotels are typically stacked, cookie-cutter rooms, and doing this terrace thing is not easy to do. It's maybe easy to do on an open floor plan office building. When you have little stacked modules of rooms, it's actually very difficult to do. I do want to acknowledge that you did work with the Board on doing the terracing, and I think we do appreciate it. I actually do want to thank the applicant for changing the front entry, the long oval. It's something that I was hoping that you would do on the last go-around of the ARB. I was really hoping you would do it. I was expecting it, and I didn't get it, and that's one of the reasons why I gave you a no vote on it, even though I generally do support the project. On the revised oval design, I think you also did make an improvement to the trash location. Before it was blocking some of the hotel rooms, and that was also...I didn't mention it at the time, but that was also part of my thinking in voting no, in voting against the project. You fixed that, as well. I think that's all looking good. I would comment to staff, is that I think the bicycle parking does not comply with our code, which is the short-term racks are supposed to be within 50 feet of the front entrance. I don't think that they comply. I don't necessarily have an objection to where they are being placed. Some of them are in the back, a few of them are in the back corner of the building. Most of them are up in the front. I think given the hotel use, I don't object to where they are, but I don't think that they comply. I think I support the staff condition of approval for a second pedestrian entrance right in front of the Courtyard. I think I understand the applicant's logic, but I still think it's better to have the second pedestrian access point. If the applicant really thought about it, to have the second pathway, if it's going to take out three of the new trees, or something like that, I would want to know. Well, in a minute, Randy. And, on the parapets, I think I'm in agreement with Board Member Baltay. I think it's a little too much. I think I would appreciate them being set back, or if there was a change in material and color to help minimize the impact of them. Some of them are set back substantially and others are at the face, at the façade face. I am, I think, more in agreement...I think I'm more in line with Board Member Baltay on this particular one. I think that's all that I have on my notes. Chair Furth: Thank you. Last time, this passed 3-1. We're still short a member here today, so you still have four votes. You need three to advance today. First of all, thank you for the modified entrance. I think we were quite concerned about that. I mean, there are many problems presented to people living on San Antonio by the increased traffic on that street, and I think the, to most of us, it seemed highly likely that based on our experience with limousines and hotels, that there is going to be a back-up onto San Antonio with your previous design. This is bigger. I think that's less likely to happen, and that will help with one of the more urgent problems. I realize there's relatively little you can do about the heavy volume of traffic on that street, but I think you've done a great deal to improve the flow of cars on and off of the site. I appreciate it. I also like you relocating the entrances off to the side. I think that works well, as well. I think staff does need, somebody needs to look more closely at the bicycle parking. Is the back-in-the-corner bicycle parking secured or unsecured? City of Palo Alto Page 31 Board Member Lew: I think these are the...Visitor ones are unsecured. You're saying, like, bike lockers? I think are downstairs. Chair Furth: What I'm really saying is that if you have unsecured bicycle parking, it needs to be in a very visible place so there is less opportunity for one's bicycle to disappear because somebody cut the lock in a private, unobserved space. I didn't look at it as closely as Alex has. Board Member Lew: Well, I would say, it seems like there are some at the Courtyard in the back, which are more visible, and then there are some at the AC, which are hidden. Chair Furth: They need work. They need change. Or they could become lockers, I suppose. I'm glad to understand that there is still public seating, public pedestrian-friendly seating along the frontage of the building, which is a long building. I am perplexed on the issue of having two access paths on the front. I can see that it takes out...It greatly changes the way the landscaping works. I would rather have two paths and good landscaping. I don't know if that is possible. What does staff say? [no audible response.] Chair Furth: In a minute. Mr. Sing: I mean, just a rebuttal. That the original plan had a ramp in the front of the Courtyard. Chair Furth: Right. Mr. Sing: So, the change that they're making, they're adding landscape, but they're taking away that path. Chair Furth: Right, so, what am I going to see as I walk by? What layers of landscaping with the path? I'm just asking for the street front view again. Looking at it top-down takes a lot of translation. We have a four-foot-high accent wall, and we have...What are planting in that space? What are they planting in that space, between that and the sidewalk? Ms. Gerhardt: Would you like the applicant to help walk through the plans? Chair Furth: Staff could tell me. That would be fine. Mr. Sing: I mean, it just looks like some ground cover shrubbery. There's no particular of a species on this plan. Chair Furth: Remind me what still is coming back to the subcommittee, if we ever get to subcommittee? What was previously referred to subcommittee? Mr. Sing: It was just the landscaping and the terraces. Chair Furth: That's what's missing. Mr. Sing: Yeah. Which is...Well, they are in the plans. Chair Furth: Landscaping... Mr. Sing: The lighting is not in the plan. Chair Furth: ...on the terraces... Mr. Sing: Yes. City of Palo Alto Page 32 Chair Furth: ...or the landscaping and the terraces? Mr. Sing: No, just the... Chair Furth: Terrace landscaping. Mr. Sing: ...terraces, in particular, the landscaping. Chair Furth: Terrace landscaping. We already approved the front. So, yes, if the applicant could tell me what's being planted in front of that four-foot wall. Mr. Popp: I'm sorry to say that I wasn't expecting that we were going to be asked that question today, so I didn't come with the complete landscape plan for that area. Chair Furth: And I'm sorry to say I pitched my landscape plans two weeks ago because my file drawer was full. Mr. Popp: That's not a problem. I don't mind following up with that at all. But, I will share with you that we have a widely-varied landscape palette. We're respecting the character of the street trees along San Antonio Road [crosstalk]... Chair Furth: And in front of a four-foot wall, we presumably have some height in the bushes. Mr. Popp: It's a combination of tall grasses, flowering shrubs, a number of different elements. And also describing that that area is ramping up to the podium level as the ramp indicates. If you don't mind, I'll also take an opportunity to just share with you that we're open to the idea of having a second access way if potentially we could do that as a set of steps, rather than having a secondary long ramp. Maybe an opening that is four or five feet wide, and then some steps that launch up to the Courtyard side, versus the ramp that's on the AC side. I would just offer that for your discussion. Chair Furth: Thank you. What do you see, Alex? Board Member Lew: Well, I think that the, the landscape plans that we have last seen have a...It has a draft (inaudible) with a native component of plants. And that there is something along the walls. I'm not sure which plant it is yet. Chair Furth: It seems to me that when we looked at it earlier, we thought the paths were attractively landscaped, and it provided a certain amount of interest and openness. Board Member Lew: Yeah, I don't think there was any issues, right? I don't recall any issues with landscape [crosstalk]... Chair Furth: I think we liked it. Board Member Lew: ...across the frontage. Yes. Chair Furth: And we don't have Board Member Thompson, who is probably the most focused on access of all of us because she's working on big projects that involve it. I think the issues that I hear on the table, so to speak, are the parapet/equipment screening, one or two accesses. I think everybody prefers the oval, the revised entry. Is that right? So, that one is taken care of. What issues have I forgotten, staff? Vice Chair Baltay: If I could chime in, Chair Wynne. As I look at the plan, I'm just thinking about the second pedestrian accessway. What really strikes me, I think the architect's suggestion was good, that on the Courtyard building -- that's the one on the top of our drawing -- some sort of direct linkage to the sidewalk. If I was walking out of that building to the sidewalk, would be very helpful. It doesn't have to City of Palo Alto Page 33 be a long ramp following that curved element, but just some direct connection. Right now, there's no way to walk without going around the entire oval. On the other side, the same thing would probably make sense, just having a couple of steps or something to get down to the sidewalk directly. If I were dropped off at the curb for some reason. I would be walking in on the roadway, otherwise. Chair Furth: I don't want you dropped off on the curb along San Antonio, but suppose you were walking down to meet somebody. Vice Chair Baltay: I think that's a very simple correction, just to make the two linkages there. I think a second long ramp that they're talking about is probably not going to hurt the landscaping, but it seems overkill to me. I don't see why you would need two of those. Chair Furth: Staff, you're suggesting two ADA-compliant ramps, one for each hotel. Is that correct? Mr. Sing: Yeah, I mean, that was the idea, understanding that it's not a building code requirement. Just thinking of the findings and everything. But, in terms of the alternatives that were brought up by Board Member Baltay, that would be acceptable, as well. Chair Furth: Does the applicant have any further comments on this issue? Mr. Popp: I’m sorry, were you asking staff or applicant? Chair Furth: No, I was asking if you had any further comments. Mr. Popp: I do. Chair Furth: To us. On this issue. Mr. Popp: I'm very interested in not encouraging people to stop on San Antonio and drop people off. I think that that would be a terrible mistake, to create a visible queue that there is that kind of simplicity of movement. We will work with...You can actually work with Uber and Lyft and these other companies to create what's called site-specific notes. When a driver arrives at a site, they're given instructions about where they should be. Like, you're not allowed to stop on the street, please pull into the driveway. We'll take care of those kinds of things as part of what we're doing. But, I do think the idea of switching from one ramp to one ramp plus two stairs is not the direction that we'd like to see this go. I suggested one ramp and one stair as an alternate to try and alleviate what I heard were your concerns about accessing the Courtyard in an easy way, but I think that the code-compliant answer here is that we have provided the ramp that is necessary. If we want to have more convenient access, adding a second stair entrance would be the next step for me, that I would be encouraging you to accept. The idea of creating three openings, two stairs plus the ramp, seems like we're really headed in the wrong direction. Vice Chair Baltay: Can I ask if...? Suppose I'm standing at the Courtyard building and I’m going to some function at the JCC, and I want to walk over there. I’m told it's a quarter-mile away. So, I exit the Courtyard building. Is there any pedestrian way to get to the sidewalk without going around the oval? Mr. Popp: Not currently. Vice Chair Baltay: And it is conceivable that somebody might want to walk someplace from the hotel. Mr. Popp: Absolutely. Vice Chair Baltay: Don't you think you should have some pedestrian exit from each hotel to the sidewalk directly? City of Palo Alto Page 34 Mr. Popp: That is what I'm suggesting, I think, is that from the Courtyard, we would add, in some area here, a stair access through. And from the AC, you have this nice ramp that takes you down to the pedestrian way that's very visible and easy. Vice Chair Baltay: If I'm staying in the AC hotel and I want to go to the same function at the JCC, I'm going to walk out, and I'm told to go right on San Antonio, but I see a 30-foot-long ramp to the left; I'm supposed to walk down that ramp and around. Mr. Popp: I don't mean to challenge this too much, but you're going to go for a mile and a half walk, I think an extra 10 steps to go to the right... Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. Mr. Popp: ...to go down, doesn't seem like that big a challenge. Vice Chair Baltay: I don't think it's that big a deal either way. Thanks. Chair Furth: Is there further discussion, or does somebody want to make a motion? I don't know if I've made my point of view clear, but I do not think the present arrangement of parapets is acceptable. I think it reads as too much building height. And it's not equipment screening. It needs to be smaller, closer to the equipment to be screened, and clearly equipment screened. Mr. Popp: I'm sorry, I meant to ask, if you don't mind, could I ask staff to be a little more clear about their interpretation of parapet height and the acceptability of that in regard to the building? Because we have actually a significant amount of discussion. Chair Furth: No, thank you. I think we've had enormous amounts of discussion on this issue up here. If anybody up here wants guidance, they can have it. Okay. Anybody have any questions of staff? MOTION Vice Chair Baltay: I'm ready to move that we approve this project as submitted, with the condition that the parapets all be remaining within the 50-foot height limit. I'm looking for a second to that motion, but also an amendment regarding the pathway. What we should do. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Hearing none, does somebody wish...? ??: (inaudible) Chair Furth: Somebody wish to make an alternate motion? Board Member Lew: I will second it. I do want to make a friendly amendment. Vice Chair Baltay: I'm all ears, Alex. Board Member Lew: I would propose that the bicycle parking locations be reviewed by Transportation staff. Vice Chair Baltay: I certainly would accept that. Chair Furth: We have a motion on the floor, that the plan be revised to reduce parapets to 50 feet; that the bicycle parking be reviewed by the Transportation staff for compliance with the code. Board Member Lew: And then, modifying Condition of Approval #6, which is the... City of Palo Alto Page 35 Board Member Gooyer: And you're comfortable with doing that... Chair Furth: Wait, wait, wait. Just a second. Condition #6 is on packet page number...? Mr. Sing: Fifty-seven. Board Member Lew: Fifty-seven. And it's the wording, the draft wording that the staff has, is that the owner or designee, prior to issuance of building permits, demonstrate that the direct pedestrian access is provided from San Antonio Road sidewalk to the Courtyard Hotel, which is the north building. A separate accessible ramp is required unless a more centralized ramp is provided to serve both hotels that is closer to the central driveway. So, I think we're saying that it doesn't have to be accessible. Vice Chair Baltay: I think we can strike the last sentence of that. But, looking to gather votes here again. Board Member Lew: Yes. Chair Furth: A separate access to the AC Hotel? Board Member Lew: Courtyard Hotel. Chair Furth: To the Courtyard Hotel. It says, demonstrate direct pedestrian access is provided from the San Antonio Road sidewalk to the Courtyard Hotel, north building. That would be towards the freeway, right? Board Member Lew: Yes. Chair Furth: It's just a mental quirk. And it does not need to be accessible. Is that what you were proposing? Board Member Lew: The amendment was about bike parking, and I think the...I think I'm in agreement with your previous comment about just having some sort of stair access. That's fine. Vice Chair Baltay: I would like to amend my own... Chair Furth: You can't. I'll do it for you. You can't do a friendly amendment to your own motion. I move a friendly amendment, which would be to modify Condition #6, Condition of Approval #6 on Packet Page 67 [sic], by deleting the last sentence. The result of that will be that the applicant will provide direct access to that building, but it need not be ADA compliant. I want to propose... Vice Chair Baltay: I accept that amendment. Chair Furth: You accept it. Does the seconder accept that amendment? Board Member Lew: Yes. Chair Furth: We're so good. I would like to propose a condition that would deliver the message that the equipment screening needs to be farther away from the edges, closer to the equipment to be screened, and smaller, generally. But I don't know if that's very clear. What is it I'm trying to say here? Does it need to come back [crosstalk]...? Board Member Lew: The point of the mechanical screening is to screen the equipment from the pedestrian level, not from the floor of the neighboring building. I think the goal is to minimize the impact of that, to minimize the visual bulk of that. Setbacks and height and material color can help reduce the bulk. City of Palo Alto Page 36 Chair Furth: Does this need to go to...? In your opinion -- you all -- does this need to go to subcommittee? Vice Chair Baltay: I don't think so, no. Chair Furth: We can get (inaudible). Vice Chair Baltay: I think mechanical screening is something staff routinely reviews and approves. Chair Furth: Staff has [crosstalk]... Board Member Gooyer: Well, mechanical screens are, but we're basically talking about redesigning the fascia again. Chair Furth: We're talking about keeping the fascia the way we originally approved it. We're not approving changes... Board Member Gooyer: (inaudible) (off microphone) Chair Furth: No. Vice Chair Baltay: No. We're asked for the parapet... Chair Furth: Take back down. Vice Chair Baltay: ...to go back to the height they were originally approved at. Board Member Gooyer: Oh, okay. Ms. Gerhardt: I think staff understands where the ARB is coming from. We had made an interpretation that these interior parapets could be called mechanical screens. We understand why you're saying that should not be the case. I mean, it is a slippery slope, so we are in agreement there. We will make sure that the building meets the height limit. We do review mechanical screens on a regular basis, so we can make sure that those mechanical screens are pulled into the center as much as possible. And, we will get line of sight diagrams, because as Board Member Lew said, we're trying to screen the mechanical from any pedestrian views. The line of sight diagrams will show that, and we can determine what the height of the screens needs to be from those diagrams. Chair Furth: Okay, so...Where would this go? I'm proposing a new condition of approval. We already have one that says that the parapet shall be no more than 50 feet high. I would propose an additional one, which says that mechanical equipment screening shall be revised to minimize its bulk and extent, while meeting code requirements for screening. Vice Chair Baltay: I can accept that. Chair Furth: Would you accept that? Anything else? Board Member Lew: I can accept that, as well. Chair Furth: Great. Vice Chair Baltay: If I could add. Robert, is there anything we can do to get your vote on this? Board Member Gooyer: Well, I'm a lot happier now than I was when I came in here. But I don't like the whole process, is what irritates me a little bit. The whole thing about, basically, every facet of this City of Palo Alto Page 37 building is being changed in a sort of hurry up, we're under construction, and I don't like that. And the thing is, we all knew -- or, I should say, when you go through schematic design, you've got a structural engineer on there, so you already know when some of these things is. I don't like the, "Oh, by the way, we just hired a structural engineer who said that we can't do this, we have to eliminate the undulation," or whatever. That's the part that bothers me. Vice Chair Baltay: I share that annoyance, doubly so, that we're only showed renderings 30 minutes before our deliberations. Board Member Gooyer: And that was the other thing, is that, you know, if we were going to do that, we should have had some very clear examples, saying, "See, this is what it looks like." And I understand how, you know, I've done enough big projects where you're always under the gun, but I don't like being thrown into that situation, "Okay, come on, we're on a fast track now, and you need to approve this." Chair Furth: Okay, I think that... Board Member Gooyer: I'm willing...No, no, no. I'm willing to accept this the way it is, with the whole idea... The biggest problem I had -- and we're toning that down quite a bit -- is that the neighbors across the street wanted to get rid of the bulk. And this thing is bulkier the way it was presented this morning than it was in the first approved go-around. And if we're willing to trim that back down, or at least considerably more, then it's a lot more favorable to me. Vice Chair Baltay: How would you say that, though? In something that comes back to subcommittee, or...? Chair Furth: I think you did by cutting [crosstalk]. Board Member Gooyer: No, no, no, I’m saying, if what you're saying -- and that's why I asked -- if you're saying that, basically, the top floor roof line is pretty much going to stay the same as it was in the approved version, other than the undulations change somewhat. Vice Chair Baltay: I believe that to be the case. Chair Furth: That's the first part of your motion, which is that the parapets be reduced to 50 feet. Board Member Gooyer: And if that's not the case, then I'd like to see it back, because I don't think staff ought to be the one that gives the thumbs up or thumbs down on the redesign of the elevations. Chair Furth: I think that staff is clear that we are saying 50 feet is the limit, and any other structure has to be minimal, and not one that visually increases the bulk. Ms. Gerhardt: We are very... Chair Furth: I think they got that. Ms. Gerhardt: ...we are very clear on that. And there will be a new condition. In your motion, you proposed a new condition related to that, you know, the access point was the second condition. We're saying that that could be stairs. The bike parking, I did want a little bit of clarification on the bike parking. I mean, you're wanting transportation to review it. What I heard during the earlier discussions, though, was mainly related to the short-term parking, and that we just want to make sure that those are as close to the entrance as possible, which is code requirement, but also that they are visible and helping to avoid, yeah, increasing security. Chair Furth: Yes. City of Palo Alto Page 38 Ms. Gerhardt: I mean, those are all things that staff is capable of reviewing, if you so recommend. Chair Furth: I would say that I can understand, reasonable people can differ about what's the best approach to screening equipment, and what might be most aesthetically satisfying. But, I certainly agree with my colleague to the far left, that particularly given the intensity of concern in the neighborhood about the issue of height and bulk, this proposed change was not something we want to approve. And I agree with my colleague to the right, that the timing made it difficult. And I appreciate the careful reading of the plans that people have done, and the fact that the applicant provided us with the background information sufficient to enable people to review that plan. All right. Is there any further discussion before we vote? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed? Abstaining? Thank you. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-0. Chair Furth: Thank you. This is recommended approval without further referrals to subcommittee, though we have an existing referral to subcommittee. And, the vote was four in favor, none opposed, one absent. Thank you to the staff, and thank you to the applicant. And I’m going to suggest a seven minute break, until five minutes after the hour, before we start our study sessions today. Thank you. [The Board took a short break.] Study Session Chair Furth: The Architectural Review Board of the city of Palo Alto is now back in session. We have two more informal elements. These are study sessions in which we conduct our business less formally. 4. Study Session on Ex-parte Communications Between Architectural Review Board Members and Applicants/Developers and Other Persons Chair Furth: The first one is on Ex-parte communications between the Architectural Review Board members and applicants and developers and other persons. And we have a representative of the City Attorney's Office here, and a member of the public who has asked to speak, both of which we're grateful for. Just to set the scene, a lot of people, both neighbors, and historic preservationists, and applicants, make requests of us, that we speak to them about their project or the work of the Board. We have a Board policy, and a City policy, that give us some direction, but not total direction. We thought it would be helpful to discuss this with our counsel, our City's counsel, and with each other. If you would introduce yourself and proceed. Ms. Lee: Thank you, Madam Chair. Sandra Lee, Assistant City Attorney. Thank you for inviting me here this morning to talk about what I hope is an interesting topic. You requested a study session on ex-parte communications and quasi-judicial hearings. This is a quick overview of what I'm going to touch upon. First is a little bit of refresher for all of you about quasi-judicial hearings, fair hearing requirements that attach to such matter, and within that context, the regulation of ex-parte communication. This will be a general discussion about these areas. You may have interest in talking about specific matters, specific situations. However, that may be more suitable for off-line discussions as these situations arise, and we can talk about it after this meeting -- or you and I, not all together -- individually, or as situations arise in the future with respect to specific projects and requests. Quasi-judicial hearings as opposed to legislative matters: When the ARB takes discretionary action on a proposed project. You are applying existing policies, roles and standards to a specific person, project or circumstance. These hearings involve the taking of evidence and will result in a written decision, based on required findings. And, in contrast, legislative actions are the promulgation of these more general policies, rules and standards, and the ARB does from time to time weigh in on such matters with respect to design guidelines and the like. Things that will apply to projects more generally. With respect to quasi-judicial hearings, certain rules apply to ensure due process for the project applicant and a fair administrative hearing for all interested parties. These are the fundamental requirements of a fair hearing that are rooted, not only in the federal City of Palo Alto Page 39 constitution, but the state constitution, as well as state law. A fair hearing requires notice to the applicant and to the public, an opportunity to be heard, and to hear the evidence that the Board will consider. A hearing must occur before an impartial decision-maker, one that is not biased or has not prejudged the matter. And, within the context of all of this, a fair hearing does require the disclosure of ex-parte contacts. I would just say that, I just want to touch on, with respect to the impartial decision-maker item. Public officials are presumed to be impartial, but this could be overcome with evidence of bias, and in general, members should avoid taking a position on a specific project or class of projects prior to hearing evidence. First, I wanted to talk about what are ex-parte communications, so we are all talking about the same thing. Evidence-gathering that takes place outside the hearing. It includes oral and written information, but it can include other sensory communication, something that you perceive visually, or that you hear, and that you may ascertain from a site visit, for example. These communications are those that are substantive and relevant to the project and the decision that the ARB is making. If you have a contact with a project applicant and it's about a barbecue that someone is having, then obviously that's not considered an ex-parte communication in this context. The law generally requires that such contacts be disclosed, and any new information learned as a result of those contacts be disclosed. Why is full and complete and timely disclosure of contacts important? It's for a couple of reasons. First, such disclosure affords applicants the right to rebut evidence that may have been learned outside of the hearing context. It gives not only the applicant, but other interested parties the ability to refute, test and explain such information. And, the other reason why this disclosure of ex-parte is important is that the hearing requirement necessarily contemplates that a decision will be made in light of the evidence introduced at the hearing. So, if you have an outside contact, if you don't disclose it at the hearing, it's not part of the record before the body. The decision needs to be made on the evidence presented at the hearing. That could be evidence presented by the applicant, presented by members of the public, other interested stakeholders, but it also could be evidence that you yourself obtained outside of the hearing context that is disclosed to all of the other members of the Board, and to the public and the applicant. I did want to mention that in the land use context...So, different rules apply, different due process rules apply in different context. But in the land use context, ex-parte evidence that is disclosed before the public hearing does not violate due process, which is why we put so much emphasis on disclosure. In a 1957 case involving the city of San Mateo, that's still good law, and this is just a paraphrase of the court's decision. Plaintiff complained that the defendant, the City of San Mateo and City Council members, relied upon information acquired by the council members outside of the hearing, but there, the mayor stated at the outset that the council members had a look at the property -- they conducted a site visit -- and the statements in question made at the hearing fully revealed the investigation. There was no concealment, so those who are protesting this decision -- it was a variance, in that case -- were free to challenge any views expressed, and they frequently did so at the hearing. In that context, it was deemed to not be a due process violation, that the council members had obtained information outside of the hearing. I want to just talk a little bit about what our rules are -- the City Council and the ARB -- they are a little different. Ex-parte contact are discouraged for the City Council. The Council, as well as the PTC, have procedural rules that do discourage such contact if they will affect the impartiality of the member. The ARB does not have this rule specifically in their procedural rules. And, in fact, the procedural rules say...Well, they acknowledge that in some circumstances, it may be useful and informative for ARB members to have these contacts. I would say that even though that is the rule that the Board adopted about three years ago...It may have been before, but the last time they were updated. Individual members could, of course, choose to be more restrictive in their conduct, should they desire. You're not compelled to have ex-parte communication, and you can make your own decision with respect to that, as long as you meet this minimum of disclosure. The ARB procedural rules require that members make best efforts to track any contacts, and the substance of those contacts. That includes conversations, meetings, site visits, mailings, or presentations where substantial factual information was conveyed with respect to the project. And, it is recommended -- this is not reflected specifically in the rules, but I would recommend that members who do engage in ex-parte contact take contemporaneous notes -- who, what, when, where -- and as detailed as possible, because that information, you're going to convey on the record prior to the beginning of the ARB hearing. Disclosure may be oral or in writing. You can submit it to staff prior to the hearing, or, the latest the disclosure should be made is at the beginning of the hearing, before any testimony is taken. The ARB rules state that ex-parte contacts are prohibited after the close of the public hearing, and prior to a decision. I would just mention that even though the rules don't expressly City of Palo Alto Page 40 discourage ex-parte contacts for the ARB, that sometimes they may be useful. Whatever you learn that is useful, that you've considered and have influenced your decision, should be disclosed, because the purpose of the hearing is not to come together with all or separately-gathered evidence and just share it. I mean, the primary purpose of the hearing is to have the evidence presented by the parties and the staff, and should the ARB members obtain other evidence, then disclose it. But, it is really principally the forum for which the evidence should be presented by the parties. I wanted to make mention of a potential Brown Act violation, also in the context of ex-parte contact. To the extent that the applicant...What I've been talking about up to now is the Board getting information about a project, learning information. But an applicant potentially will want to know, what does the Board think about their project? Elicit information the other way. There are a couple things with respect to that. The potential Brown Act violation is what's called the hub-and-spoke model, where that individual is ascertaining the position of various board members, and they may go to the next board member. There are five members, so they may go to three members, and to the third member, they tell them, "I've spoken to members A and B, they are on board with this project, I just need your vote." Now, there is a potential violation right there because there is this collective concurrence being formed through an intermediary. So, it's really incumbent on the board members to prevent that type of communication from a member of the public or the applicant, because if a Brown Act violation occurs, it will be your violation. It will not be their violation. And you are in the best position to know the requirements of the Brown Act, and to make sure the views of other Board members are not shared with you on a pending project. Also, with respect to providing feedback to applicants, I would be somewhat circumspect in what information you provide, only because of the requirements to be an impartial decision-maker. You do have to keep an open mind, to not prejudge the matter before the hearing, to not commit to a specific position, because the position must be based on evidence that you obtain at the hearing, or that is presented at the hearing. And then, my last slide really is just about, this is the last part of what's required for a fair hearing in quasi-judicial, is that, you know, you need to make a fair decision that is supported by substantial evidence in the record. That includes things that you might disclose that you've learned from ex-parte communications. Any questions? Chair Furth: Thank you very much, Counselor Lee. I'm going to suggest that we hear from the members of the public before we start asking questions and having a general discussion. The first card that I have is from Jyanhwa Myau. Good morning. Mr. Myau: Yeah. First, I would like to thank you for Counselor Lee's presentation. It's very informative for me, personally. I was asking, after the previous hearing, I was wondering if members of the council would like to talk to the community, to answer some of the questions, you know, if we have a chance. This is not directly related to this presentation. It's just so very happens about communication. And I truly understand and am very grateful that you present us as a public, you know, for the...This is a very complicated application process. Most of us, we don't have the professional knowledge, and specifically, I would like to (inaudible) about, last time you asked about the setback of the building, and today, we can (inaudible) to see all your efforts. The whole process, we need to communicate with the public, if possible, you know, to educate them about...To ease their anxiety about the future change. And there's a trend about, to adding more mass buildings around the boundary of the cities. That's just the trend. We'll have to live with it. But, how can we include the (inaudible) parties and work together as a community? That's where I'm coming from, and hopefully you can share most of your view of experience with us. That's it. Thanks. Chair Furth: Thank you so much. I have another card from Randy Popp. Mr. Popp: Thank you. Randy Popp, I'm a resident of Palo Alto, and an architect practicing in town here. I will tell you that I just happened across the agenda for today's meeting and noticed that this item was present. I'm very glad that you're taking up this discussion because, having sat in your seat as chair for some time, and board member for longer, I can tell you that it's important to me that applicants be able to speak to the Board throughout the process. We spend thousands of hours developing projects. They are immensely complex, and the number of decisions that goes into the organization of a site, the design of a building, the use of building, is something that you cannot possible absorb by reviewing the material City of Palo Alto Page 41 that comes in your packet. It's just too complex. And while the PTC receives a packet that has written documentation that they can read and digest and understand, there's so much more involved in the process of developing a building, that it's critical -- I believe -- that the Board be open to meeting with applicants. And I think it can be done easily within the constraints of what was described. Having done this, again, myself, it's easy to say to an applicant, "I'm here today to hear what you have to say. I'm here today to listen to any explanation that you want to provide. I'm expecting that whatever you're showing me today will be in your presentation so that we can discuss it publicly. Share with me whatever is important for you to really explain to me in a clear way, but I will not be giving you any additional information. I'm not going to be providing feedback for you. I'm not going to make any judgments about your project. I'm just here to absorb information, and be more educated when I come to the point of having to make a decision about your project." I believe that that's really critical for the Board to be open to, and to be accepting of, and to maintain as a policy. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any comments from staff? Ms. Lee: I would say that whatever information is provided to the Board, I mean, to the extent that it's maybe too much to absorb in 10 minutes, that is not necessarily a reason to allow for ex-parte meetings that might take a substantially longer amount of time with each Board member. I would say that more time is required in a public setting, so, if the information that's going to be conveyed in these ex-parte meetings is so critical to understanding the project, then that information should probably be conveyed in a public setting so that all interested parties could hear that information. Chair Furth: Staff? That was legal staff. Anything from planning staff? Ms. Gerhardt: I think, related to the concept of a project being complex, I mean, if it's complex for the ARB, then it's that much more complex for the neighbors. Obviously, I very much agree with our counsel. I might kick myself later, but, I mean, I think we really should have more community meetings. If a project is that complex, we should be having community meetings ahead of hearings so that it can be explained to the neighborhood. And potentially, the Board could come. We'd have to figure out if that needs to be noticed, or not. That sort of thing. But the community meetings are noticed anyway, so, we would just have to notice that the Board would be in attendance if, you know...We will talk with counsel about the details of that. Chair Furth: Thank you. Alex. Board Member Lew: A comment on the community meetings. I do know that a lot of times, the planners, the project planners, will meet with members of the community, and it's not always documented to the Board. Sometimes they'll mention it during the staff presentation. So, it may be good to just have, for us to try to be more methodical about including that in staff reports and what-not. Like, how many meetings, and when did they happen, and what-not. I think my other comment is, for staff, is, can we make a document for the applicants about what they, if they ask for an ex-parte meeting, that there are guidelines that they need to follow. Because it seems to me that we've done it, we've had meetings before in the past, and usually the applicants are knowledgeable about what they should and should not do. But, I think there are other applicants out there that don't know that. I mean, we just have a guideline for them about what they can expect... Chair Furth: (inaudible) Board Member Lew: Yeah. But I would just say, for example, there was a recent project, and the applicant asked for a meeting with two Board members, and that would have violated the Brown Act. Just having the meeting right there. And they didn't seem to understand, so they were putting the Board members in a tight spot and not even know it, not even knowing that there was a potential issue. Yeah, so, I think we just have to be careful about that. City of Palo Alto Page 42 Ms. Gerhardt: Just related to the, when staff is meeting with neighbors, there is a portion of the staff report where that information should be because we have the public outreach section. But I will make sure we are more diligent about communicating that, if that hasn't been true. Board Member Gooyer: I have a question. One of the things I thought was a bit unusual, under the "discouraged" items, you have a site visit. I mean, I thought that's pretty basic. In fact... Ms. Lee: Yeah, I wasn't saying that that's discouraged. I was actually saying that that is okay, and the court has upheld the ability to do that, so long as that information was disclosed prior to the hearing. Board Member Gooyer: Okay. I ask, basically talking to a lawyer, usually, a very specific, exactly... You know, if it's written there, it's gospel. Chair Furth: You know what? I think one of the important things is that, that's why the chairs do ask us to disclose, have you done a site visit, because that is something that the applicant should know. Sometimes it needs to be more specific, like I saw it last Wednesday when there was an explosion on site, or something. If you just keep imaging this imaginary person participating in the hearing, and... Board Member Gooyer: (inaudible) (off microphone) Chair Furth: Yeah. They need to know what we think we've learned that's relevant to this project. And, of course, I was having a bit of a discussion with counsel about, we bring our whole experience to these hearings, and you particularly bring your professional experience. And one of the things I notice is that you have a lot of expertise on the use of materials in this area, so you frequently tell an applicant that, "That's not going to work here." And that is based on your professional experience, and you don't need -- in my opinion, Sandy can disagree -- to disclose that, you know, you did this on such-and-such a setting. Though I notice that Alex often does say, "This material has been used on three projects in the last 10 years. If you look at the one on Park Avenue, it really is a good example of why this is a bad idea." He has quite the memory, and history. And that lets the applicant say, "Oh, but that's not, you know, that was Epay [phonetic] from this part of the world, and I'm using a different..." But just so that people can respond to what we think we know and correct our understanding, or argue against it. I particularly wanted to talk about neighborhood concerns. You know, based on my professional history as a lawyer, and a municipal lawyer...And I've been doing this so long. I remember when the law came in requiring us to, for the first time, make written findings of fact and conclusions of law, so that courts could review our decisions, and people would have due process. Yeah, on stone tablets. Absolutely. It was the 70's. I sort of thought, well, it's much simpler if I just don't talk to anybody because then I don't have to take all these notes or remember everything, and tell them that no, they can't pay for my cup of coffee. And I found my views evolving, particularly with regard to neighbors, particularly when it's an existing community of neighbors, whether it's the Palo Alto redwoods next to the proposed hotel, to replace the restaurant on El Camino, or the Greenhouse neighborhood with respect to this hotel. And I do believe that, ideally, we have infinite staff, with infinite time, and they are able to have a community meeting, or one or more community meetings, with these groups. But we don't have infinite staff, and we don't have infinite time, and thinking about how to do that has been on my mind. I do believe that meeting with neighbors so that you can see what the view is from their property, so that you can look at the project literally from another angle, is useful. It does require a lot of note-taking. Because I think we not only have to be fair, we have to be seen to be fair, and we have to be seen to be listening, which is why I tend to run these hearings in what some of you may view as a rather sloppy way. Which, if we've got time, I essentially re-open the hearing and let people continue to comment, because I think the value of their speaking and us hearing outweighs the other. I'm more reserved about meeting with applicants because I think they have more professional ability to present their plans to us. I do agree that I sometimes want more than a week or less to look at a project, and its site, and its history. But, I decided to engage in some fact-finding on this approach, a little empirical research, so, I did meet with Roxy Rapp and his colleague and son, and his professional consultant, Steve Emslie, because they are proposing to do something concerning a retail use on the site of the former Cheesecake Factory. And I learned about the Rapp family history with that building, and the tenants who had been there before, City of Palo Alto Page 43 and we discussed the fact that we think that the Masonic Temple and Design Within Reach did a bang-up job of redoing their site. And, I refuse to comment on proposed designs because I think that undercuts what we should be doing here at the Board. I find myself trying to figure out, under what circumstances, under what conditions, is it helpful to the process, to the community and to the applicant, to meet with them, and under what circumstances is it not? And I’m interested in Alex's question, suggestion of sort of, these are the ground rules here. Because I think it could be helpful, because it's not at all good when somebody blurts out, "Well, I've talked to two of your colleagues and..." And I will say, I never agree to meeting with anybody and with another Board member because it's just a problem. First of all, we never know what our quorum is going to be for the actual hearing, and it could be that two people already violated the Brown Act because there's only going to be three or four decision-makers. Comments from folks? Vice Chair Baltay: I have a specific three things, but one of them is regarding site visits. I wonder if we could just be clear. A site visit, when I go out to physically look at a property that's coming before us, that's considered an ex-parte communication? Just the act of visiting the site? Ms. Lee: Any gathering of information outside of the hearing is an ex-parte contact. Vice Chair Baltay: So then, it needs to be disclosed very clearly at the meeting. To the best of my memory, this is the first time we've been doing that since Wynne became Chair. Is that right? Board Member Lew: That's correct. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, so, your advice is that we continue to do that very clearly. At each meeting, before each item, we should all disclose that we visited the site? Ms. Lee: Yes. And if you have visited the site, I would disclose that you visited it, when you visited the site, and any information that you may have learned on that site visit that is not in the record. So, there could be something that happens that day that is unusual, and that might influence your decision. And we don't know if it's unusual or not, and the applicants and others will not be able to kind of test that information you've ascertained without knowing about it. And you are the only person who can disclose that information. Chair Furth: One of the things about site visit disclosure is that I actually do hear you all disclosing...Frequently, I say, "I visited the site, and I notice that the trees overhang, or that the neighbors oak tree is very close, and I'm going to be concerned about how you're protecting that tree." We actually don't get too many on-site explosions. But, it's helpful to the applicants to know what struck us. Alex. Board Member Lew: We've been disclose...I think the issue, though, is that...I think Sandy is saying that it needs to be done first. Chair Furth: Yes. Board Member Lew: And we haven't been doing that. That sometimes happens later in our disclosure... Chair Furth: Well, we have to disclose the fact that we've been there. Board Member Lew: Been to the site, but not the actual... Chair Furth: And I would argue that, I would suggest that people have a pretty good understanding of what you're going to see on the site, and that we don't have to detail every single...It's impossible to detail everything we saw. You saw the site. But, if there's something that concerns us, we could take advantage of that time to mention it. City of Palo Alto Page 44 Ms. Lee: Yes. I would agree. You're not going to go through a minute-by-minute recount of...But, things that struck you. Things that could influence your decision. I do think that that type of information should be disclosed before the hearing. However, perhaps it doesn't occur to you until you're in the middle of the hearing. You know, something's happened. The applicant...So long as you give an opportunity to the applicant to respond to this other information, then that should be okay. But, I still would urge you to try to disclose as much as possible, as early as possible, so that every speaker has an opportunity to kind of question that information, or provide some kind of rebuttal to it. Chair Furth: Peter. Vice Chair Baltay: My second thought, then, was, when is the appropriate time to disclose? Again, on our hypothetical site visit, what if I just disclosed by email to the Planning staff that I visited the site? I'm visiting the site, I could just send an email, "I'm at the site right now, I visited it." Is that a proper disclosure? Or, more specifically -- I'm sorry to interrupt you -- but, at what point in the hearings do we have to do the disclosures? Could we do them all at the very beginning? Or does it have to be project by project? Ms. Lee: It should be project by project, at the beginning of the hearing on that project. You could send an email to staff. It probably wouldn't be, "I just visited the site on this day." Again, you know, there might be some additional information that you want to provide about what struck you, what you saw, and all that. That information will be public, however, so, they could include it as part of the staff report, if you provide that email, or it would be read out loud at the hearing, along with anyone else who wants to make an oral disclosure. Chair Furth: And I think that the applicant is entitled to due process; the public is entitled to a fair hearing. I always think of this imaginary person out there, and that imaginary person has read the public notices, they've read the staff report, they're familiar with the city's laws and rules -- this person doesn't exist -- and what else do we need to do so that they understand, in general, the basis for our decisions? Myself, I believe that the most effective way to do that is to, as we hear the...And they are only here for their item. They're not here for the meeting in general. They come in for their item. So, at the beginning of addressing that item, we disclose what needs to be disclosed. One of the things is, we're not terribly formal about what is in the public record, and what isn't. Sometimes, we say, "Now, I'll open the public hearing." What we're really saying is, "Now I'm opening the hearing to the public." Because from the court's point of view, and the due process point of view, the minute we call the item, that's when the hearing starts. So, somewhere in that period, we need to do this. And if there is a whole lot to disclose, you can refer to a document, but there generally is not anything to disclose, except that I went and looked at it. I will say that I found...I wanted to disclose my meeting with the Rapps because that was the first I knew that there was a project over there. And so, I want you all to know what I know. I sort of want you to know it, when I know it, so that...That's part of, sort of mutual respect for each other, so that if there is information that I have, you know it. That's a block which we spend a lot of time on. That's an alley we've put a lot of energy into. I want you to know that, so if you want to think about it, you have more time to do that. I would also say as a general practice, I'd be really uncomfortable being one of five people. The more of us talk to an applicant ahead of time, the more of us meet with the community ahead of time, the less comfortable I am about that. I don't know how the rest of you feel about that. Vice Chair Baltay: I'm trying to come back, Wynne, to the concept of speaking to somebody that's not based on a certain project. Is it ex-parte communication for her to speak to...? I don't want to be specific. If it's not related to something that's coming before the Board. In other words, there's no project on application. Is that still an ex-parte communication to speak to somebody about... Chair Furth: Sure. Vice Chair Baltay: ...something? City of Palo Alto Page 45 Chair Furth: I don't have to disclose it until the project gets here, but, yeah. It doesn’t matter that they haven’t filed an application yet. Ms. Lee: Yeah, so, typically, it attaches once an application is filed, so to the extent that there is information...You know? "In five years, I'm going to work on this project." I would not necessarily say that you need to record that and potentially disclose it five years down the road, when it comes to the ARB. This obligation to track your contacts and all of that, that would attach after the application is filed. Chair Furth: Wynne's sense of disclosing things that are not based on a project is more out of a sense of doing it right than it is any legal requirement? Ms. Lee: Yes. Chair Furth: And I would say that I wouldn't do this if I didn't know they intend to file an application in the near future. I mean, some big discussion about open space policies in Palo Alto is not the kind of thing I'm going to regale you with during Board member comments. Vice Chair Baltay: Another question I had was regarding, I've heard comments about not having ex-parte communications between hearings. We frequently have multiple hearings on a project, so, after the first hearing, is it then not allowed to, say, go visit a site to see what's going on? Ms. Lee: The ARB rules do not expressly prohibit that. There's no clear demarcation, other than after the hearing is closed, you may not have...and prior to a decision, you may not have ex-parte communications. An example of that would be -- and I don't know if this happens with this Board -- but, you may make a preliminary decision, but you're waiting for findings to be prepared by staff, and it will come back to you for a final decision. Before that final decision is made, no further communications with the applicant or others. Vice Chair Baltay: When we move and second and vote to continue a project, is that a decision, or is that just a continuation of...? Ms. Lee: No, because that's just a continuation of the public hearing. It hasn't been closed. Vice Chair Baltay: I see. So, until we have a decision issued, ex-parte communications are okay, then. Chair Furth: I would say, as a member of this Board, first of all, I view site visits as very different from having a chat with the architect. Because I'm not going to convey any information out during a site visit. I'm going to be absorbing information, the same way I would be doing if I was researching some building material on the internet. But I'm not at risk of either pre-judging and conveying a prejudgment, or giving somebody my opinion so that they can start shaping the project in response to what I saw. Or what I said. I've used site visits as very difficult to get in trouble with a site visit. And by "get in trouble," I mean distort the hearing process, or find myself disqualified for bias. I can't think any circumstances under which I would want to talk to the applicant between hearings. Because we have, as a Board, looked at, we have commented, we've begun to discuss, and I don't want to tell them, "Well, of these two alternatives, I prefer X," because I think that's usurping the function of the Board as a whole. That's where I come down on that. But, other people might have different opinions. Board Member Lew: Are you recommending then that the Board adopt the Council and PTC's bylaws regarding that? Chair Furth: Refresh my recollection. Board Member Lew: Well, I think... Board Member Gooyer: Well, it's already discouraged, so I think... City of Palo Alto Page 46 Board Member Lew: But I think Sandra was saying that it's not in the, it's not written in our ARB... Ms. Lee: Yes, sorry, this was confusing. Because it was kind of interesting to me, actually, that the ARB rules are different from Council and PTC's, which are the same. And those have changed over time, as well. But today, both Council and PTC have procedural rules that discourage ex-parte communications if it will affect the impartiality of the decision-maker. But, the ARB does not include that "discourage" language. It just, you know...It's really silent as to that. Board Member Lew: I think my...I think there's a specific example that happened this year, where the applicant who really...He'd been pushing for meetings between hearings, and really was pushing the City Attorney's Office to show them where it was written in the ARB's rules. Right? If we think that the PTC and the Council's rules are better, then I think we should put them in the ARB's language. Because they are challenge...I mean, there are applicants who are challenging that. Chair Furth: Does the PTC or the City Council have a rule forbidding ex-parte with the applicants or members of the public while a matter is being, a quasi-judicial matter is being continued? Ms. Lee: No... Board Member Lew: I think you're saying it's discouraged. Chair Furth: Discouraged. Ms. Lee: It's discouraged, in general. But I also think...You know, the ARB's process is interesting because you do contemplate having these three hearings, whereas that's not necessarily true before these other bodies. That's why there's no specific provision about between hearings. The only provision, which is the same as the ARB's, is about the prohibition between the close of the public hearing, and the decision. Chair Furth: And I think we all understand that that's because the public hearing is closed. We are not supposed to be gathering more information. Except maybe reading the code, which would be okay. Vice Chair Baltay: But I find I, I feel I have to visit the site, often several times on a complex project. It's only by going back there and looking at it again, often with the words of my colleagues ringing in my ears, that I can do this job properly. And yet, if that's ex-parte, is it or is it not? Chair Furth: I really think we should, analytically, we should separate site visits from talking to the applicant... [crosstalk] Board Member Gooyer: I agree. I think one is a... Chair Furth: ...very different concept, and nobody is going... Board Member Gooyer: ...definite requirement, and the other one probably is not necessary. Chair Furth: I think they are very different. Counsel? Ms. Lee: Even though we might generally say they're ex-parte contacts, they are very different in degree, as other Board members have commented. I do think that a site visit is in its own class of outside information than communications with individuals. Board Member Gooyer: What do you think of...Wynne? I mean, as far as...I've been on other boards where it was basically left for the chair to make that determination while his or her term... City of Palo Alto Page 47 Chair Furth: Make which determination, Robert? Board Member Gooyer: Because, I mean, you know, every chair has a different way of looking at things. I don’t like the idea of making something too black and white where, in case you need an out, occasionally. Chair Furth: Yeah, I'm less convinced that...Thank you for attending. I don’t know what the chair's role might be. Just thinking tentatively, not conclusively. I would be in favor of having a policy of discouraging communications between hearings. I really do not want an applicant to shop alternative proposals or responses to the Board after they've heard from us. I think that's very much the Board's function, or staff's function, and I think we have worked hard to be clear on our direction, and to try to get, you know, straw votes, or consensus, so that people understand what our opinions are before...So they don't need to go say, "Well, what do you think of this shade of blue?" I'm not going to tell you, and I don't even want to hear the question. So, I would be in favor of modifying our rules in that regard. I'd like to hear more from staff about the use of community meetings and whether it's useful to have an ARB representative with you at such meetings. I think that Board members can say things that staff can't. I really like Alex's idea of some proposed, you know, explanation to the public and the applicant about how we can and cannot - or do and do not -- wish to gather information. I think it would be helpful. The thing that I'm clearest about is that I have felt that I was advancing the City's efforts when I've met with neighbors or community activists, or whatever, to hear their concerns before an application is filed. Those are lay people. They don’t have professional advocates working for them. Though they're often highly sophisticated and very organized. It's pretty easy for me to keep track of what they've said, and when, and they are almost always telling me what they think, and never asking me what I think. All that makes it easier. I have -- twice -- met with applicants. No, three times. And once, the argument was, they really wanted to show me their drawings and plans. I am the slowest study on the Board in terms of looking at drawings and plans because that's not my profession. I can beat you anytime on an ordinance. And on balance, I don't think it's worth it. Staff is willing to go over questions with me, and I think that would be the better approach. I did meet with the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. It was helpful to hear their project description. I suggested that they give us that information when we were here. I disclosed that information in summary form before the hearing. Interestingly, they didn't make that part of their case when they came, and so I asked them to expand on it when they were here. The drive not to be discourteous is significant and refusing to meet with somebody is awkward. I would be happier if we had a policy that said that we strongly discourage meeting with applicants and the neighbors between hearings, and we directed those inquiries and communications to staff. I don't know how the rest of you feel. Ms. Gerhardt: Just from a staff perspective, I think you'd asked some questions of staff. I think we have heard communications from various applicants, that they walked away from a first or second hearing and didn't quite know what needed to be done. And I think we've tried to be thoughtful about that in the recent past, about -- as Chair Furth said -- you know, taking some straw polls, doing a better summary at the end of our hearings. I think that can help a lot of this type of issue. If we want to do a handout related to ex-parte communications, I think that's a great idea, and we can certainly work on that. The other thing, too, I know from board members, there seems to be some struggles with the plan sets and things like that. Staff has tried to work on that as best as possible, but some early communication from the board members to staff might be helpful in that regard. If you're looking through the plans and you're not seeing something you want, then maybe an early email to us could help us. We'd have to scramble, but we could try and get something together related to that. Or, we could just be ready for that question with a possible answer. Related to community meetings, I think it's a much bigger topic than all of us, just about how this city would like to move forward with that potential idea. I think right now, we have applicants that do their own community meetings. Most of the time, they will invite staff, and if we hear something incorrect being said, we will certainly voice that and try and correct that issue immediately. But it really is a developer's community meeting at this moment. So, you know, the whole city should think about how they may want to move forward with that or change that. And then, regarding updating the ARB's rules, we're certainly available to do that, and if we want to put some line City of Palo Alto Page 48 items in there that, you know, just says that meetings are discouraged after the first hearing, and that somehow, you know, doesn't exactly pertain to site visits, we could certainly do that. Chair Furth: Thank you. Comments? Don't all speak at once. Board Member Lew: Well, I would say that I think I agree with your position on discouraging ex-parte meetings between hearings, and I think we definitely acknowledge that a past board member, when Chair Popp was here. I mean, he...He was arguing for the opposite (inaudible), and I think there are other board members in the past who would also agree with him. About board members being available for meetings between hearings. But I think to your point, I think it's better not to do it. Vice Chair Baltay: I find that...I think the status quo is actually working pretty well. I think the feedback you've given us and the general understanding amongst the Board is pretty close to, it sounds like what the rules are. I don't see that we really need to change our rules or anything. Unless we want to put more time into it. But I think there are more pressing things we could work on changing our rules on. I'm satisfied with what we have. I'm happy to see it change, but I'm satisfied with what we have right now, too. Chair Furth: It looks like two of us would be in favor of modifying our rules to discourage ex-parte meetings between hearings, meaning contacts with the applicant and the public. In my case, particularly the applicant. "Discourage" doesn't mean prohibited. And two of you are happy with it as it stands, so we will wait for Board Member Thompson. Anything else we want to say about this topic while we're here and have the chance? Oh, how do people...? I would be in favor of having a...cheat sheet is the wrong word. Tip sheet. A document that applicants and members of the public could read about what we can and cannot do in meetings with them, so they don't start off by telling me what two of my fellow board members believe before I can stop them. Commissioner Gooyer: What we can and cannot do, or what we, what our purview is? Chair Furth: Well, I think it would be helpful if there was a document that said, you know, when you have a matter before the Board, you know, if a Board member agrees to meet with you, you need to be sure you do not inadvertently violate the Brown Act. Tell them...I don't know if it's possible, but if it has been done...I'd be willing to put some energy into thinking about this. I mean, one of the problems is it may encourage more people to ask for more meetings, which I think would be undesirable. Comments? Vice Chair Baltay: I think it's great as long as somebody else does it. Chair Furth: Got it. Maybe we just need to make those standard speeches. Why don't we think about that? Yes, go ahead, staff. Ms. Lee: I was just going to say that, as well. We can certainly put some thought into that, and what the appropriate forum would be. Chair Furth: What might be useful. Ms. Lee: Mm-hmm. Chair Furth: Yeah. Ms. Lee: Let us think about that a bit. Chair Furth: I will say that having had this meeting, I find myself thinking, you know, if somebody asks me for a meeting, I am probably going to say, "Are you planning to talk to other members of the Board as well?" And if they say, "Yes, I'm going to talk to everybody," I'm going to say, "You're not talking to me." City of Palo Alto Page 49 Vice Chair Baltay: You know, when I started these meetings with this Board and others, I used to feel strongly that when somebody asked me, I would refer them back to the Chair, and the Chair would then direct how or if the Board would have ex parte communications. I've since come to think that maybe that's just overkill, and just sort of too much maneuvering and bureaucracy. Chair Furth: I don't even think I can do it without breaking rules. I can't instruct the Board members whether or not to meet with a member of the public without violating other procedural (inaudible). How's that for vague? Vice Chair Baltay: I guess I’m just a legal layperson. I don't understand why that would be a bad thing. But, I mean, clearly, it's not something that counsel or staff wants us to do, and... Chair Furth: Because basically... Vice Chair Baltay: ...I don't really care. Chair Furth: Basically, the only authority I have I exercise at the meeting. When I'm not here, I have no importance. I have no authority except to chair the meetings. I'm entitled to put something on the agenda I forget. Anything else anybody wants to say about this today? Okay. Well, thank you very much for coming to talk to us. Staff, if you put this on as a follow-up meeting next time we have all five of us, follow-up item, that would be helpful. Thanks very much. Ms. Lee: Okay. Thank you. Chair Furth: I learned a lot. 5. Study Session to Discuss the Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies and Programs as They Relate to the Architectural Review Board Chair Furth: Second study session. Yes, comp plan. Okay. From the procedural to the substantive. And I must say, even though we didn't come up with any policy recommendations, I think it's useful to have public discussion of what our practices are, what we're comfortable with. Thank you. We are now on agenda item 5, study session to discuss the Comprehensive Plan goals, policies and programs as they relate to the ARB. Ms. Gerhardt: I just wanted to introduce Elena Lee and thank her for being here to talk about the comp plan. She has been on this for some time. And just relate it back to the ARB findings, as well, and the reason the comp plan is important to the ARB is because it's part of Finding #1. And I'm sorry we didn't put that attachment in there, but if you look at packet page 51, you'll see the ARB findings for the Marriott project, and you'll see that we have included goals and polices in our answer to Finding #1. With that, I'll let Elena take it. Chair Furth: Thank you. Elena Lee, Senior Planner: Thank you. The comp plan... Chair Furth: I'm sorry, if you could introduce yourself for the record. Ms. Lee: Sure. Elena Lee, Senior Planner. The comp plan contains the City's official policies on land use and related issues, with a focus on the physical form of the city. It provides a basis for the zoning code, policies such as the ARB, development regulations, and the Capital Improvement Program. The comp plan was adopted in -- sorry, thank you -- November 2017, with a programmatic EIR. In July of 2018, the City Council actually adopted the first Comprehensive Plan amendment. This was in response to a citizen- initiated measure to basically reduce the overall city cap. The comp plan adopted in November 2017 had an overall city cap of 1.7 million for all office and R&D uses. The previous comp plan had a cap, a similar City of Palo Alto Page 50 cap, for all non-residential uses in nine sub areas of the city. The new comp plan basically changed this, so it focused on office and R&D citywide. The citizen measure that the Council adopted qualified to be on the November ballot, and the Council decided to adopt it as written so it didn't have to go to the ballot. Basically, the ordinance reduced overall city cap from 1.7 to 850,000 square feet, to the horizon year of 2030. This cap has also been reflected in the municipal code, the zoning code in particular. The comp plan has basically eight major themes that are reflected throughout the document, and those themes would be: Building community and neighborhoods; maintaining and enhancing community character; reducing reliance on the automobile; protecting and sustaining the natural environment; keeping Palo Alto prepared; meeting residential and commercial needs; and, providing responsive governance and regional leadership. All of these themes are the same as the 1998 comp plan. The only addition is number 6, which is regarding emergency preparedness and, basically, sustainability. The comp plan contains eight elements and two chapters, consistent with state law. The first one, which is probably the most relevant for this Board, would be land use and community design element, transportation element, natural environment element, and the safety element, which is new. The community services and facilities element, business and economics, and then, two chapters, governance, and implementation. The safety element includes policies and programs and goals regarding safety, and some of it was previously in the natural environment element. The elements and chapters basically have a common format. There is a background, a vision, then goals, policies and programs. A majority of the goals, programs and policies have been retained and reorganized. New concepts have been incorporated, such as climate change and VMT, and ride-sharing and other new technologies. The biggest changes were made to the land use and transportation element, as well as inclusion of a new safety element, which will be summarized later in this presentation. The land use and transportation element were the subject of the most discussion with both the Citizen Advisory Committee that was appointed by Council to help the creation of the update, as well as the PTC and the City Council. The land use element is, as I said, is probably of greatest relevance for the Architectural Review Board. Again, all of the goals, there's basically 10 goals. All goals are similar to the 1998 comp plan, with the exception of the airport goal, which was moved from the transportation element to the land use element. The goals were updated and reorganized for this recent adoption. This element places great importance on housing, sustainability, and livability of Palo Alto. Again, it's mostly the same, except with the addition of concept resiliency and sustainability. Chair Furth: I'm going to ask now since this is a study session, even though we're sitting up here. When it says that we're going to address climate protection through sustainable development near neighborhood services, and enhance the quality of life...Does that...? That doesn't limit the range of approaches to sustainability? I mean, for example, if we're concerned about sea level rise and proposing buildings below projected sea level, that comes under the heading of sustainable development. It’s not just locating things near neighborhood services. Ms. Lee: Right, right. The way it's written in the comp plan is just basically reflecting the general goals and statements that were made at the time. It's not saying that we can't address other things, but these kind of reference the priorities of the City, so that should basically frame the discussion, but does not limit it. Chair Furth: Thank you. Ms. Lee: Again, there are 10 goals with associated policies and programs, and this an addition of the airport goal. The goals would be: growth management; sustainable community; distinct neighborhoods; commercial centers. Goal L-2 - Sustainability - in particular, basically promotes a diverse and inclusive community with policies regarding encroachment of housing. That probably has a lot of additional language reflecting the priorities that Council has placed on this document. Also of note would be, under goal L-4, there are programs that support the creation of coordinated area plans for downtown and the North Ventura area. The remaining goals would be: employment districts; design of buildings and public space; historic resources; parks and gathering places; public streets and public spaces; and the Palo Alto airport. Goal L-6 and the associated policy L-6 is very important for this process. This goal and policy provides a support for the architectural review process, for both high-quality building and site design. The City of Palo Alto Page 51 following changes, following policies, basically, and programs reflect the most significant changes that came as part of this update, with the biggest being the growth management, which has also changed this past July via the citizen initiative. The ordinance in July basically reduced overall citywide cap on office and R&D uses to 850,000 square feet. It continues to exempt medical, government and institutional uses, and basically established 2015 as a new baseline to compare the growth. Importantly, one of the biggest differences between the previous comp plan policy and this policy is that now, conversions from one type of non-residential use to another residential use may count. In particular conversion from retail to office would count against the cap. Basically, this cap is also different than the annual office limit that was adopted last May, I believe, so that annual office limit is focused on office limits, but in three particular areas of the state. Those are actually two different. The comp plan is a cap versus the other, the annual limit, is basically a pacing mechanism. Again, housing was one of the biggest priorities for this comp plan, as well as the Council-established priorities for the City. These policies that you see listed here basically reflect some of the new policies and amended policies that recognize that housing is important. Some of the policies that support housing construction would be to commit to increasing below-market-rate housing, as well as housing that's considered affordable. It doesn't technically count as a low-market rate, but would be housing towards, for example, the Missing Middle, and the...What was it? The working...? Workforce Housing. Thank you. Workforce housing. It also stresses integration of new housing into neighborhoods to help provide for a more sustainable neighborhood. It also includes policy language and programs to encourage housing in certain areas of Stanford shopping center, near the Stanford Research Park. Specifically, these policies and programs, as amended by Council, does not allow conversation for retail uses at Town & Country shopping center. And there are also policies that basically support mixed-use development with retail and residential, trying to discourage office uses. Chair Furth: Excuse me. Essentially, if you had an office use, you could convert that to housing under these policies? Except in Town & Country? Ms. Lee: Right. The policies support that. And so, as part of the housing work program... Chair Furth: You have to implement it. Ms. Lee: Right. That's part of the implementation program. Actually, I think going at the end of November is the ordinance update that actually codifies that ability to convert that to housing. Chair Furth: Thank you. Ms. Lee: Some of the other land use and community design element changes include, again, retention. Not just construction, but retention of existing housing that is more affordable, and also, specifically policy language to help prevent displacement, and protect against conversion from residential to office or short-term rentals. Chair Furth: Excuse me. Does short-term rentals include hotel? Ms. Lee: Well, I think it's more kind of catered to, at this point, the Airbnb type of uses, so not hotel, per se. Chair Furth: Or corporate housing? Ms. Lee: Possibly corporate housing. Chair Furth: Short-term corporate housing? Ms. Lee: Right. Something that takes it away from actually being counted as actual residential units. Some of the other important issues that were discussed as part of this Comprehensive Plan update was basically school impacts. As you know, we are limited on how we can address school impacts. Because the purpose of this document is really focused on the physical form, so, basically what we've said was City of Palo Alto Page 52 that we're going to basically have regular coordination with the school district, and also, to be very careful, make sure that we analyze the environmental impacts of projects that result in new school construction. Chair Furth: And I will just comment, again, since this is a study session, I have to recognize any of you, but I'll recognize myself. This is one of the great ironies of California land use law, is that general plans were introduced by communities that were frustrated with lots of new development without adequate provisions for schools. And over time, the building industry said, "This is terrible. It's interfering with our ability to grow schools," and got state legislation passed that said as long as you pay an in-lieu fee, cities have no jurisdiction to consider these matters. So, here we are. That is my editorial for today. Ms. Lee: The last batch of changes regarding land use and community design element would be specifically policy language to support retail, especially local-serving retail. The other big change would be for historic impacts. Basically, the historic chapter hasn't really, goals and policies haven't changed, but there were additional measures put in to address potential impacts. In particular, for policy 7.2, we're saying that prior to issuance of a demolition, that we'll have to consider whether or not it's a historic resource. That's something that we are in process of trying to address and implement. The transportation element is also the other one that received the most amount of scrutiny, and also, basically, reorganization. Parties haven't changed, you know, like a focus on reducing single-occupancy vehicles by basically...I mean, I think one of the most important parts of the vision is underlying, which says that Palo Alto would build and maintain sustainable network of safe and accessible and efficient transportation of parking solutions, while importantly protecting and enhancing the quality of life of Palo Alto. That was a big topic, about the quality of life. That's addressing technology, addressing parking, that type of issue. There were several policies that were updated and changed, which will be highlighted here. Again, we're keeping reducing reliance on single-occupancy vehicles, but a big change is basically trying to formalize the TDM and TMA requirements. Oftentimes that's used as a mitigation measure for traffic impacts. What we've done is basically stipulate that measure shall be adopted, but that it shall reduce it by these specific numbers. It basically, 45 percent downtown, 35 percent Cal Ave., 30 percent for the Research Park, 30 percent for El Camino corridor, and 20 percent other areas. We've also had policies say that we will evaluate the downtown TMA, and also pursue it in Cal Ave., or other areas. Chair Furth: I have a couple questions here. This reduction of trips is supposed to be all trips, not just local trips? Ms. Lee: Basically, this would be used for, I think all trips. Yeah. Chair Furth: Or is that per project? Ms. Lee: These specific improvements, reductions, are only when we have TDM plans. Chair Furth: This is just the anticipated reduction for a project downtown through transportation demand management, would be reduction of 45 percent of peak-hour trips over what would be expected without that. Is that right? Ms. Lee: Correct. Chair Furth: It's not reducing traffic to that extent. I had another question, which is that I know vaguely that CEQA changed its transportation impact measures from level of service at intersections to trying to reduce vehicle miles traveled. How did that interplay with what you did? Ms. Lee: Basically, in terms of CEQA impacts, we will be addressing VMT. But, the Council also retained language in the comp plan that says that we will also be looking and maintaining LOS. We will be continuing to look at both VMT and LOS. City of Palo Alto Page 53 Chair Furth: We're looking at how our land use policies affect how many total miles people travel, as well as how long we sit at an intersection. Ms. Lee: Correct. Chair Furth: Thank you. Ms. Lee: Did I skip it? Yeah, I did skip it. Sorry. We'll get to that one next. Again, incorporation of new concepts and issues that are deemed important now, so we have policies saying that we shall reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and support the introduction of autonomous, shared, and other new technology regarding vehicles. We also have language saying that we will support CalTran modernization and electrification, support expansion of CalTran to downtown, and also enhancement of downtown transit station. Chair Furth: Our downtown, or San Francisco's downtown? What are we talking about? Ms. Lee: Our downtown. Chair Furth: Okay. Ms. Lee: Our transit center. Downtown. Basically, the other things that were emphasized in the comp plan was importance of the shuttle service, encouraging ride sharing, and introducing a concept of first and last mile. Basically, allowing better connections so people can have that first/last mile connection to transit within the city. We're also encouraging bicycle and walking and personal transportation devices as alternatives. And then, here is, that one right there, it says that we shall address the VMT, but also continue to use LOS standards. Chair Furth: What is MMLOS? Ms. Lee: Sorry. That is multi-modal. I mean, that's the other thing that's...We kind of discussed it in a previous comp plan, but now it's very clear, especially as part of complete streets and other policy documents, that we shall be encouraging multiple modes of transportation. We're looking at walking, biking, and transit. Chair Furth: And do we have a policy on scooters and electrified skate boards and all these other things that appear on our streets? Ms. Lee: We have general... Chair Furth: And sidewalks? Ms. Lee: ...polices saying that we shall encourage alternate modes of transportation, so we are trying to address all of those. And we also try to recognize that technology changes so fast that we need this document to be nimble enough to encourage, you know, things that would be beneficial to the City. Chair Furth: Otherwise known as vague. Yes. Thank you. Ms. Lee: Yes. Chair Furth: Comprehensive. Ms. Lee: The other remaining topics would be, basically, again, going to street design, planning the use of roadways for all users, and neighborhood impacts. This is actually an important, key issue right here for policy T-4.2. Basically, this, you know, we're looking at traffic calming for both safety as well as treating congestion. What this policy now states is that we shall prioritize traffic calming for safety over City of Palo Alto Page 54 congestion management. This was very important to the neighborhood groups, as well as city council. Lastly, one of the big topics: Parking for the city. We have policies saying that we shall continue to manage parking without the use of on-street spaces, but that we are open to modifying and reducing requirements if it's demonstrated that less parking is needed. And that we will also evaluate updating our parking standards. For example, we've started that with multifamily developments. And then, the last, big, new thing for this comp plan is the safety element. In response to a lot of new changes under state law, we decided to pull all the safety-related goals into a new safety element. The topics under the new safety element include community safety, natural hazards, and human cause threats. This safety element now includes updated maps for fire, flooding and sea level rise, and it also includes in particular importance for development in Palo Alto, is that it specifically has a policy that prohibits new habitable basements in single-family residential properties within the 100-year flood zone, and that we will continue to review and update development standards in areas susceptible to flooding. And, that all documents shall be consistent with all the other policy documents the City has adopted, such as the Baylands master plan. At places today, I've placed a copy of the 1998 land use element, so you can use that to compare the current comp plan with the old comp plan if, you know, if that's needed. That concludes my report, but I’m here to answer questions. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you very much for coming to speak to us. Questions? Vice Chair Baltay: Sure. This thing about basements you just mentioned here. If a property is within the 100-year flood zone, does that mean within the FEMA-regulated flood zone exactly? Say somebody has a LOMA on their property but they are within the overall flood plain. Ms. Lee: Well, yeah, if they have a LOMA, then they are out, technically out, right? Even though they are within the... Vice Chair Baltay: I'm just reading the words here. It says... Chair Furth: Excuse me. Can you define a LOMA for us? Vice Chair Baltay: LOMA is a Letter of Map Adjustment you get from FEMA that removes your particular property from the flood plain requirements. Chair Furth: Then you would be out of it [crosstalk]. Vice Chair Baltay: But yet, the property is well within the boundaries of the entire flood plain. Reading these words, you could argue that any property within that broad boundary is not, is within the flood zone. Flood water. Chair Furth: That's a good question. I think we got the answer. Yes? Vice Chair Baltay: Thanks. Chair Furth: I have a question, which is that we have been presented with a lot of proposed construction east of 101, and it makes me nervous because I have not seen explicit addressing of anticipated rising sea levels in that area. Do we have a defined standard now of how many feet of sea level rise we are going to address? Ms. Lee: We do have maps and standards, but this is something that we are actually continuing to look at. For example, sea level rise is actually a topic of a new policy project that our Public Works Department was working on. There are also multiple improvements that are happening along the Baylands, would obviously affect flooding issues in Palo Alto. We have some maps that have been kind of recognized as standards but, to be honest, it's still sort of a changing landscape as we're getting new information over time. City of Palo Alto Page 55 Chair Furth: We don't have a specific number or standard that we invoke. Ms. Lee: We actually do have it. I think the source is NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric... Chair Furth: Right. Ms. Lee: ... Administration coastal service. It's basically...We have two categories: 24-inch sea level rise, and 55-inch sea level rise. That's the general standard. But again, like I said, there are ongoing projects that are happening, specifically Baylands improvements that are being done both by this city, Mountainview, and other jurisdictions that may affect it, depending on how those projects come out. Chair Furth: And I think I know that when the City has come to us with rebuilds of its own improvements in the Baylands, they have specifically addressed higher sea level, higher bay level, whereas when applicants have come to us with commercial projects such as the Mercedes-Benz dealership, they have not. Is that right, Jodie? Or am I confused? Alex says he thinks I'm wrong. That would be helpful. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, there have certainly been projects in the Baylands itself where other organizations have jurisdiction, so we have very much included them in the review process. In the commercial areas, there's not as much, there's not jurisdiction from those other agencies. Chair Furth: I should be looking at the maps to understand what we're doing. And there will be more implementation measures? Or not? Ms. Lee: I don't believe we have any specific programs, just making sure that we're consistent with other documents that are adopted regarding this topic. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Lew: I have a question for staff. The comp plan is calling for modifications to design standards, and also transitions between different land uses. Is that coming in the November zoning update, or would that come later? Ms. Lee: We haven't actually scheduled when that's going to be implemented, so that would come at a later point. I think annually, we will go over the programs and policies to make priorities, so that's certainly on the list of one of our priorities. Board Member Lew: Thank you. Chair Furth: Any further questions? Thank you for the presentation. No members of the public, so, if nobody on the Board has any comments, I think we're done with this one. Is that right? Ms. Gerhardt: I believe that Board Member Baltay... Chair Furth: No, this item. Ms. Gerhardt: Was there a subcommittee conclusion that we wanted to report out? Chair Furth: Oh, I was talking about this item, not the... Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, sorry. Chair Furth: But, yes. Thank you very much, Elena. Approval of Minutes City of Palo Alto Page 56 Chair Furth: Approval of the minutes. This is the draft review board meeting minutes for September 6, 2018. Two of us were not present. Is that right? Vice Chair Baltay: I was not (inaudible). Chair Furth: Yeah, I think you and... I think we had three members present, but those three members are here. Board Member Lew: And you were recused on one item. Chair Furth: Right. How do we get a quorum? Do we have...? Who do we have? Vice Chair Baltay: If you have a quorum, I would like to abstain from the vote. Board Member Lew: I think what happens is, when we didn't have a quorum, then we push the item to another meeting. Chair Furth: Alright, so, we can approve... Board Member Lew: I think you can still [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: Those of us who are here can vote to approve the minutes with any changes. Any changes, recommendations or deletions? Board Member Lew: I have a couple. Chair Furth: Board member Lew. Board Member Lew: Okay. Page 12, there is mention of "Coulee," which is C-o-o-l-e-y, which is a law firm. Page 15, there's a mention of "Lockee," which is L-o-c-k-h-e-e-d. Page 17, "mecco" shades, which is m-e-c-h-o s-h-a-d-e. Page 20, there is an unidentified speaker which was Rich Sharp, who is a landscape architect. Chair Furth: Is there a motion to approve the minutes with those corrections? Board Member Lew: I will make a motion that we approve the minutes as amended. Board Member Gooyer: I'll second. Chair Furth: All those in favor says aye. All those not participating say not participating. Vice Chair Baltay: I'm abstaining. Chair Furth: All right. I think we have, that's approved. Thank you. MOTION PASSED 3-0-1, with Vice Chair Baltay abstaining from the vote. Subcommittee Items Chair Furth: All right. That gets us to subcommittee items. I believe we have a subcommittee report. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, hi. Chair Furth: For the transcriber, Board Member Baltay. City of Palo Alto Page 57 Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, this is Board Member Baltay. Last hearing, we had a subcommittee review of the public safety building on Sherman Avenue. The applicant had reported back with a fairly dramatic and I believe positively-received change, using a brick material on the exterior of the building in lieu of the board-formed concrete that had been proposed and approved. The subcommittee approved the change, but I think the rest of the board members should look at it to ascertain for themselves that it meets our original design intent. I think it's an improvement. It's actually better than the original. The two renderings are behind me, showing the change. Chair Furth: I think this is out of our jurisdiction now because you have recommended approval, but it would be helpful for us to let...This is going to the City Council. They're going to want to know what the sense of the ARB is. If anybody has anything they want to say... Ms. Gerhardt: I think we need to be careful though, too, because this is not agendized. Chair Furth: Not agendized. Vice Chair Baltay: Yeah, I'm just reporting back that the change was dramatic. Chair Furth: [crosstalk] Vice Chair Baltay: Information. Ex parte information. Chair Furth: Thank you for the information. Vice Chair Baltay: On a larger sense, I think it's important that the ARB be present at the meeting when the City Council reviews this project. It's a very large, important, public project, and I think we worked hard to get the design improved, and we should be supporting it in the public forum. It's to the Chair, I'm addressing that [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: And what date is that scheduled? Board Member Gooyer: I think the brick is a big improvement. I mean, as you remember, I did not like the board-formed concrete. Chair Furth: Okay. It's not on our agenda, so, Jodie, when is the...? Don't worry, you'll get what you need. When is the Council expecting to hear this? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, I'm encouraging my computer to move along here. Let's see if I can find this. Chair Furth: I will note that on some previous matters, the Council has indicated that they do not need to hear from us, but that doesn't mean that we can't attend. Ms. Gerhardt: Here we go. Eleven-five. Chair Furth: November 5th. Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. Vice Chair Baltay: That's, like, next week. Chair Furth: Next Monday. Well, Alex, shall you and I coordinate so that one of us will be there? Board Member Lew: It's the Board's, it's the Chair's... Chair Furth: Prerogative. City of Palo Alto Page 58 Board Member Lew: Chair is supposed to represent the Board. Chair Furth: I just feel the 3 1/2 hours I waited last time to not speak was enough. Vice Chair Baltay: I'm happy to represent the Board, but... [crosstalk] Board Member Lew: Also, I think on November 5th, Council will be selecting ARB candidates to interview, and there are six for the three slots. Chair Furth: Including incumbents. Well, I would be happy to delegate my responsibility to Board Member Baltay at that meeting. Since he served on the subcommittee, and I may not be in the area. Vice Chair Baltay: I'd be happy to do that. Chair Furth: All right. Then I will do that. I will use my authority, which I do have when I'm sitting at this chair, to do that. Vice Chair Baltay: Am I allowed to ask Alex if he has an opinion about the brick change? Chair Furth: It's... Vice Chair Baltay: I mean, I don't want to push the legal envelope, but it's a big change, and he is an important part of the Board. Chair Furth: If Alex wishes to testify in front of the City Council, I'm sure he will. All of us are welcome to testify as members of the public at that meeting. And we will not discuss the matter further at this point since it's not on the agenda. And two of you have already applied. Who is your fellow board member on the subcommittee? Vice Chair Baltay: Osma Thompson. Chair Furth: Thank you. Okay. What else do we have? Ms. Gerhardt: That's it. Chair Furth: Okay. Next meeting is...? Remind me what the agenda is. Board Member Lew: We don't need it. Chair Furth: We don't need to know it. Board Member Lew: It's in the packet. Chair Furth: Okay. [crosstalk] Ms. Gerhardt: ...packet. Chair Furth: All right. We are adjourned. Thank you. Adjournment