HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-01-10 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 and Historic
Resources Board
Special Meeting Agenda: January 10, 2019
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: Historic Resources Board and Architectural Review Board Input on
Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) Overhead Contact System
Foundation & Pole Layouts Design for Installation Within Caltrain Peninsula Corridor
Joint Powers Board (JPB) Right of Way in Palo Alto. Environmental Assessment: The
JPB Certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Adopted a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) in January 2015, Following Publication of the
Draft EIR in February 2014 for Public Comment. For More Information Contact the
Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org
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
3.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.
4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 1, 2018
5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 15, 2018
Subcommittee Items
Board Member Business
Election of Chair and Vice Chair
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 David Hirsch
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 # 9965)
Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 1/10/2019
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: City Official Report
Title: Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance
Record, and 2) Tentative Future Agenda items.
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate.
Background
The attached documents are provided for informational purposes. The Board may review and
comment as it deems appropriate. If individual Boardmembers anticipate being absent from a
future meeting, it is requested that be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item.
The first attachment provides a meeting and attendance schedule for the current calendar year.
Also included are the subcommittee assignments, which are assigned by the ARB Chair.
The second attachment is a Tentative Future Agenda that provides a summary of upcoming
projects or discussion items. The hearing dates for these items are subject to change.
Administrative staff-level Architectural Review approvals can be found on the City’s webpage at
http://bit.ly/PAstaffapprovals. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the
ARB on the proposed director's decision(s) by filing a written request with the planning division.
There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing.
However, pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets
containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to
Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter
12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the
applicant.
No action is required by the ARB for this item.
1
Packet Pg. 4
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
Attachments:
Attachment A: ARB 2019 Meeting Schedule (DOCX)
Attachment B: Tentative Future Agendas (DOCX)
1
Packet Pg. 5
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
7/4/2019 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
2019 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. 6
Architectural Review Board
2019 Tentative Future Agenda
The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change:
Meeting Dates Topics
January 17
380 Cambridge Avenue: New Commercial Building (2nd Formal)
4256 El Camino Real: New Hotel (2nd Formal)
702 Clara Drive: Three Detached Units (1st Formal)
Crown Castle/Verizon: Cluster 3 Small Cells (1st Formal)
1.b
Packet Pg. 7
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 9888)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/10/2019
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Overhead Contact
System
Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Historic Resources Board and Architectural
Review Board Input on Peninsula Corridor Electrification
Project (PCEP) Overhead Contact System Foundation & Pole
Layouts Design for Installation Within Caltrain Peninsula
Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) Right of Way in Palo Alto.
Environmental Assessment: The JPB Certified the Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Adopted a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) in January 2015,
Following Publication of the Draft EIR in February 2014 for
Public Comment. For More Information Contact the Chief
Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and Architectural Review Board
(ARB) take the following action(s):
1.Provide comments on the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) Overhead
Contact System (OCS) paint samples and pole designs proposed within Caltrain
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) right of way.
Report Summary
Caltrain Joint Powers Board (JPB) seeks input on the PCEP (conversion of Caltrain from diesel-
hauled trains to electrically-powered trains) OCS design for improvements within JPB right of
way. The subject project “65% plans” were previously reviewed by the HRB and ARB on
November 8 and November 15, 2018. The January 10, 2019 joint meeting of the HRB and ARB
will allow expedited review of the information requested by the boards in November 2018.
2
Packet Pg. 8
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
Earlier staff reports included background information; those reports are available online.
Copies of the staff reports without prior attachments are available in Attachment A and B (HRB
and ARB staff reports, respectively).
The City Council, on consent calendar agenda of December 17, 2018, authorized the City
Manager to enter into a Comprehensive Agreement with the JPB. The December 17th packet is
viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68157. The draft
Agreement had been considered by the Council Rail Committee on September 26, 2018
(https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=60164.71&BlobID=66798).
The December 17 Council report provides a summary of the committee’s recommendations.
Background
On November 8 and 15, 2018 the HRB and ARB, respectively, reviewed the project. Video
recordings of the boards’ meetings are available online:
HRB video: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/boards-
and-commissions/historic-resources-board/. One public speaker spoke to the HRB.
ARB video: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/boards-
and-commissions/architectural-review-board/.
HRB Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67562
ARB Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67647
Excerpt meeting minutes are attached to this report. The HRB minutes were provided to the
ARB members by email prior to the November 15th hearing. The HRB minutes are attached
(Attachment C) to this report. The ARB minutes are also attached (Attachment D).
HRB Summary
On November 8, 2018, two members of the public commented:
Martin Bernstein (as an individual) regarding the color and compatibility of poles, and
Herb Borock (via letter included as page 72 of the November 15, 2018 ARB packet).
The HRB voted 5-0-1-1 (Wimmer absent, Bernstein not participating as a member due to
conflict) on motion made by HRB member Bower, seconded by HRB member Corey. HRB
member questions, comments and responses are captured in the below table.
HRB Questions Project Team Response
Were battery powered trains explored? Battery powered trains were not explored as part of the EIR.
Reasonable alternatives to the project were considered (see
Chapter 5 (Alternatives) of the FEIR.
Will poles line up with other poles? The designer considered technical, operations &
maintenance, utility conflicts and right-of way factors to
determine pole locations and these factors generally
prevent poles being placed in line with existing poles. In
addition, existing poles are typically existing utilities, which
requires a defined clearance based on the project’s design
criteria.
What size trees will be planted and why is the The replacement tree size depends on the tree it is replacing
and the 1:1 ratio is the minimum replacement ratio for
2
Packet Pg. 9
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
ratio a 1:1 tree replacement ratio? Cities along the Caltrain corridor (chosen as the tree
replacement standard in Caltrain ROW).
Bridge clearance?
The distance from wire to the bottom of truss is 10.5” and
the clearance from the top of the rail to contact wire within
the San Francisquito Bridge is 19.81’
Will HRB see the paralleling station design? JPB will submit the station design in January and HRB will
get a set (may be 100% design).
What is the pole height and stability of poles in
the event of earthquakes?
The 75’ tall poles will be utility poles installed by utilities to
avoid conflicts with Caltrain overhead contact system.
Caltrain’s overhead contact system poles will range between
30-45.5’, depending on pole type. Seismic load is one of
the loads analyzed in the overall design of the foundations,
however the wind load is the governing load that ultimately
drives the design.
HRB Comments Project Team Response
The attachment to the San Francisquito Bridge
should avoid impacting the historic resource,
follow SISRs
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards will be followed
Palo Alto’s Urban Forester should be called to
observe work near El Palo Alto
No response provided (Urban Forestry will be involved due
to the tree’s significance)
Consensus: Use tan (FS23522) for PA Depot
poles and the green color (FS 14052) elsewhere
Color discussion continued – colors will be discussed in a
joint meeting with the ARB
Palo Alto Depot poles must be contextually
appropriate – minimize presence, not in front of
depot if possible
No response provided; no change in plans after 11/8
Locate the paralleling station near California Av Paralleling Station is proposed next to Park Plaza
2
Packet Pg. 10
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
ARB Summary
On November 15, 2018, there were no public speakers. The ARB provided input on screening
vegetation (asking JPB to provide additional, native species plants including shrubs), placement
of poles (with a note that center pole placement is preferred), finishes of poles and the
structures in the proposed paralleling station (no concurrence on color selection among the
range of paint colors displayed electronically, and thoughts shared about public art on the
paralleling station structure(s)). The ARB voted to have the JPB staff return to present actual
paint chips reflecting color options, and additional information about the various proposed pole
styles (including clarification about where tapered vs. non-tapered poles are proposed). ARB
member questions, comments and responses are provided in the below table.
ARB Comments Project Team Response
Screening vegetation – need more native trees
and shrubs
Staff will be able to review the 100% drawings to see
whether additional vegetation in JPB ROW is proposed
Pole placement, finishes need further review See below response to questions
Need color sample actual paint chips
(non-consensus on pole color)
Paint samples for poles and paralleling station will be
presented 1-10-19
Need information on pole styles – clarification
as to where tapered vs. non-tapered proposed
Caltrain will have technical staff in attendance to provide
more detailed information about pole types and
configurations.
ARB Questions Project Team Response
Why are the side poles preferred by Caltrain? Side poles are preferred by Caltrain for operations and
maintenance and considerations. This configuration allows
Caltrain to maintain revenue service if the poles or wires
were damaged or being maintained on the adjacent track.
When maintenance is required on a center pole, both tracks
have to be taken out of service, which has the potential to
impact Caltrain revenue service.
How will the painted poles be maintained? The poles will be added to the routine maintenance
program implemented by Caltrain. The paint has a 10 year
life cycle and poles will be painted as needed.
Will there be any unpainted (galvanized) poles
in Palo Alto?
No, all poles in Palo Alto are planned to be painted. Poles
outside of the station areas will be painted Marine Green
per Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
Poles within station areas will be painted per the City of Palo
Alto’s selection.
Is there a plan to replace lights at stations with
LEDs?
Caltrain is replacing station lights with newer LEDs
throughout the system as needed. There are no specific
plans to replace lights at the Palo Alto stations at this time.
Why is there barbed wire fencing along Alma? Caltrain has a program to install fencing along the Caltrain
right-of-way to deter and prevent trespassing. Caltrain, at
the request of the City, installed the additional three foot
extension along Alma Street.
2
Packet Pg. 11
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
Comprehensive Agreement
The Council Rail Committee’s recommendations included a proposal to delete Caltrain staff’s
term “courtesy” to describe the HRB and ARB review purview. The Council December 17, 2018
report regarding the Comprehensive Agreement (ID #9873) included the agreement, which
includes a Section 6, “General Commitments” Item N “Design Review”. Agreement Section 6
described the JPB’s agreements to:
“provide information regarding the following Project elements to the City for ARB
review and recommendation to the City Planning Director: (a) OCS Poles, including pole
design, color, location, and configuration (e.g. gull-wing versus standard design); (b)
Proposals for vegetation removal and plans for Project screening ;and (c) Paralleling
Station(s)”;
“provide information to the HRB regarding the final design of any Project elements or
features adjacent to, or with the potential to impact the historical resources specifically
identified in section (5)(C)(2),any other designated historical resources within the City.”
Agreement Section 5, “Extent of City Review of Issued for Construction Plans” states, “Since JPB
is exempt from local planning and building regulation, submittal of information and plans to the
City is for the purposes of a courtesy review only, with the exception of any required work that
alters or replaces City Improvements, in which case the City shall have 21 business days to
review the Issued for Construction Plans.” The December 17, 2018 Council report (ID #9873)
notes ,“Caltrain has agreed to remove the term “courtesy” from the description of their review
process with the City and its Boards.” On December 17, 2018, Council adopted the agreement
on consent, allowing three Councilmembers who requested to submit comments to submit
them to staff after the Council meeting.
Analysis1
Pole Types and Colors
The pole types were indicated on OCS Foundation and Pole Layouts plans, OCS Basic
Design Poles and Structures package provided in late 2018 to the ARB and HRB. None of
the poles are proposed within the City’s rights of way. Proposed pole color
recommendations are under consideration.
1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public
hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony
may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action
from the recommendation in this report.
2
Packet Pg. 12
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6
At the January 10, 2019 public hearing, the HRB and ARB will be able to view paint samples
showing several color options for the two train depots in Palo Alto, and for the Stadium
stop (near Town and Country Shopping Center). The project team will also present
additional information about the pole types and confirm the location of each type
(assuming the information is known at this stage).
Environmental Review
The earlier staff reports reported the CEQA status of the project.
Public Notification, Outreach & Comments
Notice of a joint public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on December 21,
2018 (28 days in advance of the meeting).
Public Comments
As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received (other than
Mr. Borock letter that was included in the November 15, 2018 ARB packet).
Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information
Amy French, AICP, 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: HRB Staff Report November 8, 2018 Without Attachments (DOC)
Attachment B: ARB Staff Report November 15, 2018 Without Attachments (DOC)
Attachment C: HRB Excerpt Minutes 11-8-18 (DOCX)
Attachment D: ARB Excerpt Minutes 11-15-18 (DOCX)
Attachment E: Memo Regarding Color Samples (ARB and HRB Members to Receive Hard
Copies) (DOCX)
2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
2
Packet Pg. 13
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report (ID # 9760)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/8/2018
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Overhead Contact
System
Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Historic Resources Board Input on Peninsula
Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) Overhead Contact
System Foundation & Pole Layouts Design for Installation
Within Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Right of
Way in Palo Alto. Environmental Assessment: The JPB Certified
the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Adopted a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) in January
2015, Following Publication of the Draft EIR in February 2014
for Public Comment.
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s):
1. Provide comments on the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) Overhead
Contact System (OCS) design for proposed pole and foundation installations in Caltrain
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) right of way.
Report Summary
The Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP), partly funded by the Federal Transit
Administration, is the conversion of Caltrain from diesel-hauled trains to electrically-powered
trains for service between San Francisco and San Jose. The OCS design is for improvements
only within the Caltrain Joint Powers Board (JPB) right of way. The City of Palo Alto does not
have permitting authority; therefore, this review is considered a courtesy review. The JPB has
agreed to accept and consider input from the City Council, with advice from the HRB and
Architectural Review Board (ARB). This report provides the HRB with information to enable
discussion and any input on the project for the JPB’s consideration.
2.a
Packet Pg. 14
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
The Caltrain Joint Powers Board (JPB) published the PCEP Draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) in February 2014 and Palo Alto City Council provided comments on the Draft EIR. In
January 2015, JPB certified the Final EIR with a statement of overriding considerations, and
adopted the mitigation monitoring and reporting plan (MMRP). The PCEP webpage containing
multiple environmental review document links is viewable here:
http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/Modernization/PeninsulaCorrid
orElectrificationProject/PCEP_FEIR_2014.html. The PCEP Final EIR disclosed ‘permanent visual
alterations’ from the project, along with other impacts.
Foundation work for the poles is anticipated to begin in March 2019 or thereafter. JPB staff
stated that there are remedies if the contractor fails to follow the EIR mitigation measures; staff
can issue a Statement of Objection to require the contractor to fix any work that has been done
incorrectly. JPB staff committed to considering input from Palo Alto boards, as designs move
beyond the current plan set, which reflects 65% completion. The JPB will enter into an
agreement with Palo Alto; a draft agreement was considered by the Rail Committee on
September 26, 2018 (included in Attachment A, also viewable here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=60164.71&BlobID=66798).
The agreement is tentatively scheduled to be approved by City Council on November 27, 2018.
The historic resources within the project area in Palo Alto are San Francisquito Bridge, El Palo
Alto Tree, Palo Alto Southern Pacific Railroad Depot (95 University Avenue), University Avenue
Underpass, Embarcadero Underpass, and Greenmeadow Neighborhood. The PCEP EIR cites
these resources, impacts thereto, and mitigation measures. Content from the EIR are
excerpted in this report.
Background
Project Location and Design Build Input Request
The Palo Alto segment (Segment 3, work areas 2 and 1) of the PCEP involves real property and
fixtures between milepost (MP) 29.7 and 33.6 (JPB Right-of-Way). Along this corridor there are
four at-grade vehicular crossings, located at: Alma Avenue, Churchill Avenue, East Meadow
Drive, and Charleston Road. In February 2015, the JPB issued the PCEP design-build request for
proposals to engage a design-build contractor; in July 2016, the JPB awarded the contract to
Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. (BBII). JPB/BBII provided Palo Alto staff with plans at “65%
completion” for the OCS pole layouts and system foundation design. The plans are provided to
the HRB in hard copy (and a link to plans and other Caltrain provided documents is noted on
Attachment G). The JPB and BBII request comments on the OCS design within Palo Alto; the
comments or input will be considered and potentially addressed in subsequent design
packages. No City action is to be taken on the project, aside from Council action on the
Comprehensive Agreement between Palo Alto and the JPB that is currently being drafted.
2.a
Packet Pg. 15
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
EIR and Cultural Resources Impacts
The EIR chapter describing the setting, impacts, and mitigation measures is viewable here:
http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/FEIR/3.4+Cultural.pdf. The
Final EIR also included a Cultural Resources Programmatic Agreement, viewable here:
http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/FEIR/App+E+Cultural+Reso
urces.pdf. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is viewable here:
http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Electrification+Documents/
MMRP.pdf. Within Palo Alto, the project will impact the intersections at Alma/Sand Hill Road
(#64), Meadow/Alma (#63), Churchill/Alma (#66), and Charleston/Alma (#68).
The EIR Cultural Resources chapter addresses the cited historic resources - San Francisquito
Bridge, El Palo Alto Tree, Palo Alto Southern Pacific Depot, University Avenue Underpass,
Embarcadero Underpass, and the Greenmeadow Neighborhood. The Depot and Greenmeadow
Tract are on the National Register of Historic Places. El Palo Alto is designated as California
Landmark #2. The others are Eligible for the National Register. Staff collected images
(Attachment B) of the Palo Alto historic resources disclosed in the certified EIR, and attached
copies of available historic resources inventory forms and evaluations (Attachment C). The
following images show JPB ownership from Everett to Churchill Avenues, where all EIR-cited
Palo Alto historic resources, except Greenmeadow, are located.
Electrification Project General Description
The project includes installation of facility improvements, including overhead catenary wires,
support poles, traction power facilities, and other appurtenances necessary to convert service
from the existing diesel-locomotive driven trains to Electric Multiple Units (EMUs). EMUs are
self-propelled electric trains that do not have a separate locomotive. EMUs can accelerate and
2.a
Packet Pg. 16
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
decelerate at faster rates than diesel-powered trains, even with longer trains. With EMUs,
Caltrain can run longer trains without degrading speeds, thus increasing peak-period capacity.
This will support operations of up to six Caltrain trains per peak hour per direction (an increase
from 5 trains per peak hour per direction at present). Electrification of the rail line is scheduled
to be operational by 2020 or 2021. The project includes operating 114 trains per day between
San Jose and San Francisco and six trains per day between Gilroy and San Jose.
Overhead Contact System Description
Approximately 130 to 140 single-track miles of Overhead Contact System (“OCS”) will be
installed for the distribution of electrical power to the new electric rolling stock (trains). The
OCS would be powered from a 25 kilovolt (kV), 60 Hertz (Hz), single-phase, alternating current
(“AC”) traction power system consisting of the following Traction Power Facilities (“TPF”): two
Traction Power Substations, one Switching Station and seven Paralleling Stations. The OCS
poles are typically about 180 to 200 feet apart. On curved sections, the span lengths between
supports must be reduced. The OCS poles are to be placed approximately nine to 11 feet from
the centerline of the tracks. Associated with the OCS, an electric safety zone to adjacent
vegetation is needed. This electric safety zone distance is approximately 10 feet from the face
of the OCS pole.
Palo Alto-Specific Project Description
The following documents are attached to this report:
Pole Schedule (Attachment D);
Letter from Balfour Beatty (Attachment E);
City Stations Pole Color Recommendations (Attachment F); and
OCS Foundation and Pole Layouts Segment 3 Drawings (Attachment G provides a link).
The project includes the following components in Palo Alto:
1. OCS poles. Installation of foundations, poles and appurtenances along the 3.9 mile section of
JPB Right-of-Way within the City.
2. Stringing wire for OCS. Installation of OCS wires using different support systems (i.e., two-
track cantilever brackets, side or center cantilever brackets) depending upon the track
segment’s exact configuration and other site-specific requirements and constraints, as
determined by the DB Contractor, and consistent with Mitigation Measure AES-2b to provide
aesthetic treatment for OCS structures. Examples of the various structures are depicted in the
"Project Description" portion of the FEIR (Section 2.3.1). This activity may necessitate
temporary road closures.
3. Paralleling Station. Paralleling Station 5 would be constructed within the JPB ROW south of
Page Mill Road. The location of this facility is shown in Exhibit B as “Paralleling Station 5 (PS-5).”
The JPB will be submitting the Paralleling Station plans in 2019, but comments are requested
now on the location. A “Paralleling Station” means a type of traction power facility that helps
2.a
Packet Pg. 17
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
boost the Overhead Contact System voltage and reduce running rail return current by means of
an autotransformer. The JPB notes the paralleling station will be shifting a few hundred feet
north of the shown location.
4. Staging areas. During the Project, JPB and its DB Contractor intend to use staging areas
within the JPB ROW as identified in the FEIR, which are located along the west side of the JPB
ROW both north and south of Alma Street, and between W. Meadow Drive and W. Charleston
Drive along the west side of the JPB ROW.
Pole Types and Colors
The pole types are indicated on OCS Foundation and Pole Layouts plans, OCS Basic Design
Poles and Structures package. None of the poles are proposed within the City’s rights of
way. Proposed pole color recommendations are under consideration. The HRB and ARB are
invited to comment on several color options, noted below, for the two train depots in Palo
Alto, and for the Stadium stop (near Town and Country Center).
Discussion
Council Comments on Draft EIR
On April 21, 2014, Council discussed and approved a draft comment letter from the City of Palo
Alto on the Draft EIR. The purpose of the Final EIR is to address or provide responses to the
Draft EIR comments. Council had modified the comment letter (draft viewable here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/40017) with these changes
(annotated by staff to reflect a change related to a historic resource):
1) take a look at ridership estimates up and down the peninsula,
2) use clear and demonstrative language shall (word change from should),
3) address the future impacts of High Speed Rail,
4) add centerfold alternative, support for the Catenary system in the middle,
5) give further attention to appropriate procedures for trimming trees,
6) address protection of El Palo Alto tree,
7) analyze affects if the California Supreme Court rules to end High Speed Rail,
8) to evaluate fixed location/wayside horns to reduce noise impacts,
9) make grade separation language stronger and not lost within point on,
10) any discussion of grade separation should ensure that the electrification project would not
preclude potential improvements to the corridor, and
11) all opportunities created for additional pedestrian access should emphasize safety for the
public.
2.a
Packet Pg. 18
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6
Environmental Impact Report and Historic Resources
The Palo Alto historic resources are discussed (along with other cities’ resources) in the PCEP
Final EIR. Table 3.4-2 reflects listed historic properties for the purposes of CEQA, as well as
registered historic properties. The content in italics (description and approved mitigations
below the table excerpt) was taken from the Final EIR regarding these properties.
Excerpt of Table 3.42 Historic Properties (To Show Registered/ Listed Palo Alto Properties)
(1) San Francisquito Bridge
Final EIR content: “The installation of the power system supports on this historically significant
bridge could result in significant adverse impacts. San Francisquito Bridge, a steel through-truss
bridge, is eligible under Criterion 1 for its association with the image and development of Palo
Alto in the 20th century, and under Criterion 3 for being the only significant steel bridge in Palo
Alto and a distinctive example of an important standard type of truss bridge. Substantial
alteration of the bridge structure could be a significant impact. With implementation of
Mitigation Measure CUL-1d, the historic resource would not be altered other than the small
clearance holes, and the cables would be suspended above and parallel to the existing railroad
line. Thus, with mitigation there would be no significant impact on the characteristics of the
bridge that make it appear to meet the criteria for listing in the CRHR.”
Note that, in addition to eligibility for California Register, this bridge is National Register Eligible
under Criterion A and also Criterion C (in that the property embodies the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a
master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable
entity whose components may lack individual distinction.)
(2) El Palo Alto
Final EIR content: “A large ancient redwood tree, known as “El Palo Alto,” is located adjacent to
the Caltrain ROW in 9 Palo Alto. The tree has been recognized through at least three historic
preservation programs, both locally and statewide, and is identified as California State Historic
Landmark #2, a State Point of Historic Interest, and City of Palo Alto Heritage Tree #1. The state
landmark status (Landmark #2) was conferred in 1954. Because SHPO did not develop specific
uniform standards for landmark designation until well after many resources had been identified,
landmarks with a number lower than 770 and recognized as state historic landmarks prior to
1998 are not considered to have been evaluated for the CRHR. Nevertheless, the tree is
described as follows in SHPO's published list of state landmarks: “Portola Journey’s End. In 1769
the Portola expedition of 63 men and 200 horses and mules camped near El Palo Alto, the tall
2.a
Packet Pg. 19
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7
tree. They had traveled from San Diego in search of Monterey but discovered instead the Bay of
San Francisco. In 1974, the tree was designated as State Point of Historic Interest #SCL-026, in
recognition of its local significance” (Office of Historic Preservation 2014). A City of Palo Alto
press release states that the tree is estimated to be more than 1,000 years old and more than
110 feet high (San Jose Mercury News 2004).”
Final EIR content: “The tree trunk is located outside of the electrical safety zone, and all power
system supports would be attached to the adjacent San Francisquito Bridge. However, as
described in Section 3.3, Biological Resources, minor pruning would be necessary to keep tree
branches out of the San Francisquito Bridge truss which is similar to current tree maintenance
practices. Mitigation Measure BIO-5, Section 3.3, Biological Resources, requires a Tree
Avoidance, Minimization, and Replacement Plan (including specific attention to minimization of
effects on El Palo Alto) will be developed by a certified arborist in consultation with each
jurisdiction’s arborist (e.g., the City of Palo Alto Urban Forester in this case). Thus, the impacts
on this resource would be reduced to a less than significant level.”
In the Biological resources section of the Final EIR, this note appears regarding El Palo Alto:
“Special care will be taken to minimize construction period effects on El Palo Alto including
minimization of any pruning. Pruning of El Palo Alto, if necessary, will be coordinated with the
City of Palo Alto arborist, in advance.”
Note that, in addition to being California Landmark #2, El Palo Alto is Palo Alto’s Heritage Tree
#1. The City Council report supporting the local designation of El Palo Alto included an arborist
report, viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/9611.
(3) Palo Alto Station, MP 30.10 (Built 1940)
Final EIR content: “The 1996 NRHP and CRHR listing of the Palo Alto Station name two buildings
and two objects as the historic property. The property is an example of the Streamline Modern
style of architecture, listed under Criterion 3/C. The historic structures are both east and west of
the tracks (confirm). Poles and OCS would be installed near the current location of the historic
station. To avoid a potentially significant impact, Mitigation Measure CUL-1d includes specific
design commitments. With mitigation, the installation of poles in these locations would have no
adverse a less-than-significant impact on the attributes that make the Palo Alto Station eligible
for listing in the NRHP and the CRHR, and none of the resources listed in the nomination would
be directly affected by the installation of the poles. Only the setting of the tracks would be
slightly affected, in that the poles would be installed between the sets of tracks, and would
extend over them, at this location. This, however, is a less-than-significant impact.”
Note that the Palo Alto Southern Pacific Railroad Depot is also a Local Historic Resources
Inventory Category 1. The Final EIR includes a mitigation measure (MM) CUL-1d) intended to
address impacts anticipated impact from pole placements:
MM CUL-1d: Implement design commitments at historic railroad stations
“Palo Alto Station: Side poles shall not be placed in front of or within 40 feet of historic
station on the west side of the Caltrain ROW. Given the separation between MT1 and MT2,
2.a
Packet Pg. 20
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8
single center poles are not Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project EIR 3.4-25 December
2014 ICF 00606.12 Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Settings, Impacts, and Mitigation
Measures Cultural Resources feasible. Thus, to minimize visual impacts on the property,
single pole/cantilevers will be placed in the median between MT1 and MT2. Additionally,
prior to the installation of the OCS, the station will be recorded to HABS level III standards
from the track side of the building, from the opposite platform.”
(4) University Avenue Underpass and (5) Embarcadero Underpass
Final EIR content: “The University Avenue Underpass, built between 1939 and 1941, is
significant under CRHR and NRHP Criterion 1/A for its association with the transformation of
Palo Alto’s transportation core, and is central to the redesign of University Avenue as it
intersected two of the most historically important transportation corridors between San
Francisco and San Jose: Southern Pacific’s Coast Line and El Camino Real/U.S. Highway 101. The
Embarcadero Underpass, constructed in 1939 as part of the government’s grade separation
program, is eligible under CRHR and NRHP Criterion 1/A. The installation of the power system
supports on these historically significant bridges could result in significant adverse impacts. To
avoid a potentially significant impact, Mitigation Measure CUL-1d includes specific design
commitments. Under this mitigation measure, the cables would be suspended above and
parallel to the existing line and there would be no impact on historic fabric of these bridges, nor
would the placement of the poles alter the use of or character-defining features of these
underpasses that make them appear to meet the criteria for listing in the CRHR and NRHP.
Additionally, the immediate vicinities of the underpasses have already been altered, so the
addition of the power systems would not impact the bridges’ settings.”
The ‘specific design commitments’ (underlined in the above paragraph) include these
statements: “Power cables shall be suspended parallel to and above the University Avenue
Underpass. The poles in this configuration shall be set at the side of the track they power. No
poles shall be set on the bridges themselves.”
The National Register Eligible University Avenue Underpass, aka HP19 Bridge, is eligible under
Criterion A (in that the property is associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of our history). The Final EIR includes a mitigation measure
(MM) CUL-1f) intended to address the impact:
MM CUL-1f: Implement historic bridge/underpass design requirements
“This mitigation measure addresses the approach to installing Proposed Project facilities at nine
historic bridges/underpasses to ensure that the power system supports are not attached to the
historic fabric of these bridges/underpasses and avoid adverse impacts on their historic integrity
and visual appearance. All modifications will be completed following the Secretary of the
Interior’s standards for the treatment of historic properties.”
(6) Greenmeadow Neighborhood, Palo Alto
Final EIR content: “The Greenmeadow Neighborhood in Palo Alto is a residential district listed
on the NRHP on July 28, 2005. Greenmeadow consists of 243 single-family homes and one
2.a
Packet Pg. 21
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9
community center complex of two buildings and one swimming pool. The subdivision was
developed by Eichler Homes, Inc. between 1954 and 1955. The single-story homes, designed by
architects A. Quincy Jones and Frederick Emmons, have three or four bedrooms, two bathrooms,
and attached garages. The homes are designed in a mid-century modern style and were built
with a slab-on-grade post-and-beam construction. The designs emphasize privacy on the
relatively blank street facades and openness to the rear with floor-to-ceiling, wall-to-wall plate
glass windows. The district was listed at the state level of significance under Criterion C in the
area of architecture as an excellent example of Joseph Eichler’s mid-century modern subdivision
housing in California. Eichler made a significant contribution in the area of modern home design
and innovative construction methods. Working closely (and alternately) with architects Anshen
and Allen, and Jones and Emmons, Eichler wished to offer middle-class families high-quality,
contemporary design in an affordable production house. Greenmeadow is an excellent example
of Joseph Eichler’s contribution to mid-century residential modernism and the California
suburban environment. When Eichler developed Greenmeadow in 1953, he had already built
hundreds of lower priced, architect-designed homes in more than a dozen subdivisions on the
Peninsula. With Greenmeadow, Eichler decided to move up the price range and tap into the
growing market for larger houses with more amenities (California Office of Historic
Preservation). The community was designed with an inwardly oriented street pattern for
security and to discourage through traffic. The district is bounded by Nelson Drive, El Capitan
Place, Adobe Place, and Creekside Drive.”
Final EIR content: Paralleling Station 5 (PS-5), Option 1 is proposed between the railroad and
Alma Avenue, outside of the district boundaries; it therefore it has no potential to directly
impact the historic district. The proposed PS5, Option 1 would be opposite the entrance to
Greenmeadow Way, which leads into the district; the residences on Alma Avenue, opposite the
proposed PS5, Option 1, are not included in the NRHP district (the closest residences within the
historic district are approximately 250 feet east of Alma Street). This paralleling station would
not diminish the historic character-defining features of the historic district by introducing a
visual change to the district. PS5, Option 1 would be visible only by individuals leaving the
historic district by way of Greenmeadow Way. The closest homes in the district to the proposed
paralleling station are oriented facing Creekside Drive, opposite from Alma Avenue; the homes
on the second block of Creekside Drive face each other and not toward the proposed PS5, Option
1. Continuing northeast on Creekside Drive is the Thomas Church-designed park with its
community center, a significant distance from the proposed PS-5, Option 1. This is not the main
entrance to the center, but a footpath. The mature landscaping of this area of the community
center further blocks any potential visual impact. Therefore the Proposed Project would have no
impact on this historic resource. PS5, Option 1B is approximately 500 feet south of the nearest
part of the historic Greenmeadow neighborhood and would not be visible from within the
neighborhood and would not affect views of any part of the historic neighborhood.”
Pole Schedule Considerations
In addition to a plan set, the JPB staff provided a ‘Pole Schedule’ (Attachment D) reflecting pole
types and foundation sizes to be used. The submitted schedule appears to conflict with the
2.a
Packet Pg. 22
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10
nomenclature on the plans provided to date (and therefore, notes about poles used are in
reference to the plan notes). JPB staff intends to provide an explanation of design
considerations for the pole design. Considerations for pole designs include (1) Utilities, (2)
Operations and maintenance – outside (double) poles allow a robust system, and (3) Avoiding
significant impacts to vegetation. Spacing between the poles is also a consideration, as is the
foundation design for the poles at the stations.
It appears that double poles are proposed in most locations, but single poles are proposed at
the Palo Alto Depot. The JPB staff noted that a distance of 21 feet is needed between tracks in
order to have a center, single pole. Palo Alto staff asked JPB staff to consider increasing the
center pole use, as aesthetically superior option. JPB will study whether the tracks are too
narrow to use a single center pole in some locations. This center pole feasibility evaluation will
help the JPB to understand cost and schedule implications. If center poles were considered in
each case, but proved to be technically infeasible, Palo Alto would seek a written explanation to
share with the public. Staff anticipates that, from aesthetics and tree preservation standpoints,
a single pole design in the center of the tracks would be preferable. However, double poles
minimize the risk of failure in case of a ‘knockdown’ so these are preferred to be used, where
possible, by the JPB.
Below left is an image of a centered, single pole. Below middle is an image of double poles –
one on each side of the tracks. Below right is a cantilever structure with a long reach.
Below left images of the ‘long reach cantilever’ show dimensions (30 feet from the cantilever to
the base plate of the foundation for the pole, with another 13’10” to the part of the pole on
which the wire or wires would be attached to support the cantilever at a point 26 feet from the
pole). Below right image is of the portal type of pole (with a horizontal beam stretching across
three tracks.
2.a
Packet Pg. 23
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11
The plans indicate four series of pole types:
WF = Wide Flange design of different types,
TT = Tapered Tubular (single cantilever pole, or center pole with two cantilevers)
SQ = Square Tube design of different types, and
PW1 = Wide Flange Portal extending over three tracks.
Staff tallied the height and number of each pole type in the project in Palo Alto shown in plans.
The pole heights as shown on the plans and schedule range from 32 feet up to 45.5 feet:
WF-1 (32’ tall - 58 poles –single cantilever), WF-3 (32’ tall – 3 poles, single cantilever or
center pole with two cantilevers), WF-4A (45.5’ tall - 5 poles, long reach cantilever), WF-5
(32’ tall - 11 poles, single cantilever), WF-7 (32’ tall - 9 poles, single cantilever)
TT: TT-1 (32’ tall – 20 poles), TT-1A (35’ tall – 4 poles), TT-3A (35’ tall – 9 poles), TT-4 (32’ tall
– 10 poles), TT-4A (35’ tall – 6 poles)
SQ series: SQ-1 (45.4’ tall - 2 poles),SQ-3 (32’ tall -12 poles), SQ-8 (45.5’ tall – 3 poles), SQ-
9A (35’ tall – 24 poles), SQ-9B (38’ tall – 4 poles), SQ-11B (38’ tall – 2 poles)
PW-1 (34’ tall, only two of these three-track portals are proposed; one approximately 350
feet north of El Dorado Avenue and the other approximately 120 feet north of El Dorado
Avenue).
The JPB representatives stated that a 75’ tall pole type will be needed at six or seven locations
and that this is related to undetermined timing of utilities undergrounding, so installation of
these taller poles would have a separate timeline from the other poles. Below images show the
proposal beginning at about 250 feet north of Palo Alto Avenue and ending approximately 800
feet south of the Palo Alto Depot.
Shunt Wire
When there is a crossing wire underground, the project will not need a shunt wire. But there
are cases where the overhead wire would conflict and a shunt wire is needed. For instance,
there are power lines for service to residences stretching over Alma and the railroad tracks. The
City is looking to underground these, but this is a separate project with a separate timeline.
2.a
Packet Pg. 24
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12
Tree Impacts
The City is in conversation with JPB regarding significant removals proposed within the JPB right
of way in Palo Alto. The JPB plans to post tree removal notification prior to work and has
provided Palo Alto with a tree removal plan showing the number of trees to be removed
outside the JPB right of way, and a timeline for removals. Some work has already recently
occurred at the path behind Palo Alto High School – oaks within the JPB right of way were
removed. A small number of oaks and other trees are also proposed to be removed outside JPB
right of way. Staging plans are anticipated to be submitted prior to Council input.
El Palo Alto
Tree protection is especially important for El Palo Alto, a California Landmark and local Heritage
Tree. El Palo Alto’s trunk is located approximately 25 feet from the train tracks. The project
plans show two of the OCS 36-inch foundations and poles less than 100 feet from the El Palo
Alto Redwood (the closer foundation and pole is 49 feet away, on the west side of the train
tracks). There are constraints presented by the location of the tree, the San Francisquito Creek
bridge trestle, and the Palo Alto Avenue grade crossing. Palo Alto’s Urban Forester initially
requested a 100 foot buffer from El Palo Alto. Palo Alto and JPB staff are working on
Comprehensive Agreement language to provide the maximum feasible protection for El Palo
Alto, including minimizing unnecessary work and staging within 100 feet, and ensuring that Palo
Alto staff will be able to observe the work near El Palo Alto, and that Caltrain staff with
authority over the contractor will be available.
Environmental Review
In 2009, the JPB completed the PCEP Final Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact
Report for the Project. Based upon that document, the Federal Transit Administration issued a
Finding of No Significant Impact in 2009, which completed the federal environmental review for
the Project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
On January 31, 2013, JPB issued a Notice of Preparation of an EIR and, in February, 2014, issued
a Draft EIR for a 60-day comment period ending April 29, 2014. A Final EIR was issued in
December 2014. On January 8, 2015, pursuant to Resolution No. 2015-03, the JPB certified
conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to the extent that it is
applicable to the Project, and certified the Project’s Final EIR. On January 8, 2015, pursuant to
Resolution No. 2015-04, the JPB adopted CEQA findings of fact, a statement of overriding
considerations, and the MMRP. The Final EIR notes: “Permanent visual alterations would
result from the Proposed Project, comprising the introduction of poles and wires, and TPFs.
Additionally, trees and mature vegetation would be removed and pruned. Some trees and
vegetation would not be replaced on-site, resulting in a physical and aesthetic permanent
change in certain locations. As documented in Section 3.1, Aesthetics, these physical changes
would alter views from residential or business areas in various locations along the corridor, but
2.a
Packet Pg. 25
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13
they would not significantly obscure a scenic view or vista. However, even with mitigation,
some local visual character would be permanently altered.”
Public Notification, Outreach & Comments
A notice for the HRB meeting was sent to the Daily Post for publication on October 27, 2018.
No additional outreach has been undertaken by City staff. Attachment G to this report
provides links to Caltrain webpages regarding outreach and other project information. On
August 28, 2018, at the Lucie Stern Community Center, a community meeting was held
regarding Caltrain Electrification. The event advertisement provided this link:
http://calmod.org/event/.
Next Steps
The Architectural Review Board is scheduled to conduct a hearing to provide input on the
project on November 15, 2018. Council is scheduled to consider the Comprehensive
Agreement on November 26, 2018.
Report Author & Contact Information HRB1 Liaison & Contact Information
Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official
(650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2336
amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Attachment A: Draft PCEP Agreement within Rail Committee Report (PDF)
Attachment B Historical Resources Images (DOCX)
Attachment C1: Historic Resources Evaluations (Part 1 SP Depot DPR) (PDF)
Attachment C2: HRE (Part 2: SPPR Bridge - San Francisquito Creek) (PDF)
Attachment C3: HRE (Part 3: University Avenue Underpass) (PDF)
Attachment C4: HRE (Part 4: Embarcadero Underpass) (PDF)
Attachment D: Pole Schedule (PDF)
Attachment E: Balfour Beatty Letter for City Review (DOCX)
Attachment F: OCS Color Pole Options for Passenger Station (PDF)
Attachment G: Page of Links to Plans and Project Information (DOCX)
1 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org
2.a
Packet Pg. 26
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report (ID # 9759)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/15/2018
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Overhead Contact
System
Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Architectural Review Board Input on
Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) Overhead
Contact System Foundation & Pole Layouts Design for
Installation Within Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers
Board (JPB) Right of Way in Palo Alto. Environmental
Assessment: The JPB Certified the Final Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) and Adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan (MMRP) in January 2015, Following Publication
of the Draft EIR in February 2014 for Public Comment. For
More Information Contact the Chief Planning Official Amy
French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s):
1. Provide comments on the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) Overhead
Contact System (OCS) design for proposed pole and foundation installations in Caltrain
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) right of way.
Report Summary
The Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP), partly funded by the Federal Transit
Administration, is the conversion of Caltrain from diesel-hauled trains to electrically-powered
trains for service between San Francisco and San Jose. The OCS design is for improvements
only within the Caltrain Joint Powers Board (JPB) right of way. The City of Palo Alto does not
have permitting authority; therefore, this review is considered a courtesy review. The JPB has
agreed to accept and consider input from the City Council, with advice from the ARB and
Historic Resources Board (HRB). This report provides the ARB with information to enable
discussion and any input on the project for the JPB’s consideration.
2.b
Packet Pg. 27
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
The Caltrain Joint Powers Board (JPB) published the PCEP Draft Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) in February 2014 and Palo Alto City Council provided comments on the Draft EIR. In
January 2015, JPB certified the Final EIR with a statement of overriding considerations, and
adopted the mitigation monitoring and reporting plan (MMRP, viewable here:
http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/Electrification+Documents/
MMRP.pdf). The PCEP webpage containing environmental review document links is here:
http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/Modernization/PeninsulaCorrid
orElectrificationProject/PCEP_FEIR_2014.html. The PCEP Final EIR disclosed ‘permanent visual
alterations’ from the project, along with other impacts.
Foundation work for the poles is anticipated to begin in March 2019 or thereafter. JPB staff
stated that there are remedies if the contractor fails to follow the EIR mitigation measures; staff
can issue a Statement of Objection to require the contractor to fix any work that has been done
incorrectly. JPB staff committed to considering input from Palo Alto boards, as designs move
beyond the current plan set, which reflects 65% completion. The JPB will enter into an
agreement with Palo Alto; a draft agreement was considered by the Rail Committee on
September 26, 2018 (included in Attachment A, also viewable here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=60164.71&BlobID=66798).
The agreement is tentatively scheduled to be approved by City Council on November 26, 2018.
On November 1, 2018, the ARB members received the HRB staff report for this project
(https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67562) containing information
about historical resources, links to and excerpts taken from the Final EIR Cultural Resources
chapter and Cultural Resources Programmatic Agreement. Links to cultural resources
documents are not repeated again in this ARB staff report focused on aesthetics. Staff will
provide a summary of comments provided during the HRB hearing of November 8, 2018 and
excerpt HRB meeting minutes will be at ARB member places if they are available.
Background
Project Information
Owner: Caltrain JPB
Architect: Balfour Beatty Infrastructure Inc.
Representative: Stacy Cocke
Property Information
Address: Palo Alto Southern Pacific Depot address is 95 University
California Avenue Depot address is 101 California Avenue
Note: Caltrain JPB Corridor has no address
Neighborhood: Northern City boundary to southern City boundary
Protected/Heritage
Trees:
El Palo Alto
Historic Resource(s): San Francisquito Bridge
El Palo Alto Tree
2.b
Packet Pg. 28
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
Palo Alto Southern Pacific Depot
University Avenue Underpass
Embarcadero Underpass
Greenmeadow Neighborhood
Existing
Improvement(s):
Train depots and tracks, primarily; Sprint facility near 195 Page Mill
Existing Land Use(s): Public Transportation
Adjacent Land Uses &
Zoning:
Public Facilities
Prior City Reviews & Action
City Council: 4-21-14; Council discussed and approved comment letter on the Draft
EIR. The draft letter is viewable here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/40017
Council approved the letter with the following changes:
1) taking a look at ridership estimates up and down the peninsula,
2) clear and demonstrative language (should to shall), and 3) the future impacts of
High Speed Rail,
3) add centerfold alternative, support for the Catenary system in the middle,
4) further attention to appropriate procedures for trimming trees,
5) protection of El Palo Alto tree,
6) analyze affects if the California Supreme Court rules to end High Speed Rail,
7) to evaluate fixed location/wayside horns to reduce noise impacts,
8) make grade separation language stronger and not lost within point on,
9) any discussion of grade separation should ensure that the electrification project
would not preclude potential improvements to the corridor, and
10) all opportunities created for additional pedestrian access should emphasize
safety for the public.
PTC: None
HRB: November 8, 2018
ARB: None
Project Location and Design Build Input Request
The Palo Alto segment (Segment 3, work areas 2 and 1) of the PCEP involves real property and
fixtures between milepost (MP) 29.7 and 33.6 (JPB Right-of-Way). Along this corridor there are
four at-grade vehicular crossings, located at: Alma Avenue, Churchill Avenue, East Meadow
Drive, and Charleston Road. In February 2015, the JPB issued the PCEP design-build request for
proposals to engage a design-build contractor; in July 2016, the JPB awarded the contract to
Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. (BBII). JPB/BBII provided Palo Alto staff with plans at “65%
completion” for the OCS pole layouts and system foundation design. The plans are provided to
the HRB in hard copy (and a link to plans and other Caltrain provided documents is noted on
Attachment G). The JPB and BBII request comments on the OCS design within Palo Alto; the
comments or input will be considered and potentially addressed in subsequent design
packages. No City action is to be taken on the project, aside from Council action on the
Comprehensive Agreement between Palo Alto and the JPB that is currently being drafted.
Historic Resources Board Report
2.b
Packet Pg. 29
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
The staff report for the November 8, 2018 HRB meeting contained excerpts from the Final EIR
Cultural Resources chapter and information about the following historic resources in Palo Alto
within the project area: San Francisquito Bridge, El Palo Alto Tree, Palo Alto Southern Pacific
Depot, University Avenue Underpass, Embarcadero Underpass, and the Greenmeadow
Neighborhood. The below images show JPB ownership from Everett Avenue to Churchill
Avenue, where historic resources cited in the Final EIR are located (except Greenmeadow).
Electrification Project General Description
The project includes installation of facility improvements, including overhead catenary wires,
support poles, traction power facilities, and other appurtenances necessary to convert service
from the existing diesel-locomotive driven trains to Electric Multiple Units (EMUs). EMUs are
self-propelled electric trains that do not have a separate locomotive. EMUs can accelerate and
decelerate at faster rates than diesel-powered trains, even with longer trains. With EMUs,
Caltrain can run longer trains without degrading speeds, thus increasing peak-period capacity.
This will support operations of up to six Caltrain trains per peak hour per direction (an increase
from five trains per peak hour per direction at present). Electrification of the rail line is
scheduled to be operational by 2020 or 2021. The project includes operating 114 trains per day
between San Jose and San Francisco and six trains per day between Gilroy and San Jose.
Overhead Contact System Description
Approximately 130 to 140 single-track miles of Overhead Contact System (OCS) will be installed
for the distribution of electrical power to the new electric rolling stock (trains). The OCS would
be powered from a 25 kilovolt (kV), 60 Hertz (Hz), single-phase, alternating current (AC) traction
power system consisting of the following Traction Power Facilities (TPF): two Traction Power
Substations, one Switching Station and seven Paralleling Stations. The OCS poles are typically
about 180 to 200 feet apart. On curved sections, the span lengths between supports must be
2.b
Packet Pg. 30
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
reduced. The OCS poles are to be placed approximately nine to 11 feet from the centerline of
the tracks. Associated with the OCS, an electric safety zone to adjacent vegetation is needed.
This electric safety zone distance is approximately 10 feet from the face of the OCS pole.
Note: In Palo Alto, only one TPF is proposed – a Paralleling Station, designed to help boost the
Overhead Contact System voltage and reduce running rail return current by means of an
autotransformer.
Palo Alto-Specific Project Description
The project in Palo Alto includes the following components:
1. OCS poles. Installation of foundations, poles and appurtenances along the 3.9 mile section of
JPB Right-of-Way within the City.
2. Stringing wire for OCS. Installation of OCS wires using different support systems (i.e., two-
track cantilever brackets, side or center cantilever brackets) depending upon the track
segment’s exact configuration and other site-specific requirements and constraints, as
determined by the DB Contractor, and consistent with Mitigation Measure AES-2b to provide
aesthetic treatment for OCS structures. Examples of the various structures are depicted in the
"Project Description" portion of the FEIR (Section 2.3.1). This activity may necessitate
temporary road closures.
3. Paralleling Station. Paralleling Station 5 would be constructed within the JPB ROW south of
Page Mill Road. The location of this facility is shown in Exhibit B as “Paralleling Station 5 (PS-5).”
The JPB will be submitting the Paralleling Station plans in 2019, but comments are requested
now on the location. The JPB notes the paralleling station will be shifting a few hundred feet
north of the shown location.
4. Staging areas. During the Project, JPB and its DB Contractor intend to use staging areas
within the JPB ROW as identified in the FEIR, which are located along the west side of the JPB
ROW both north and south of Alma Street, and between W. Meadow Drive and W. Charleston
Drive along the west side of the JPB ROW.
Pole Types and Colors
The pole types are indicated on OCS Foundation and Pole Layouts plans, OCS Basic Design
Poles and Structures package. None of the poles are proposed within the City’s rights of
way. Proposed pole color recommendations are under consideration. The ARB are invited
to comment on several color options, noted below, for the two train depots in Palo Alto,
and for the Stadium stop (near Town and Country Shopping Center). See also Attachment
C.
2.b
Packet Pg. 31
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6
Caltrain and City Webpages on Related Caltrain Topics
The staff report for the November 8th HRB meeting included links to Caltrain documents
regarding Caltrains’ future fleet of Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) trains, Caltrain’s
implementation of safety improvements at several crossings, and the sustainability of Caltrain,
as well as links to several newspaper articles.
Final EIR Aesthetics Chapter Policy Document References
The Final EIR Aesthetics chapter cites several (then-relevant) Palo Alto policy documents
including the 1998 Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study.
Comprehensive Plan Policies: Policies cited include L-69 (Preserve scenic qualities of Palo
Alto roads and trails..), and L-79 (Design public infrastructure to meet high quality urban
design standards, look for opportunities to use art and artists in design, and remove or
mitigate elements of existing infrastructure that are unsightly or visually disruptive).
The chapter also cites the 1998 Plan’s Goal N-3 regarding a thriving urban forest.
Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study: The chapter includes discussion of the Palo Alto Rail
Corridor Study (PARCS) vision and its focus on the high speed rail project, noting the
PARCS vision and notes about out how the study area is the historic core of Palo Alto.
The chapter conveys the PARCS’s recommendation the project consider improvements
that “go beyond simple mitigation of impacts on historic and natural resources” and
even “correct past mistakes and restore the resource and its setting to the extent
possible”. The chapter cites PARCS recommendations for (1) landscape improvements
and addition of street trees, and (2) protecting El Palo Alto redwood, San Francisquito
Creek, the Palo Alto Depot and Hostess house building, as well as residential
neighborhoods.
Final EIR Impacts and Overriding Considerations
With EIR Certification, the JPB Board of Directors adopted Overriding Considerations which
allowed the project to move ahead even though there will be ‘significant and unavoidable’
impacts (including impacts to existing trees and cultural resources in Palo Alto):
• Improved Caltrain service and ridership to serve growing regional demand
• Electrification has best performance characteristics of feasible alternatives
• Reduction of air pollution in support of regional air quality goals and to improve local
health conditions along the corridor
• Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in support of state goals (AB 32)
2.b
Packet Pg. 32
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7
• Reduction of vehicle miles travelled and support for transit oriented development in
support of SB 375 and regional transportation plan goals, and
• Consistent with planning for Downtown Extension/Transbay Transit Center and future
high-speed rail.
Aesthetics Impacts:
The Final EIR:
Notes, “Permanent impacts of the project on visual character” would result from:
(1) introduction of new Traction Power Facilities (TPFs),
(2) OCS poles and wires,
(3) vegetation removal and maintenance for electrical safety along the OCS alignment,
and
(4) overbridge protection structures (OPS; note: no OPS is proposed in Palo Alto).
States that after mitigation, aesthetics impact levels are “significant and unavoidable”
due to tree removal and pruning, and “less than significant” with respect to Traction
Power Facilities, OCS, and OPS.
Describes the mitigations determined to reduce some impacts on aesthetics to “less
than significant” – these are noted in the Discussion section of this report, along with
excerpts of the EIR Aesthetics chapter describing the setting and impacts
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/odniqbbvnv3att9/3.1%20Aesthetics_030415.pdf?dl=0.)
Biological Impacts:
The HRB report provided to the ARB included a paragraph on El Palo Alto (California Landmark
#2 and Palo Alto Heritage Tree #1), not repeated again in this ARB report, and below paragraph:
The City is in conversation with JPB regarding significant removals proposed within the
JPB right of way in Palo Alto. The JPB plans to post tree removal notification prior to
work and has provided Palo Alto with a tree removal plan showing the number of trees
to be removed outside the JPB right of way, and a timeline for removals. Some work
has already recently occurred at the path behind Palo Alto High School – oaks within the
JPB right of way were removed. A small number of oaks and other trees are also
proposed to be removed outside JPB right of way. Staging plans are anticipated to be
submitted prior to Council input.
The Final EIR Biological Resources chapter is viewable here:
http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/FEIR/3.3+Bio+Resources.pd
f and briefly discussed in this report using chapter excerpts. The Final EIR also referenced a
Tree Inventory and Canopy Assessment, viewable here:
http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/FEIR/App+F+Tree+Inventor
y.pdf.
The Final EIR biological resources chapter provides some detail on El Palo Alto:
2.b
Packet Pg. 33
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8
“A landmark redwood tree, also known as “El Palo Alto,” is identified by the City of Palo Alto as
6 Heritage Tree #1 and is designated as California Historical Landmark No. 2. The tree trunk is
located approximately 26 feet from the Caltrain ROW, with tree branches and foliage located
within 5 feet of the ROW. The tree is estimated to be more than 110 feet high and more than 9
1,000 years old (San Jose Mercury News 2004).”
The Final EIR notes that, for trees other than El Palo Alto in the JPB right of way, the JPB may
replace them inside the JPB right of way at a 1:1 ratio. The Final EIR mitigation measures
require JPB to work with Palo Alto and private property owners to replace any trees located
outside JPB right of way that need removal. The goal of plantings is to screen residences and
park users from the right of way.
Discussion
Pole Design
In addition to a plan set, the JPB staff provided a ‘Pole Schedule’ (Attachment B) reflecting pole
types and foundation sizes to be used. The submitted schedule appears to conflict with the
nomenclature on the plans provided to date (and therefore, notes about poles used are in
reference to the plan notes). JPB staff intends to provide an explanation of design
considerations for the pole design. Considerations for pole designs include (1) Utilities, (2)
Operations and maintenance – outside (double) poles allow a robust system, and (3) Avoiding
significant impacts to vegetation. Spacing between the poles is also a consideration, as is the
foundation design for the poles at the stations.
It appears double poles are proposed in most locations. Single poles in the center of the tracks
are proposed at the following locations (using street intersections and plan sheet numbers):
North of Palo Alto Av, southward until Hawthorne (see plan sheet 12)
Adjacent to the historic Palo Alto Depot until 250 feet south of University, where double
pole installations would resume (plan sheets 13 and 14);
Just south of Churchill intersection (one pole, plan sheet 18);
Approximately 240 feet south of Tennyson intersection (three poles, plan sheet 20);
Attachment E provides descriptions of the three stations in Palo Alto, excerpted from the Final
EIR. The ARB may wish to discuss and provide feedback on the double pole design at the
California Avenue station, and request explanation from Caltrain representative as to why
single poles are not proposed at this depot.
The JPB staff noted that a distance of 21 feet is needed between tracks in order to have a
center, single pole. Palo Alto staff asked JPB staff to consider increasing the center pole use, as
aesthetically superior option. JPB will study whether the tracks are too narrow to use a single
center pole in some locations. This center pole feasibility evaluation will help the JPB to
understand cost and schedule implications. If center poles were considered in each case, but
proved to be technically infeasible, Palo Alto would seek a written explanation to share with the
2.b
Packet Pg. 34
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9
public. Staff anticipates that, from aesthetics and tree preservation standpoints, a single pole
design in the center of the tracks would be preferable. However, double poles minimize the risk
of failure in case of a ‘knockdown’ so these are preferred to be used, where possible, by the
JPB.
Below left is an image of a centered, single pole. Below middle is an image of double poles –
one on each side of the tracks. Below right is a cantilever structure with a long reach.
Below left images of the ‘long reach cantilever’ show dimensions (30 feet from the cantilever to
the base plate of the foundation for the pole, with another 13’10” to the part of the pole on
which the wire or wires would be attached to support the cantilever at a point 26 feet from the
pole). Below right image is of the portal type of pole (with a horizontal beam stretching across
three tracks.
The plans indicate four series of pole types:
WF = Wide Flange design of different types,
TT = Tapered Tubular (single cantilever pole, or center pole with two cantilevers)
SQ = Square Tube design of different types, and
PW1 = Wide Flange Portal extending over three tracks.
Staff tallied the height and number of each pole type in the project in Palo Alto shown on the
pole schedule and in plans received prior to November 6, 2018 (additional plan sheets showing
last segment may be received after November 6, 2018). The pole heights as shown on the plans
and schedule range from 32 feet up to 45.5 feet:
WF-1 (32’ tall - 58 poles –single cantilever), WF-3 (32’ tall – 3 poles, single cantilever or
center pole with two cantilevers), WF-4A (45.5’ tall - 5 poles, long reach cantilever), WF-
5 (32’ tall - 11 poles, single cantilever), WF-7 (32’ tall - 9 poles, single cantilever)
2.b
Packet Pg. 35
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10
TT: TT-1 (32’ tall – 20 poles), TT-1A (35’ tall – 4 poles), TT-3A (35’ tall – 9 poles), TT-4 (32’
tall – 10 poles), TT-4A (35’ tall – 6 poles)
SQ series: SQ-1 (45.4’ tall - 2 poles),SQ-3 (32’ tall -12 poles), SQ-8 (45.5’ tall – 3 poles),
SQ-9A (35’ tall – 24 poles), SQ-9B (38’ tall – 4 poles), SQ-11B (38’ tall – 2 poles)
PW-1 (34’ tall; plan sheet 24 indicates four portals are proposed; one next to Park Plaza
development (350 feet north of El Dorado) southward to just south of El Dorado.
The goal is for the ARB to provide feedback on the color selection, with the intent that the poles
can better blend or fade into the background.
Use of Shunt Wires
When there is a crossing wire underground, the project will not need a shunt wire. But there
are cases where the overhead wire would conflict and a shunt wire is needed. For instance,
there are power lines for service to residences stretching over Alma and the railroad tracks. The
City is looking to underground these, but this is a separate project with a separate timeline.
Use of shunt wires is proposed in these locations (by street intersections and sheet numbers):
Two shunt wires are shown above the Homer pedestrian tunnel (plan sheet 15);
Two shunt wires would stretch between the intersection of Encina past Addison to meet
the Stanford Stadum Station’ at Town and Country Center (plan sheet 16);
Over Embarcadero (plan sheet 17)
At Churchill; two poles at the north side connect to a single pole, south side (sheet 18);
From Tennyson south to first of three single poles (plan sheet 20), then from the third
single pole back to the double poles starting up again at Rinconada (sheet 21);
At Washington (plan sheet 22);
At Page Mill Road just south of Colorado (plan sheet 23);
250 feet south of El Dorado to approximately 200 feet north of El Carmelo (sheet 25);
At Loma Verde (sheet 26);
At East Meadow (sheet 29);
At West Charleston (sheet 31);
Just north of San Antonio Road (near match line MT1 on the last plan sheet).
2.b
Packet Pg. 36
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11
Paralleling Station PS5
The JPB will be returning to Palo Alto in February for feedback on a design for the one
paralleling station (a building), once the location is determined. Three location options are cited
for the “PS5” in Palo Alto; Option 1, Option 1B and Option 2. Option 2 is the preferred option,
and staff understands the Option 2 location is likely to be adjusted northward. The Final EIR
includes images of the locations and mitigation measures requiring screening vegetation and
the use of appropriate color treatment on the station itself.
o Option 1: Location in JPB right of way east side of the tracks, across from the
Greenmeadow Way intersection with Alma Street. Residents would see this site
through gaps in vegetation so as they exit Greenmeadow, the site would be a focal
point.
o Option 1B: Location in JPB right of way east side of the tracks, south of the Ferne
Avenue intersection with Alma Street viewable by residents (as interrupted by masonry
wall and vegetation) and Kingdom Hall visitors. This option is considered a significant
impact, as it would require tree removal and planting of trees both in JPB corridor and in
the Alma sidewalk planting strip.
o Option 2: Location in JPB right of way 1.5 mile northwest of Option 1 location,
southwest of the tracks and southeast of the California Avenue station, along Park
Boulevard. This option notes that tenants of the Park Plaza development (195 Page Mill
Road) would be able to view this site from windows overlooking the tracks. The
mitigation measure notes Park Plaza project tree plantings could provide screening of
the station; however the trees have been installed and may not provide the screening
anticipated in the Final EIR. The measure notes the JPB would need to work with Park
Plaza owner to plant trees or vines on trellises between the station and Park Plaza.
Though the paralleling station design is not before the ARB at this time, the EIR described the
standard paralleling station (a roofed building) design as fairly large, with dimensions 40’ x 80’,
which could be modified to different dimensions, such as 30’ x 105’, to allow more space for
vegetative screening, which could include trees, vines on fences, landscape buffer planting, or
vegetative wall/fence.
Mitigation Measures Addressing Aesthetics Impacts
As noted in the prior report section, the JPB adopted mitigation measures intended to reduce
project impacts on visual character. In Palo Alto, the impacts are from the new paralleling
station, OCS poles and wires, and vegetation removal and maintenance for electrical safety
along the OCS alignment. The JPB Directors determined the level of impact after
implementation of mitigations “significant and unavoidable (tree removal/pruning); less than
significant (in Palo Alto, in reference to the Paralleling Station (a TPF) and the OCS system).
There are four mitigation measures (MM) to address Aesthetics impacts; two measures address
light spillover, another is to minimize construction activity on residential and park areas outside
the JPB corridor ROW (which is not proposed in Palo Alto). The most applicable of the four
2.b
Packet Pg. 37
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12
aesthetics mitigations for Palo Alto is MM AES-2b, regarding aesthetic treatments for OCS
poles, wires, and TPFs in sensitive visual locations. The JPB Directors determined MM-AES-2b
could mitigate this impact: The PCEP “will substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings during Proposed Project operation.” MM AES-2b is
excerpted below in italics, and in its entirety:
“Measures will include, but are not limited to, the following:
Aesthetic treatments to project features will be implemented to help soften their visual
intrusion upon the landscape, especially in areas of high use. OCS Pole Design
The JPB shall coordinate with local jurisdictions to obtain their input into OCS pole
design relative to station aesthetics.
Aesthetic considerations shall be considered when selecting pole design. Different pole
designs, including round poles, square poles, and multi‐face poles, have different
characteristics. Some individuals find square poles to be aesthetically less desirable due
to their angularity.
In addition, the JPB shall consider options to reduce pole diameter by using thinner
diameter poles that are constructed with thicker walls.
Aesthetic considerations shall be balanced with other considerations including cost
safety, maintenance, and durability.
The JPB shall also evaluate the potential to house OCS wire‐tensioning weights inside
larger diameter poles.
The JPB will also place OCS wires on the track‐side of the poles, where feasible.
Features will be constructed with low sheen and non‐reflective surface materials to
reduce potential for glare. Unpainted metal surfaces will not be permitted.
Traction Power Facilities
The JPB shall coordinate with local jurisdictions regarding color selection and
vegetative screening for aesthetic treatments at sensitive TPF sites for current uses (PS3,
Option 1; PS5, Option 1, Option 1B and 2; PS6, Option 1 and 2; and PS7) or in the event
of future adjacent residential or park/plaza uses (PS4, Options 1 and 2 and SWS Option
1).
Vegetative screening will be provided to visually buffer views of TPFs. Vegetative
screening may be achieved in a variety of ways, depending on availability of space.
Where feasible and necessary, the paralleling station standard design of 40’ X 80’ shall
be modified to allow for more space for vegetative screening (such as 30’ X 105’ for
example). Acceptable methods of vegetative screening that may be used include:
Tree planting
Fencing with creeping vines.
Landscape buffer planting.
Vegetative wall/fence. The options above could be adjacent to the TPF perimeter
and/or could be placed in other locations nearby where they would help to reduce the
visual apparentness of the TPF and/or enhance the visual aesthetics near to the TPF
location. For example, at PS5, Option 1B, tree planting on the east side of Alma Street
in the sidewalk median, if allowed by the City of Palo Alto, could help to obscure the
2.b
Packet Pg. 38
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13
view of the facility from residences that back onto Alma Street. The JPB shall maintain
all vegetative screening on an on‐going basis on JPB properties. If screening vegetation is
placed outside the JPB ROW, the JPB will coordinate with the local jurisdiction on
maintenance responsibilities
Features will be colored or painted a shade that is two to three shades darker than the
general surrounding area. Light or bright colors will be avoided. Colors will be chosen
from the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Standard
Environmental Colors Chart CC‐001: June 2008. Because color selection will vary by
location, the facility designer shall employ the use of color panels evaluated from key
observation points during common lighting conditions (front light versus backlighting) to
aid in the appropriate color selection. Color selection will be made for the coloring of the
most prevalent season.
All paints used for the color panels and structures will be color matched directly from
the physical color chart, rather than from any digital or color‐reproduced versions of the
color chart. Paints will be of a dull, flat, or satin finish to reduce potential for glare, and
the use of glossy paints for surfaces will be avoided. Appropriate paint type will be
selected for the finished structures to ensure long‐term durability of the painted
surfaces. The appropriate operating agency or organization will maintain the paint color
over time.
TPFs will be managed and maintained for a well‐kept appearance and in a manner that
vandalism and graffiti is abated semi‐annually to maintain the effectiveness and
attractiveness of the visual mitigation prescribed herein.
Light Spillover Mitigation Measures
The two spillover light mitigation measures below were adopted to address:
(1) nighttime construction lighting near residential neighborhoods, and
(2) safety and security lighting near the TPF (in Palo Alto, the paralleling station).
MM AES‐4a: Minimize spillover light during nighttime construction. During nighttime
construction adjacent to residential neighborhoods, the JPB will require the contractor to
direct any artificial lighting onto the worksite and away from any adjacent residential
areas at all times. The construction contractor will notify nearby residences of the
construction schedule, prior to the start of construction, including the time periods for
nighttime construction. A point of contact, including contact information, will be
provided to residents to address concerns associated with construction and nighttime
lighting.
MM AES‐4b: Minimize light spillover at TPFs. The JPB will ensure that all artificial
outdoor lighting associated with traction power facilities will be limited to safety and
security requirements and will be designed to minimize light spill over into adjacent
areas. All lighting is to provide minimum impact on the surrounding environment and
will use downcast, cut‐off type fixtures that are shielded and that direct the light only
towards objects requiring illumination. Lights will be installed at the lowest allowable
2.b
Packet Pg. 39
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 14
height and cast low‐ angle illumination while minimizing incidental light spill onto
adjacent properties and open spaces. The lowest allowable wattage will be used for all
lighted areas and the amount of nighttime lights needed to light an area will be
minimized to the highest degree possible. Light fixtures will have non‐glare finishes that
will not cause reflective daytime glare. Lighting will be designed for energy efficiency,
use, and have daylight sensors or be timed with an on/off program. Lights will provide
good color rendering with natural light qualities with the minimum intensity feasible for
security, safety, and personnel access. Lighting, including light color rendering and
fixture types, will be designed to aesthetically minimize the profile of the TPFs.
Public Notification, Outreach & Comments
A notice for the ARB meeting was sent to the Daily Post for publication on December 28,
2018. No additional outreach has been undertaken by City staff. On August 28, 2018, at
the Lucie Stern Community Center, a community meeting was held regarding Caltrain
Electrification. The event advertisement provided this link: http://calmod.org/event/
Attachment F to this report provides links to Caltrain webpages regarding outreach and other
project information.
Public Comments
As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received.
Environmental Review
In 2009, the JPB completed the PCEP Final Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact
Report for the Project. Based upon that document, the Federal Transit Administration issued a
Finding of No Significant Impact in 2009, which completed the federal environmental review for
the Project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
On January 31, 2013, JPB issued a Notice of Preparation of an EIR and, in February, 2014, issued
a Draft EIR for a 60-day comment period ending April 29, 2014. A Final EIR was issued in
December 2014. On January 8, 2015, pursuant to Resolution No. 2015-03, the JPB certified
conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to the extent that it is
applicable to the Project, and certified the Project’s Final EIR. On January 8, 2015, pursuant to
Resolution No. 2015-04, the JPB adopted CEQA findings of fact, a statement of overriding
considerations, and the MMRP. The Final EIR notes: “Permanent visual alterations would
result from the Proposed Project, comprising the introduction of poles and wires, and TPFs.
Additionally, trees and mature vegetation would be removed and pruned. Some trees and
vegetation would not be replaced on-site, resulting in a physical and aesthetic permanent
change in certain locations. As documented in Section 3.1, Aesthetics, these physical changes
would alter views from residential or business areas in various locations along the corridor, but
they would not significantly obscure a scenic view or vista. However, even with mitigation,
some local visual character would be permanently altered.”
2.b
Packet Pg. 40
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 15
Next Steps
The City Council is scheduled to consider the Comprehensive Agreement on November 26,
2018.
Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information
Amy French, Chief Planning Official Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager
(650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2575
Amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Attachment A: September 2019 Rail Committee Report Including Draft Comprehensive
Agreement (PDF)
Attachment B: Pole Schedule (PDF)
Attachment C: Pole Aesthetics (PDF)
Attachment D: Balfour Beatty II Letter (DOCX)
Attachment E: Train Stations in Palo Alto Excerpt from FEIR (DOCX)
Attachment F: Instructions to Linked Plans (DOCX)
Attachment G: Herb Borock Letter to HRB Regarding Caltrain Electrification (PDF)
1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org
2.b
Packet Pg. 41
Present: Chair Bower, Vice Chair Corey, Board Member Shepherd, Board Member Kohler, Board
Member Makinen, Board Member Bernstein.
Absent: Board Member Wimmer
Action Items
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Historic Resources Board Input on Peninsula Corridor
Electrification Project (PCEP) Overhead Contact System Foundation & Pole
Layouts Design for Installation Within Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers
Board Right of Way in Palo Alto. Environmental Assessment: The JPB Certified the
Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Adopted a Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Plan (MMRP) in January 2015, Following Publication of the Draft
EIR in February 2014 for Public Comment.
Chair Bower: All right, let’s move on the Action Item Number Two. Martin, did you have something you
wanted to share with the Board?
Board Member Bernstein: Yes. Thank you, Chair Bower. So, I have received an FPPC Ruling that I won’t
be able to participate in this regarding any decisions the Board may make. I own property within 500 feet
of the railroad right of way, so I received an FPPC Ruling that I won’t be able to participate. However,
they said because it is my personal residence, I am able to comment as a member of the general public,
and I put a card in for speaking as a member of the general public. Thank you.
Chair Bower: Thanks Martin. We’ll hear from you later. Okay, staff report.
Ms. French: Yes. Good morning. Amy French, Chief Planning Official.
Chair Bower: Good morning.
Ms. French: I’m here today flying solo. We have a Joint Powers Board representative that is planning to
come to the ARB Meeting next week, but being that this was pulled together on a rather rapid schedule,
they were not able to make their calendars available for this morning, so I have prepared a PowerPoint
this morning, and I will go through the project with you to the best of my abilities. I have Mike Nafziger
here as well, from Public Works Engineering, and he has been longer in the know than myself. So, we’ll
start here. The Caltrain Electrification Project has been through years in the making. It’s the Peninsula
Corridor Electrification Project, is the formal title. It’s the conversion from Caltrain diesel to electric-
powered trains (they have a fancy name). Anyways, the overhead contact system design is for
improvements only within the Caltrain right of way. So, they’re not going onto City property, City
jurisdiction property. So, basically, the City has no permitting authority whatsoever. So, this is just a
courtesy review. We are getting your comments and those will be considered by the JPB staff as they
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING
EXCERPT MINUTES: November 8, 2018
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 A.M.
2.c
Packet Pg. 42
move forward and finalize their plans. The plans are currently at 65 percent design, which is an
engineering term meaning they’re not quite done. The OCS improvements include overhead catenary
wires, support poles, traction power facilities and other pertinences, and there is only one traction power
facility in Palo Alto, and that’s known as a paralleling station. The Caltrain staff plan to submit a design
for the actual – it’s a building - for the building in early 2019, and hopefully, there’s an opportunity for
input on that. But we do not have those designs at this time. We do have a proposed location that is
subject to change. The EIR process: the final EIR was adopted or certified by the JPB in January 2015.
They adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations and they adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program. The final EIR disclosed permanent visual alterations and other impacts. The staff is
committed to consider the board input from the ARB and HRB on this design. The City’s Rail Committee
had discussed a draft agreement in September and that agreement is going to be going - it’s an
agreement between the Joint Powers Board and the City - and it’s going to be going to City Council on
November 27 (26). The foundation work for the poles is anticipated to begin in March of next year or
thereafter, and there is some capacity for remedy if things are going badly, as far as mitigation
measures, but it’s the JPB staff that would have the authority to issue what they call a Statement of
Objection. Okay. The EIR Statement of Overriding Consideration, it basically said there’s significant and
unavoidable impacts to trees, cultural resources, and permanent impacts on visual character. So, the
Overriding Considerations are listed on the screen. Basically, improved Caltrain service to support a
growing demand, electrification has best performance characteristics, and feasible alternatives. A lot of
words here. Reduction of air pollution, reduction of green-house gas emissions in support of AB-32,
reduction of vehicle miles traveled and support for transit-oriented development, and then consistent with
future high-speed rail. Okay, so the permanent impacts on visual character are resulting from this
paralleling station (which we haven’t seen yet), the poles themselves, and the wires, the removal of
vegetation and maintenance activities and over-bridge projection structures (but there’s none of those in
Palo Alto). After mitigation, the aesthetic impacts are still significant and unavoidable due to the tree
removal and pruning, and then they say it’s less than significant with respect to the other items. The
historical resources in Palo Alto were covered in the staff report you received, if you have read through
that. There are a number of them, and they are within the stretch between the northern border of Palo
Alto starting with the El Palo Alto, moving on to the depot at University Avenue and then we have the
two undercrossings; those are both historic. I might have gotten them all. Oh, well, Greenmeadow, you
know a National Registered District, is referenced in the EIR because in the EIR they had proposed this
paralleling station to be across from Greenmeadow there, and so the visual impact was a concern. They
don’t seem to be pursuing that option for the paralleling station. So, the focus there is near the Park
Plaza development, a bit north, otherwise known as 195 Page Mill. So, just a few images, the San
Francisquito Creek (that’s the one I forgot to say). The San Francisquito Creek Bridge, so they’re saying it
won’t be altered other than small clearance holes, cables suspended above and parallel to the existing
line, and then the mitigation is no significant impact. They think it will still meet the criteria for listing,
because it is listed on the California Register. So, here we have a nice old picture (and these are courtesy
of the Palo Alto Historical Association) of the bridge, an older train and the El Palo Alto with just one
stem. And here, I love this old photo, two of the trunks, before the split. So, El Palo Alto, it’s a landmark
tree, Landmark Number Two in California. It’s also Palo Alto’s Heritage Tree Number One, and it’s about
26 feet from the Caltrain right-of-way, and branches and foliage are located within five feet of the right-
of-way. It’s about 110 feet tall and quite old, over 1,000 years old. So, the mitigation was that special
care will be taken to minimize construction period affects on El Palo Alto, including minimization of any
pruning. Pruning will be coordinated with Palo Alto arborist in advance. So, that coordination has begun.
There is, you know, more than just pruning there. There is how close the foundation is to the tree roots,
because those tree roots extend fairly far. Walter was not able to be here today, but he will likely be here
for the ARB Meeting next week. The Palo Alto Depot, of course, Streamline Moderne, and the idea for
mitigation there - or the adopted mitigation - was to use single poles in the center of the tracks with the
cantilevers. And then they will record HABS level III as mitigation to document the four poles that are
placed. So, that’s the only place that single poles are proposed with the exception of one or two single
poles. Sorry for the way this is reading here. The Historic underpasses, we have Embarcadero and
University Avenue. Both are historic, listed, and the mitigation, the specific design commitments are that
2.c
Packet Pg. 43
power cables shall be suspended parallel to and above the University Avenue overpass and the poles and
configuration shall be set at the side of the track they power. No pole shall be set in the bridges
themselves. There’s a mitigation measure here about meeting the Secretary of Interior Standards, etc.
And they are not going to attach things to the fabric of the bridges, underpasses themselves. So, here
are images, these were in the staff report s well. These show the single pole design in the center of the
tracks. So, this is what you would see at the Palo Alto University Depot. And then we have other designs.
The majority of the right-of-way in Palo Alto is two poles, one on either side of the tracks, like this. And
then we have other situations where there’s a cantilevered pole that extends out. This is called the long-
reach cantilever. There’s some dimensions there, 30 feet from the cantilever, etc. Then there’s the portal
poles. These are just one stretch of the project, there’s a bunch of these, four of them I think, these
portal poles. So, they have this kind of band across. The JPB is interested in what you think about color
at the stations for the poles. So, the pole colors are here. I believe I put that into the staff report as well.
I don’t have any chips or samples. So, yeah, you are able to see those. Option one is (yeah, so we’ll get
back to this). The center pole feasibility is being looked at by Caltrain. As part of our discussion about
this agreement they are looking at feasibility of having more single poles in the center, but for them, for
Caltrain it’s better to have the double poles because they minimize the risk of failure in case of knock
down, so they prefer the double poles, whereas from aesthetics and tree preservation, the City would
probably prefer the single pole. So, anyways, we’re going to have a written explanation to share with the
public as to why they can’t do single poles wherever they can’t do them. So, the other parts of the
projects are the stringing wires, the paralleling station I mentioned, which we will see later in the new
year, and this tree replacement. So, the trees other than El Palo Alto, they are going to replace them
inside the right-of-way at a one-to-one ratio, whatever trees they pull down, protected or non-protected.
So, again, they are going to be working with Urban Forester on that. And the goal of the tree plantings is
to screen the residences and park users from the visual impacts of the new project. There’s an ARB
report coming out today. You can look online, I can send you the link. Its focus is aesthetics, while your
report was focused on historic resources. So, there’s this PARCS, sorry, the Palo Alto Rail Committee
Study, there was a recommending study, recommended landscape improvements and addition of street
trees and protecting these resources. They threw in there Hostess House too. I don’t think anything is
going over that far, which is the MacArthur Park Building. I think that’s my last slide. There’s more but
I’m not ready to present any more at this time. So, would you like to ask questions?
Chair Bower: Yeah, let’s, I have a couple of questions, but I’ll encourage my colleagues to start. Debbie
no questions? Brandon?
Vice Chair Corey: Do we have someone here who can answer any of the detail – are you here to answer
any of the details about the…
Michael Nafziger, Public Works Engineering: Good morning. This is Mike Nafziger from Public Works
Engineering. I could answer what questions, hopefully, you might have.
Vice Chair Corey: Okay, cool. A couple questions I had. Are the poles metal or wood or what are they?
Mr. Nafziger: Concrete.
Vice Chair Corey: They are concrete poles.
Mr. Nafziger: Precast concrete.
Vice Chair Corey: That’s interesting. I just didn’t know about the color. Just out of curiosity, maybe this
isn’t necessarily related, but poles seem about as modern as diesel. Is there a reason they don’t have
anything that’s going along the tracks or underground?
Mr. Nafziger: I’m not sure of your question. Could you repeat that.
2.c
Packet Pg. 44
Vice Chair Corey: Power. Is it just because of cost?
Mr. Nafziger: I would have to ask Caltrain staff on that. I’m not sure. It’s a design build. I believe they
just modeled it after existing overhead systems.
Vice Chair Corey: Got it, okay. And then, yeah it has the heights here of all the poles. Do we know where
any of the poles, you probably don’t, where they line up with any of the existing poles that are – I know
they’re not one-to-one across the track.
Mr. Nafziger: No, we have not studied that.
Vice Chair Corey: Okay.
Chair Bower: Roger, any questions?
Board Member Kohler: No, not really.
Chair Bower: Michael.
Board Member Makinen: I just have a kind of a general question. It’s, you know, this technology is kind
of archaic. It’s probably been around for 100 years, but has there ever been any thought about going
with battery-powered lithium battery-powered trains? I mean, you’ve got a smile on your face, but look
at U.S. subs in World War II were powered with batteries when they weren’t above ground. So, the
thought of battery technology that powers big engines, I think it would be a very elegant solution, if we
had a lithium battery pack that could be used to power these trains. I don’t know if they would get
enough intensity or not, but it’s a general question I had.
Mr. Nafziger: We’re not aware of Caltrain’s investigation of those technologies. This was their proposal for
their project.
Ms. French: I have not studied the EIR to see if it was one of the alternatives, but that would be a place I
would look if I was curious.
Board Member Makinen: Yeah, I mean obviously people have used power to run submarines under
water, which takes a huge amount of horsepower and it just seems like this is not a very elegant solution
in 2018 to see go ahead for probably another 50 years, especially with the battery technology really
coming on line.
Chair Bower: A couple of questions I have. I thought I saw single poles at the Alma Street crossing,
where the bridge is, as well as at the University Avenue Station. Did I misread that? While you’re looking,
do poles look to be the standard all the way along the rest of the right-of-way?
(inaudible)
Chair Bower: I know the City is involved in figuring out how these crossings are going to be handled in
the future. Is there, is Public Works talking with Caltrain about how that gets done or is this going to be
built out and then retrofitted to whatever the solution to the crossings is? I mean, if we’re starting in
March, this project will be completely over before Palo Alto even decides what they’re going to do with
the under crossings.
Mr. Nafziger: With respect to the Alma crossing, there are single poles in that area that lead up to the
bridge and El Palo Alto. With respect to the grade crossings, there has been discussions about the
2.c
Packet Pg. 45
placement of poles in such a way that it does not preclude what options the City may choose to pursue
with respect to grade crossing, whether it’s above or below. So, the poles will be placed hopefully far
enough away for whatever solution, it won’t impact that.
Chair Bower: My concern, of course, is that any modification that has to be made later just is a double
cost, so I’m hoping that there is sensitivity to how much, this is only a $600 million project if I’m
remembering the figure correctly, and wouldn’t want to have to make it any more expensive. The
question about the, in our materials, the City is asked, and this may not be a question you can answer,
but the City has asked Caltrain to consider the high-speed rail implications in parallel with this project,
and I don’t know, do you have any idea where that stands?
Mr. Nafziger No I don’t.
Chair Bower: Okay. The tree removal replacement is one-to-one. On a project that I did it was one to
two, this residential project in Santa Clara County. Is one-to-one standard for Palo Alto? Is there a
standard?
Ms. French: There has been a standard. I’m not sure if there’s a new standard around at this point, but I
had remembered a three-to-one for protected oaks and the like, redwoods, but I don’t know what it is
right now. We’ll make sure that Walter is on hand for next weeks’ ARB Meeting and hopefully we’ll be
able to put that into the presentation.
Chair Bower: I’m just wondering where the one-to-one came from. Was that the Caltrain’s proposal?
Ms. French: This is one-to-one replacement throughout the corridor from San Francisco on down. It’s not
just in Palo Alto.
Chair Bower: I appreciate that putting trees in a rail corridor is not a simple experience, but just
wondered what the standard was here, since we’re being asked to look at this, I mean the City is.
Vice Chair Corey: I was going to ask, do we have any understanding of the impact along the rail? So, if
you think about where Professorville extends, if all those trees, I mean I’m not sure how many trees
there are, but if the trees are all cut down along the railway all across Alma Street, is there a change of
view from any other historic resource? Because if they’re effectively going to tear out all the trees and
put one-to-one, which presumably can mean I have a 100-foot tree and I’ll replace it with, you know,
one I got at the nursey that’s three feet tall. Do we have any idea what that impact could be? Because
there’s a lot of trees along a huge stretch.
Ms. French: Whatever impacts were declared and overridden with Overriding Considerations as far as
impacts, I mean, that’s one of the significant impacts that is not addressed in their Overriding
Considerations. There’s going to be visual impacts from loss of trees (crosstalk).
Vice Chair Corey: There’s a difference, okay, right, right (crosstalk). But do we have any – I mean, I
guess we could go out there, but do we know how many, would it affect any of them?
Ms. French: There might be disclosure, but again it’s an EIR for the entire corridor from San Francisco
down to San Jose or wherever it stops, so I don’t think they got around to giving lots of pictures of our
fair City. If it is, it’s in the EIR that they prepared and adopted.
Vice Chair Corey: The EIR has the impact on the…
2.c
Packet Pg. 46
Ms. French: The EIR the JPB certified has notes what the impacts are and studied the impacts and has
mitigation measures to address the impacts, so to the extent that somebody looked at it, it should be in
the EIR. If they didn’t look at it, but they were – it was part of that Overriding Considerations…
Vice Chair Corey: I guess what I’m asking more specifically though is, is there an impact to any historical
properties versus just a general impact?
Ms. French: Like buildings?
Vice Chair Corey: Yeah, because everything along in the Professorville area.
Ms. French: No, because the project is only within JPB right-of-way. As far as, is there an impact from
homes across Alma looking towards the tracks, that’s not considered an impact I guess, because…
Chair Bower: I didn’t see on the plans any notation of where trees would be removed. Of course, there’s
so much information, I’m sure it’s there somewhere, I just don’t know. There’s no notation in the legend.
Mr. Nafziger: There is a separate tree mitigation and monitoring plan being developed.
Vice Chair Corey: So, they know, it’s not ready.
Chair Bower: So, at this point that’s the other 35 percent that’s not completed of the design?
Mr. Nafziger: I believe it’s underway. I’m not sure of the exact status, but it’s been fairly well developed
to date.
Chair Bower: And then, I guess, the follow-up question, trees, you know that’s historic content here, do
they have a proposed size for replacement trees. So, are they going to be 35, 48-inch box, 60-inch box?
Mr. Nafziger: I’m not aware but it’s most likely identified in this plan, once it’s finalized.
Chair Bower: Okay, thank you. Well, those are my questions. Any other questions?
Vice Chair Corey: I had one other technical question. On the 65 percent, are they going to start in March
regardless of where they are and just, you know, shovels in the ground, or are they supposed to finish
before they actually start the plan?
Mr. Nafziger: Do you mean developing to 100 percent plans?
Vice Chair Corey: Yeah. If the goal is to start in March, is that under the assumption that they’re going to
finish 100 percent, or are they just going to start in March regardless. I’m just thinking about, for
instance, if they run into – so going back to the El Palo Alto tree, you know, if the roots extend out far
enough, what are they going to do in that situation? Is there an option to cut it down? Or are they going
to figure that out after they built everything, or are they going to try to figure that out before?
Mr. Nafziger: Well, the plans will, assuming normal construction practices, the plans will be seen 100
percent and then approval and then they would start the full construction. Is there a specific question?
Vice Chair Corey: Well, I guess I was just baffled if it’s 65 percent complete, how do they think they will
have it ready to start by March. That would be just so out of whack with reality, I was assuming maybe
the were going to try to like kind of plan some of it and get approval, and then start digging.
Mr. Nafziger: They have not stated that, and we’re not aware of their…
2.c
Packet Pg. 47
Vice Chair Corey: Okay, so it sounds like it’s going to be a while. I mean, they don’t even know what
trees they’re cutting out yet, and they’re going to be done, the government in three months?
Chair Bower: Remember, they are the applicant and…
Vice Chair Corey: And the approver.
Chair Bower: …and the authority to approve it. I mean, it’s a totally in-house situation. I mean, Caltrain is
a State agency.
Vice Chair Corey: But they still would have to then, that State agency still has to get it done in three
months, right?
Chair Bower: Well, they might have it done, say in Brisbane – I mean, if they’re going to start someplace,
it’s probably not starting in Palo Alto. I’m assuming, and it’s just an assumption and a guess really, that
they would start at one end or the other and basically work down. Do you know anything about that?
Ms. French: Well, I don’t, but I’m surmising, just as everyone else that there might be something like,
let’s do all the tree removals in the month of March, you know. We don’t know where the replacement
trees are going, but let’s start by removal of everything in the whole corridor. I’m saying that’s a
possibility.
Chair Bower: Yeah, okay. Roger?
Board Member Kohler: One little question about the trees, there is, on Alma there is a curve and then
there is some space and then a fence. Does the railroad property go out to the curb of Alma or is it at the
fence? I don’t know if there is a way of knowing. I didn’t see anything in here.
Ms. French: Do you have a set of plans there? Do you want to ask a specific sheet number we can look
up together?
Board Member Kohler: Well, it’s, look at the very last page, the last two pages. There’s, it’s hard to know
what’s happening along Alma is what I guess I’m saying. There’s all these phone lines and there’s – but it
looks like to me that – I don’t know. Is the dash line, the heavy, that’s the edge of their property?
Ms. French: Yes, it appears that that is the edge of the property and it falls, and the curb line of Alma
appears to be, and a few feet to the tune of maybe ten feet, between the curb and their property line on
the last page of the…
Board Member Kohler: What do you mean ten feet? Ten feet where?
Ms. French: I’m looking at sheet, let’s look on the same page, sheet 32, when I look at sheet 32, I see a
heavy dash line and then I see a curb line above that and I see Alma Street.
Board Member Kohler: Yeah, so my question is, there are some trees along that curb and they kind of
overflow. I guess my fear is that all the trees and all the shrubs get eliminated and we have this bare,
open railroad thing. It sounds pretty bad.
Mr. Nafziger: No, I don’t believe that’s the case. There’s pruning and some removal, but it’s not a
complete clear cut.
Board Member Kohler: Okay, all right.
2.c
Packet Pg. 48
Chair Bower: So, I think one last question, the initial siding of this power traction station, is that the right
term that you described, was going to be done in South Palo Alto near the Greenmeadow?
Ms. French: There are three options for the paralleling station in Palo Alto. I’m going to go back to the
slide that had that. I think I have the slide here. Okay, maybe not. One was down across from
Greenmeadow, one was next to Park Plaza, the 195 Page Mill, Hohbach’s mixed-use project, and then
there might have been another one. I can’t remember where it was. But anyways, the one next to Park
Plaza is the one they’re focusing on, and they’re talking about locating it farther north than that, a couple
of hundred feet. Am I right Mike?
Mr. Nafziger: Yes.
Ms. French: Okay, confirmed. That’s what they’re focusing on now, and not the Greenmeadow cited one.
Chair Bower: And that’s the size of a garage, a parking structure?
Ms. French: Well, when I read the EIR, it says 40 x 80 feet. It’s a large building.
Chair Bower: Okay.
Ms. French: It has a roof on it, I’m told.
Chair Bower: So, I guess we’ll come back to that in discussion. Council Member Holman, did you want to
make any comments?
Council Member Holman: I do, and thank you for asking. I appreciate the questions, especially of the
Chair and Vice Chair. I have some comments and I have a couple of suggestions. Comments are, well
one is about San Francisquito Bridge is, I understand the bridge is 20 feet 3 inches high, but Caltrain
requires 24 and a half feet, so I don’t know if that’s been resolved.
Mr. Nafziger: The wires will be going through the bridge. There’s been no indication or discussion about
modification to the bridge or any of the systems.
Council Member Holman: So, if the wires are going through the bridge, it seems like that would be a very
direct impact (crosstalk), and I don’t think that was analyzed. It certainly was not mentioned here.
Vice Chair Corey: Are you sure, because I thought it said it was running parallel to and above. It didn’t
actually say going…
Chair Bower: It can’t be above. How would they connect?
Mr. Nafziger: Similar to the muni-buses in San Francisco, the trains need to maintain contact with the
electrified wires to run. The bridge is not as tall as the poles through the rest of the line, so the poles on
either side of the bridge, the Menlo Park side and the Palo Alto side need to be of reduced height and
higher tension so they can get the wires underneath. The trestle of the bridge has crossmembers, so the
wires will have to get below the crossmembers, yet still maintain contact with the train. So, it’s not
entirely clear from the plans, but that’s how the operation would work.
Vice Chair Corey: I guess the worst case would be if they ended up putting like, if they needed to get the
height, and I don’t know if it’s worse than putting holes through, but like some brackets sticking off of
the bridge to maintain the height or something, right?
2.c
Packet Pg. 49
Mr. Nafziger: No, there’s no proposal to modify the bridge or add any equipment to the bridge. The
clearance will (crosstalk).
Vice Chair Corey: Just drill through it and run the wires through?
Mr. Nafziger: I don’t believe they’re drilling through it. (crosstalk) The trains need to maintain contact
with the wires, so if they drilled holes through and ran wires through it, they would have interruption of
that service. So, what we see from the plans is that the wires will be suspended underneath the
crossmembers of the top of the bridge to maintain contact for the train.
Chair Bower: So when, Amy you were saying that the report suggests that the only alteration to that
bridge is clearance holes? I heard that in a way, as a retired builder that what they would be doing is
drilling holes and then attaching an isolator that would then support their wires. Is that a reasonable
assumption?
Mr. Nafziger: We don’t have that understanding, that level of detail of their design at this point. We do
know that the wires will need to run underneath the crossmembers of the bridge so that the trains can
maintain power through the bridge.
Chair Bower: Typically in Europe, which is the only experience I have with this kind of train system, those
contact structures on top of the trains are actually sort of spring loaded and that they can move with the
wires as they go under or the wire increases in height, and I would assume it won’t be any problem to do
that here.
Mr. Nafziger: That’s our assumption as well.
Chair Bower: Okay. Sorry to interrupt.
Council Member Holman: No, I appreciate your questioning. I guess, let me underlay my next comments
by a suggestion which is, because this meeting is, no criticism here intender, because this meeting is not
terribly well staffed, then I would suggest that the Chair of the HRB go to the ARB meeting and staff
include the chair, if you’re available to do that, as an active participant in that. Like maybe sitting at the
staff table or something like that, so you’re actually a resource and not just sitting with the public and
listening in. If that can be accommodated?
Ms. French: Absolutely, I welcome and encourage and would love it if you or, the Chair (crosstalk)
actually, you’ll get to hear the presentation from the applicant, sorry, not the applicant, the ‘project
everything’ (team).
Chair Bower: Yeah, I think that will work. I’ll check and we’ll talk after the meeting.
Vice Chair Corey: The project, everything.
Council Member Holman: Underlying that, glad and if you can check your schedule, that would be terrific,
and thank you for, Ms. French, for being open to that. There are other things here having to do with El
Palo Alto, speaking personally I’ve been concerned about the latitude and lenience that’s being allowed
for tree pruning at various projects I’ve seen around town. And so, I guess the more precise and more
specific we can get about what exactly is going to be done with El Palo Alto ahead of time, and making
sure that those do satisfy really stringent health considerations for El Palo Alto, and a question for, I
guess Public Works would be, is Caltrain being required to put a bond up for El Palo Alto, and what would
the value of that bond be, I mean how many millions of dollars? But the reason I say that is because I
know with general construction projects around town, that, and I never think it’s enough because I’m a
tree fanatic, maybe, but sometimes or oftentimes applicants are required to put a bond, a two-year bond
2.c
Packet Pg. 50
for certain dollar amounts for a project, if there is any damage to a given resource, a tree resource. So, it
kind of heightens the awareness and I think a regard for and respect for and requirements of the
jurisdiction over those trees. So, and my disappointment with and concern with bonds that the City does
require about trees. It’s like it lasts for two years. Well you don’t know what the impact is to a large tree
in two years. It’s sometimes ten years. So, I don’t know if the City has considered that. We don’t get very
much feedback from the Rail Committee at the full Council.
Vice Chair Corey: Not just the pruning either, Karen, but like if you, you know if they have to put these
big poles up, those trees that have had roots there for a thousand years, you know, they have to adjust
and try to compensate for that, and I question whether or not the builders will care.
Council Member Holman: Yeah, and I think if there’s…
Vice Chair Corey: To you point.
Council Member Holman: I don’t know if having – I’m just making up numbers here, let’s say it’s a $20
million bond for ten years, and I’m just totally making up numbers here, does that heighten the
awareness, because if you’re not going to know the impact for ten years, does that mean the
construction company is going to be looking and be more careful?
Vice Chair Corey: I would think that you’re right. Yeah, hopefully.
Council Member Holman: You would hope that if there is a liability that continues forward – it’s just a
suggestion. I don’t have the authority to do that, but it’s something I wish and hope that the City would
impose on Caltrain, if there’s the authority to do that and I would think that there would be. And I agree
with you, it’s not just the pruning. Pruning is what’s obvious, but it’s also the damage to the roots, which
is why we have bonds on construction projects. The comment about the – I’m commenting like an HRB
member here, so I apologize for that, but it’s kind of the only way to do this and the only opportunity to
do this. The station, University Avenue station, it says that there won’t be poles directly in front of the
resource. That they will be single poles and they will be, there won’t be any poles on the west side, but it
doesn’t mention east side, but poles on the east side would have just as significant an impact. Do you
follow what I’m saying? Yeah, okay. I appreciated the comment about, I think it was the Chair who said
this about the design, maybe it was the Vice Chair, the design of the poles themselves. Could there not
be some consideration that they not be more contextual, and that’s something that the ARB would
probably be very interested in. And then the other question, which surely is being addressed somewhere,
but these are fairly significant tall poles, is what is their stability in the case of an earthquake? Not only
just because of life safety, but also in terms of cultural resources. So, you get it. I don’t need to say more
than that. Those were really the things I wanted to highlight. I think if the Chair could be an active
participant in the ARB meeting and have some eyes on this, I think it would be, and ability to comment
directly, I think that would be a huge asset for this Board, and for the public.
Chair Bower: I’d like to makes some comments about your comments, but in the discussion session, if
that’s all right. No other questions for staff.
Vice Chair Corey: One other question. If, when they actually have plans, or more details for the bridge or
anything around the tree, will this actually come back to us? Because it’s like what happens many times
here, we’re kind of going to do this, and then we don’t actually see, because I’m still not clear, I kind of
visually am getting what they’re going to do, but to the bridge, but does that mean they can just change
that and put up whatever they want later, and they say oh, we went to the HRB and kind of vaguely told
them and idea we had? Is there any opportunity or is that actually going to come back here when they
have some real data, more than 65 percent? (crosstalk)
2.c
Packet Pg. 51
Ms. French: We can certainly request to see those. We will be, those plans will be shared with us, or
whatever they call them, 85, 82, I don’t know.
Vice Chair Corey: Maybe when they’re 85 percent we’ll them? (crosstalk) Try turning it off.
Mr. Nafziger: There we go. There is another level of page-turn review with City staff and Caltrain staff at
the ready to issue for construction stage, so, essentially the 100 percent stage of drawings.
Chair Bower: That doesn’t allow much input if you’re getting it at the 100 percent complete time.
Vice Chair Corey: It’s kind of insulting to come when they have a vague idea and then say we’ll give it to
you when there’s 100 percent, and then they actually can say that they came to us when they really
came to us with nothing more than an idea.
Chair Bower: Calm down.
Vice Chair Corey: I’m not angry, I’m just saying it’s insulting, that’s all.
Chair Bower: It’s not required, so they’ve actually provided this opportunity without having to. I think it’s
a smart thing to do. I share your feelings about the completeness, so maybe we’ll figure out a way to
intervene or at least review prior to 100 percent.
Vice Chair Corey: That would be great.
Ms. French: Yeah, I think we are in an odd situation that finally the Environmental Impact Report was
prepared saying there will be impacts and we’re going to go ahead anyways and we don’t even have the
drawings that show exactly what the impacts are, but we know there are impacts and it’s okay. So, it’s
kind of like that’s where we are and we have to take, just take what we’re given, which is we get a
chance to comment when they allow us to.
Chair Bower: It’s what I think was termed a complementary review, courtesy, that’s it, sorry. I don’t see
Palo Alto on the plans anywhere, and do you have a sense of whether El Palo Alto is within their right-of-
way or is it next to it, just where it is?
Mr. Nafziger: It is, as far as I understand, is not within the Caltrain right-of-way, but it’s very close, it’s 26
feet from the tracks.
Ms. French: 26 feet.
Chair Bower: 26 feet from the edge of their right-of-way?
Ms. French: The tree trunk is 26 feet from the edge of Caltrain right-of-way, and it says here the tree
branches and foliage are five feet, within five feet of their right-of-way.
Chair Bower: Well, I think that’s pretty reassuring because their work is essentially boring for concrete
piers, and that, at 26 feet, that probably makes that tree root system safe, because that would be on the
outer edges, I mean the root system. I only say that because I put a basement in in 1988 eight feet from
a redwood tree before anybody was thinking about trees, and that tree is thriving and that, the arborist
there said, well, he thought it would die, and it didn’t. So, if you’re careful and you’re not polluting or
damaging the root system in some way with chemicals or some other invasive stuff, I’m at least
somewhat encouraged. I’m not an arborist, but having had that one experience which, of course, I didn’t
understand until after the project was well under way, that’s why we now have tree (not understood).
So, it’s worth that consideration.
2.c
Packet Pg. 52
Vice Chair Corey: Redwoods grow in strange ways, so they can actually go a big distance in one direction
or not. That’s why a lot of them might live on cliffs. It really depends on the tree.
Chair Bower: Yeah, right. So, I think, unless there are other questions, I’d like to hear from the public
and then we’ll come back and have a discussion and make recommendations. So, Martin, you’re our only
speaker today, and speaking as a property owner, not as a Board Member.
Martin Bernstein: Thank you Chair Bower. So, I read the report and I thought it was a very well written
report. I actually enjoyed reading it and all the diagrams. So, just to let the public know, as a Member of
the HRB I received a ruling from the Federal, I’m sorry, from the California Fair Political Practice
Commission, so I’m not allowed to participate in any of the decisions on this, because my personal
residence is within 500 feet of the right-of-way. But as a member of the public I am able to speak as a
member of the public with anything that’s regarding my personal property. I just want to make the
comment that I’m glad to see this electrification project move forward, because it will reduce the noise
impact on my personal residence. I take the train often to San Francisco and these poles and the
substructures are already installed in San Mateo County, so I find them actually pretty exciting to see
that. It reminds me of all the travel I do in Europe. But that’s the impact on my personal residence, just
the less noise with the electric, so I’m glad to see the project move forward. Thank you.
Chair Bower: Thank you Martin. Since there are no further public comment requests, I think I’d like to
bring it back to the Board now and let’s discuss recommendations that we want to make to, or responses
to this report. I have one staff question. I could not read, because, I couldn’t read how tall these towers
are because they were shrunk to such a small, I can’t read it. Do you have a sense of – the tower detail
is not in the plans that I could find in our materials, unless I missed it.
Ms. French; Packet page 16, I had done my level best in writing this to look through the plans and see
what was what. Packet page 16 (crosstalk) has a paragraph that says the different, the wide-phalange
design ones are basically 32 feet tall where those occur. The wide-flanged 4-A, the ones with the long
reach cantilevers are 45 feet tall. Most of them are 32 to 35 feet tall, and then you have the occasional
45 feet tall poles basically, or 38 feet in some cases.
Chair Bower: A question that maybe could be answered by our Public Works representative, at Homer
and Alma there are two high power poles that were installed recently by the City, they are steel. Do you
have any sense of what those, how tall those poles are?
Mr. Nafziger: I don’t. I am vaguely aware of those poles in previous meetings with Utilities staff, but I do
not know the height of those.
Ms. French: I should also state that - am I interrupting your thought, sorry.
Chair Bower: No, no.
Ms. French: I should also state on packet page 16, below all of those bullets that I combed through, the
JPB representative said that there’s going to be a 75 feet tall pole type that’s going to go in six or seven
locations. It’s undetermined the timing of the utilities undergrounding. So, that’s related to that, and so
that’s why we don’t know where those would go. We don’t have them in the plans. I don’t know if those
will show up in the 100 percent plans. Okay, so I guess that’s when we’ll know when we see those.
Chair Bower: So, I’m trying to find a building that would be comparable to say a 45-foot pole. Now, 805
Hight Street had a 55-foot height limit. Is that, you know, that’s the development between Channing and
Homer on High Street. I’m just wondering, is that the downtown height limit, 55 feet?
2.c
Packet Pg. 53
Ms. French: 50 feet is the City-wide height limit.
Chair Bower: I think that building is taller than the 50 feet.
Ms. French: There’re a number of buildings taller than 50 feet.
Chair Bower: So, if that was just 50 feet, we’re talking about poles that would be five feet shorter than
those buildings, and those poles would overwhelm the Palo Alto Depot at University Avenue. I don’t think
that building’s more than 25 feet tall, and it’s just a guess. So, the reason I bring this up, Board
Members, is that part of what Councilwoman Holman has asked us to do is make some statement about
contextual or what I think the term we also could use is compatibility of these poles with Station – I can’t
imagine how they could use a pole that tall, why they need it. Anyway, so let’s consider that. I have a list
of…
Ms. French: Could I just, before you do that let me just resolve this. So, at the station, to have data, the
plans indicate the TT-1 and the TT-4 poles, which are 32 feet tall for the TT-1 and 32 feet tall for the TT-
4. So, I think at the Palo Alto Depot we’re looking at 32-foot tall poles. So, hopefully that stays that way.
I don’t know why they would change it.
Chair Bower: Okay, so to start the conversation off, I have five areas of discussion. One is what kinds of
attachments will be made to the historic bridge at San Francisquito Creek. The second one would be
where that parallel traction station is going to be located, because of its size and I don’t think it’s going to
be near any historic structures or properties, but we would like to know that. Certainly, all of the issues
surrounding El Palo Alto Tree should be, I think, clearly discussed. All mitigation measures listed and I
think in my experience, site observation of work around the tree would be more effective than a bond,
because a bond is just money, and typically you can just build money into your project to pay the bond
and then not have to worry about it. But, again, my experience, site observation meant a much more
thorough review and really, protection of the tree. So, that’s something I would like the Board to
consider. And then finally, the compatibility of the poles probably between San Francisquito Creek and
just south of the Palo Alto University Avenue station ought to be the same, and more contextually
appropriate or compatible. I had envisioned these poles as being steel, just for no reason at all, but
concrete is a little, you know, seems to be a little harsh as a material, even painted. So, those are the
five things that I would like the Board to consider. I welcome any other discussion, discussion of any
other topic, but if we could focus on those, oh and the color. I’m sorry, it was on my list, but not as a
bullet point. So, color would be the final one. So, a discussion, Board Members. Debbie.
Board Member Shepherd: So, as to color, the big chip is totally different than the little chip. I’m sure
they’re going to resolve that, but yellow doesn’t, you know, the yellow obviously doesn’t seem very
natural. Is the paint infused in the concrete, so this isn’t a maintenance issue? I don’t know, I’m sure that
somebody is going to address this. And other poles, there must be other poles that are contextual, so
these don’t stand out as much when we just want to make them go away visually as much as possible.
Chair Bower: So, just to answer your question about paint, the paint has been described to me as a
temporary sealant.
Board Member Shepherd: Not very reassuring.
Chair Bower: So, there’s never an end to the maintenance.
Board Member Shepherd: Okay, thank you.
Chair Bower: I don’t know how we answer that, because they are asking us for colors.
2.c
Packet Pg. 54
Vice Chair Corey: My only question would be if they plan to maintain it or not.
Ms. French: This question will be referred to, and of course they can see this meeting on the media
center, they being the JPB Team, and they perhaps will have some answers for next week’s ARB Meeting
and, David, if you can relay this back to the Board or however, we can do that.
Chair Bower: So, let’s talk about color. Is there any, are there any strong, any feelings at all about the
color by the Board Members? Let’s start down with Michael for a change.
Board Member Makinen: I don’t think really the color is that much of a relevant issue. It’s a structure, you
know.
Board Member Kohler: Is there a selected color already, I mean of the ones that are in the booklet here?
(crosstalk)
Board Member Kohler: Well, the black looks really good. Is this black or green?
Chair Bower: This is green.
Vice Chair Corey: They don’t have a sample of the brown though. I mean, they have yellow, gray and
black, and they have…
Chair Bower: The brown looks like green, yeah brown looks like black.
Vice Chair Corey: Oh, sorry. I thought it was the – okay, never mind. That’s the brown.
Ms. French: On the screen we have, and this is packet page 74 as well, that shows at the Palo Alto Depot
the poles, option one is the yellow-looking tan color. Option two is the gray and option three is the
brown. And it says option one is to match the color of the structure, the Historic Railroad Station. Option
two is to match poles and option three is to match the furniture. Are we matching furniture, station or I
don’t know, that’s what we got?
Vice Chair Corey: The benches, I think there’s benches out there.
Chair Bower: Debbie, what color are you, or what’s your feeling about colors?
Board Member Shepherd: Well, they call it yellow, but the big swatch looks like beige to me. It kind of
looks like the color of the station, and it just seems the least assertive, but I don’t know.
Chair Bower: It’s tan. It looks like tan to me, as Roger and Michael are saying. I guess my feeling is that
we ought to consider picking a color that’s consistent along the entire corridor because I think that will
eventually, my brain just looses the color, although it did see the color on those very tall power poles at
Homer and Alma, and it’s a green, a dark green color. Of course, that color has only been there for three
or four years, and yesterday for some reason I saw it. My inclination is to either do the tan one or the
green one, just because green is more like the trees, and there are a lot of trees that are along the
corridor, but I do understand that…
Vice Chair Corey: There are now.
Chair Bower: Well, I think, I don’t think they’re all going away. On the other hand, the tan color at the
Palo Alto University Avenue Station seems to make some sense. I don’t get any sense at all of what color
2.c
Packet Pg. 55
should be at California Avenue because I can’t really think of what a color there, what colors are already
there. There are many of them. So, those are my feelings about it.
Vice Chair Corey: Yeah, I’m with you, consistency.
Chair Bower: Yeah. And they’re not talking about the colors of all the poles between the stations, so I
would…
(inaudible)
Vice Chair Corey: Yeah, costs extra.
Chair Bower: Well, I would like them to all be the same color in the corridor.
Mr. Nafziger: I believe their proposal is to have colored poles only within a certain radius of each station.
Chair Bower: Okay, I think we can still make a recommendation that they all be the same color in Palo
Alto for consistencies sake.
Vice Chair Corey: Across everywhere, not just at the stations, yeah.
Chair Bower: Yeah, I think so. That would be my preference.
Vice Chair Corey: Mine too, but I don’t know if they care.
Chair Bower: Well, we make a recommendation. That’s all we can do.
Vice Chair Corey: I like your idea of green, because that’s going to be the best probably if there’s all the
trees around there, right? Almost matching.
Board Member Kohler (inaudible)
Chair Bower: At the Palo Alto Station I can see green as being a significant contrast.
Vice Chair Corey: Use the tan at the Palo Alto Station.
Chair Bower: Councilwoman Holman.
Council Member Holman: I’m just nodding in acknowledgement.
Chair Bower: So, how we…
Council Member Holman: I will say one thing. So, because these swatches that are provided, there’s no
way to rely on them at all in terms of color. Board Member Shepherd brought out the difference even just
within the packet. So, it’s a stab in the dark literally. It’s almost brown might be safer because there’s
likely to be less deviation, but green could be all over the map. So, unless they an be pinned down to
matching some particular bin more 127 or something like that equivalent, I think green might be a little
bit of a guess work.
Vice Chair Corey: It could be lime green.
Council Member Holman: You never know.
2.c
Packet Pg. 56
Ms. French: I might suggest next week, when we have the ARB, I can ask them if they have some actual
color swatches to bring them to the ARB, and since there’s five architects there, that might help things go
well.
Vice Chair Corey: Like actually even a sample of the cement with the color would be…
Ms. French: Well, that’s asking a lot.
Council Member Holman: Sample boards are typical for any applicant, as you all know, so it seems like
Caltrain could perform up to that standard, I would hope that (crosstalk) and we are at their mercy here.
Chair Bower: So, let’s have a sense, I’m not getting a sense of color from the Board, but not withstanding
the fact that these are not maybe going to be the final colors, I think what we could do is make a
recommendation of the tone range based on these swatches. So, I’m ambivalent about brown or green.
Green somewhat appeals to me more when I look at the screen here.
Vice Chair Corey: I think your thought on the green matches more the trees makes sense, right? I mean,
if you’re going to go with one of these, because that’s going to match the most, given that there will be
trees in the area. But, if you had to pick one and you had to be consistent, so I’ll still stick with that.
Chair Bower: Debbie.
Board Member Shepherd: The pole is analogous to a tree trunk…
Vice Chair Corey: You’d do brown?
Board Member Shepherd: …but a tree trunk with no branches is a really hideous experience, so I guess I
just struggle with going down that route at all. I just want it to be as neutral, and there must be
expertise out there about what make something go away visually.
Ms. French: I might weigh in just for fun, as a Caltrain rider. I think when you arrive at a station maybe
you’ve been seeing gray concrete and now you’re at a station and it’s, you know, subtly different than
the gray and you say, oh, here we are. So, having the tan, if you want to call it tan, is subtle but a
change, and now you’re in the station. So, I think, I don’t know why I’m weighing in, as a rider.
Chair Bower: All right. Well, so I think we’re all over the place here. So, I would like to suggest that we
adopt their option one for pole colors that’s not consistent across the corridor, but I think a lighter color
at the Downtown Station makes sense. Stanford, the green at that area, there are a lot of trees there.
Maybe they’re going to disappear. So, I don’t know, should we vote on this?
Ms. French: Yes.
Chair Bower: Yeah, right. All right, let’s hold that thought.
Board Member Kohler: I suggest we vote, take a vote to vote.
Chair Bower: I would like to list the things that we’re going to recommend and then let’s do one vote,
rather than vote on each one.
Vice Chair Corey: I love it.
Chair Bower: All right, so we’ll hold color for the moment. I think it would be easy for us to, going back to
my first point, that Historic Resources that should be untouched or touched as little as possible, and that
2.c
Packet Pg. 57
the attachments to the bridge at San Francisquito Creek should follow Secretary of Interior Standards,
which are basically you do as little as possible and if they have to be removed later, which they may be
because we’ll have Michael’s battery-operated trains, then there will only be holes. So, I think that’s a
pretty easy one for us to suggest. And since I’m not seeing any hands, I’ll consider that to be Item
Number One. El Palo Alto tree trimming, I would like to recommend that that be, that any work around
the tree be done with an arborist present period, and have an observer there. I’m not, I don’t know that
the bond issue is going to be effective or that they would do it at all, because that’s just another cost, but
I’m open to that suggestion. But at least that the tree, all the work when they’re working there, they
have to have an arborist on site.
(Female inaudible)
Mr. Nafziger: Yes, we’ve already discussed that with Caltrain and I believe that is our, that will happen,
City of Palo Alto arborist, Urban Forestry Department.
Chair Bower: Okay. And then the, I guess there are four things, because color – so the fourth one was
the poles at the Palo Alto Station, the University Avenue Station be more contextually appropriate or
more compatible than the concrete that’s there. That’s not very many, but I think it would make a
difference. And then the color. I would suggest color option one. So, those are the four things, right?
Vice Chair Corey: Option one on the Palo Alto…
Chair Bower: On their recommended ones. So, that’s going to be three different colors.
(inaudible)
Chair Bower: It’s the tan color for the University Station, it’s I don’t know what, the dark something color,
it’s filing cabinet black, wow.
Vice Chair Corey: That seems harsh.
Chair Bower: Really. So, maybe I would modify that to the brown 332 on page 81.
Ms. French: Sorry, did you say this is for the Cal Ave Station?
Chair Bower: Yeah, Cal Ave Station. And then the Stanford Stadium Station would be their green color.
Maybe to make it simpler we just make it green, make it tan at the Palo Alto Station and green
everywhere else. Sorry to prolong this. Is that acceptable, two colors?
Vice Chair Corey: I like it, and that’s for me.
Chair Bower: So, Amy, green everywhere else, all along the corridor. So, basically the entire corridor
would be green, the forest green or whatever this is, it’s marine green, although it doesn’t really look like
that on the monitor. And then at the Palo Alto Station it would be the tan/yellow. I’d like to use the term
tan and not use their yellow color. I don’t really want it to be yellow. So, can you read those back Amy,
just so we…
MOTION
Ms. French: So, as a group voting on these recommended motions; (1) the San Francisquito Creek bridge
attachment should touch the resources as little as possible and follow the Secretary of Interior Standards,
(2) the tree should have the Urban Forester review any work near the tree as an observer, Palo Alto’s
Urban Forester, and then (3) the poles at the Palo Alto Depot should be more contextually appropriate,
2.c
Packet Pg. 58
and then at the Palo Alto Depot, use the lighter tan color or just the tan color at that station, option one
similar, and then (4) use green on the poles elsewhere in Palo Alto.
Chair Bower: And the one, actually the one I had on my list, the fifth one was that (5) the parallel
traction facility would be located in the California Avenue region, because I don’t think we have any
historic resources there. Not located in the south near Greenmeadow or in the north near the basically
Embarcadero Road, University Avenue or the San Francisquito bridge. That’s a big building. Okay, so…
Council Member Holman: Did you want to address the location of the poles near the University Station?
They said not within 40 feet of the front on the west side, but they don’t address the east side. Was that
of a concern?
Chair Bower: I think the poles are single there, so they’re spaced, they’re actually located between the
tracks, so I’m not quite sure what east and west would be, since there’s only one pole.
Ms. French: Yeah, that might have been the mitigation measure from back in 2014, when they adopted
this, but now we have rail plans that show single poles, so I think that was in case we were doing two
poles.
Vice Chair Corey: Right.
Chair Bower: I just think Council Member Holman’s remark about not placing the poles in the front of the
building would also be an important – it seems to me those poles could be located…
Vice Chair Corey: I thought they were in the middle.
Chair Bower: No, the poles are actually not in front of the building, but they would be at either end of the
building. (crosstalk) I can’t tell from the plans where the building is.
Ms. French: So, let’s look together. Sheet number 13, page number 13 of the set near the words “match
line MT-1” that’s where the single pole starts and that is, you can see the Palo Alto Station there just
below the grid marks, which is I guess the paving on the platform. So, it is, there is a single pole across
from the station building there, and the next pole occurs between the building and the kind of round-
about where the buses come, so that one is not in front of the station. There is one in front of the station
though, next to that match line.
Chair Bower: That’s probably driven by spacing and I don’t think we’re going to get anything, they’re not
going to change that. So, I guess what we could say is, we would like to encourage the Caltrain authority
to (6) position poles near this station in a way that minimizes poles in front of the building. So, one
probably has to be there, but if they could figure out a way to have zero, then that would be better. Is
that a reasonable request? I don’t know whether they will do it, but let’s add that to it.
Vice Chair Corey: We can add it.
Chair Bower: Yeah, let’s…
(inaudible)
Vice Chair Corey: (6a) Ideally zero poles, but minimize it in front of the building, poles in front of the
building.
Ms. French: Okay.
2.c
Packet Pg. 59
Chair Bower: Okay. So, with, there are four of us. Michael just left. I’m worried about getting a ticket,
because at 10:00 my parking is up because I’m on the street. I could run out there.
Vice Chair Corey: Why don’t we make it a motion?
Chair Bower: Well, I’m actually making this, four is enough. All right. So, with that, all in favor?
Vice Chair Corey: I’ll second.
Chair Bower: I’m sorry, yeah, yeah. I made the motion, Brandon is seconding.
Vice Chair Corey: I will second.
Chair Bower: See, I’m getting rusty because it’s been so long between meetings.
Vice Chair Corey: That’s your problem.
Chair Bower: Among many other problems. All right, so Michael is back, good. So, I moved and Brandon
seconded those five items as a motion, and so, if there is no other discussion, I’ll call for a vote. All in
favor. All opposed. None, good.
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0, 2 ABSENT.
Chair Bower: I hope that’s helpful. I will meet with you and discuss attending the meeting next week.
2.c
Packet Pg. 60
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Members Alexander Lew, Osma
Thompson and Robert Gooyer.
Action Items
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Architectural Review Board Input on Peninsula Corridor
Electrification Project (PCEP) Overhead Contact System Foundation & Pole Layouts
Design for Installation Within Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB)
Right of Way in Palo Alto. Environmental Assessment: The JPB Certified the Final
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan (MMRP) in January 2015, Following Publication of the Draft EIR in
February 2014 for Public Comment. For More Information Contact the Chief Planning
Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org
Chair Furth: That takes us to item number 2 on our agenda, which is a public hearing. The Architectural
Review Board is being asked for comment on the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project, overheard
contact system, foundation and pole layouts design for installation on the CalTrain Peninsula Corridor
Joint Powers Board right-of-way. And EIR was certified for this project in 2015, in January 2015, and
numerous statements of overriding considerations were made at that time, acknowledging that there will
be adverse environmental effects from the project, but they are worth it on balance. May we have the
staff report? Oh, I should also mention that we are not being asked to make a recommendation to the
City because the City does not have approval rights here. It's consultation rights. Thank you.
Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Good morning. Amy French, Chief Planning Official, and ARB liaison
of the day.
Chair Furth: Every week a new one. Thank you. Nice to have you back.
Ms. French: Thank you. Today, we have the CalTrain Electrification OCS design project. I have a
PowerPoint, and so does the applicant. We have from CalTrain JPB two members, Stacy and Brent. The
PCEP -- as it's known in acronym form -- is going to convert diesel train to electrically-powered trains.
They will tell you more about that, from the CalTrain staff. We have 3.8 miles in Palo Alto, and we will be
seeing these appurtenances and poles and wires and one paralleling station in the city of Palo Alto. As
Chair Furth mentioned, we do not have any permitting authority outside the JPB right-of-way, but we do
have some input on requested items per a mitigation measure of the Environmental Impact Report. And,
we also have some permitting authority over trees to be pruned and removed within the City right-of-way
that's outside of the JPB corridor. I apologize for the slide issues here. The PCEP Final EIR was approved
in January of 2015, and there are mitigation measures. Those were contained in your staff report. We are
seeing 65 percent plans today and commenting on those. The City Council will be looking at an
agreement between the City and CalTrain on November 26th. We do have a schedule coming up. The
applicant will tell you...I'm sorry - the project team will tell you more about that. Tree work has begun to
some limited degree, but it will proceed very shortly, and about 25 percent of that tree work in the Palo
Alto segment has been completed. Here is the tree work, and again, the project team will tell you more,
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
EXCERPT MINUTES: November 15, 2018
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 AM
2.d
Packet Pg. 61
City of Palo Alto Page 2
but you can see within these segments of Palo Alto, there are quite a few tree removals and trimmings,
and just listing here the ones in the right-of-way, there are about 296 trees to be pruned in the right-of-
way of CalTrain, and 52 trees to be removed and replaced at a 1-to-1 ratio. The paralleling station, there
were three options in the Environmental Impact Report. Option 2 is the one that's preferred and being
studied further at this time. There are some aspects that are contained in the area. It's not a 40 by 80
foot building as reported prior staff report; it is a fenced area within which there are several items I'll
show, as will the project team. Here is the Park Plaza site, showing the landscaping of that project. The
paralleling station will be adjacent to this landscaping, but not on top of the landscaping. That
landscaping will remain, to the best of the City's understanding. We will be seeing the paralleling station
items in 2019, but we are requesting comments on the location. And then, also, there is opportunity to
weigh in on color, for the painting of the control house. You can see here, this is a different site, but this
is roughly what the transformer would look like here. The control house would be a shed, and then,
there's something called gantries that, I don't know what they are, but I’m sure the project team does.
The ARB had asked some questions last week at their public hearing, and these are answers to some of
the questions. We sent those onto the HRB so they are aware of the answers. Let's see. I'll come back to
that if anyone is curious. The HRB did make comments last Thursday, as well, so the concern was about
the San Francisquito Creek bridge; concern about, you know, was it going to be affected. There were
some answers there, regarding how close the wire and all of that would come to the bridge. The Urban
Forester was requested to be called out as an observer for any work around Palo Alto. We have our
Urban Forester, Water Passmore, here today for questions on that. The HRB thought that the poles
should be contextually appropriate with the Palo Alto depot, which is an historic resource. And, they
selected a tan color, they recommended that color ; but then, they suggested that everywhere else, the
green color would be just fine. That's it. Let's see. The JPB had considerations for pole configuration. I
believe I was able to get those into the staff report. Here they are if you want to come back to them. We
had overriding considerations in the EIR statement, and there were a number of them. Those are also in
the report. Just for laughs, a couple of images, although the project team will provide more detailed
images. We have the single and the cantilever and, you know, double pole. We have the long reach
cantilever, and a portal; there are about four of those in Palo Alto, according to the plans. The colors.
Three stations, three colors to be painted, on metal poles, not concrete. And, let's see. This was the
report given to the HRB, so, also in the staff report, there are a number of historic resources within the
JPB right-of-way, and there are mitigations about those. These are kind of fun images, so I'll just show
them to you, as well. We have our bridge. These are the treatments and the Finding of Effect from back
in September of 2015. A lot of information here. The El Palo Alto, when it was two stems, and now it's
just one. There were mitigations and Findings of Effect that were prepared. The Palo Alto Depot, here is
an image of the depot, a Streamline Moderne. And this is one location where the center poles are
proposed. They are actually center poles with cantilevers so as to minimize the impacts of the visuals. We
have a few old images of the underpasses, which are also historic, at University and Embarcadero. The
project team...Yeah?
??: (inaudible)
Ms. French: Oh, did you want to actually read stuff? Okay. It's kind of hard to read because it's cut off on
this side. Yeah, we have a few underpasses. If anyone wants me to go back to any slides...
Chair Furth: Thank you.
Ms. French: ...I'm happy to do that, as well. I'm not expecting everyone to speed read. The center pole
feasibility was something that CalTrain was looking at. You know, CalTrain prefers the double poles
because they minimize the risk of failure in the event of a knock-down. And then, of course, Palo Alto,
aesthetically speaking, we would prefer the single poles, less poles, but there are considerations there.
Also, in the right-of-way, there are stringing wire, and there's this tree replacement, which has mitigation
measures. So, the point of the trees is to try to screen the residents and park users from the right-of-
way. And I apologize for so many words. This was a late-breaking commitment on my standpoint, too. I
learned about the project and trying to regurgitate for everybody. But, the great thing is we have our
project team here, we have aesthetic mitigation measures here, and they can elaborate on those, or not.
2.d
Packet Pg. 62
City of Palo Alto Page 3
We have a comprehensive agreement, which is coming forward. There are some timelines there that
relate to this work, this agreement between Palo Alto and CalTrain. That's what I've got. I'm going to
escape and let them present.
Chair Furth: Are there any questions of staff? I have one question, Amy. Do we have color swatches, or
samples, or anything, other than that slide?
Ms. French: No.
Chair Furth: Thank you.
Board Member Gooyer: I do have one comment that I thought was rather humorous, that El Palo Alto is
91,000 years old.
Ms. French: Oh, did I have a typo on the screen? Yeah. Apologize. A thousand. Yeah, that would be quite
something. It is quite something at a thousand, as well. Let's see...Let's see if this is it. No. Trying to find
the CalTrain presentation.
Male??: (inaudible)
Ms. French: Is this it? Okay. My eyes are not what they used to be. How do I get to the big...?
Male??: (inaudible)
Ms. French: I'm trying to find the bottom thing that tells me how to pan in.
[Locating presentation.]
Chair Furth: Good morning. If you could introduce yourself and spell your name for our transcriber.
Brent Tietjen: Oh, sure. Good morning. Brent Tietjen, Government and Community Relations Officer for
CalTrain. [spells name]
Chair Furth: Thank you.
Mr. Tietjen: Thank you. I'm here today to give you an update on the CalTrain Electrification Project.
Thanks, Amy, for that introduction, and for a lot of detail on that. I'll try to go through these slides pretty
quickly, but we're here to answer any questions that you have and talk in more detail on anything you'd
like to. First, I'll give a...
Chair Furth: You have 10 minutes automatically, but do not rush.
Mr. Tietjen: Sure. I'll give a quick overview of the CalTrain system, which I'm sure you're familiar with. I'll
talk about the project in general. Talk about the electric trains, which we are procuring. And then, go into
more detail about what's actually going to happen here in Palo Alto, the project elements, construction
impacts, etc. As I mentioned, I'll talk about the CalTrain system. We run 92 trains on an average
weekday from San Francisco down to San Jose. We also operate down to Gilroy. It's important to note
that we only own the tracks from San Francisco to Tamien station, or just south of Tamien station. We do
not own the tracks south of Tamien to Gilroy. Those are owned by UP, but we do operate on those. We
have a number of at-grade crossings, viaducts and bridges that have to be maintained in the city, good
repair. And we have one of the most robust on-board bike commuter programs, with over 5,000 bikes on
board every day. Since the introduction of the Baby Bullet in 2004, we've seen our ridership grow
exponentially, and continue to see that growth. In 2018, we had over 65,000 average weekday riders in
our count. As you can see on these trains, on a Giants day, or on just any regular peak commute hour,
it's packed. We are at or above seat capacity. Some of our trains are above 130 percent capacity.
2.d
Packet Pg. 63
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Carrying those 65,000 riders is an aging fleet. Our older cars, the gallery cars and locomotives, were built
in 1985, some of them, and they are at or past their useful retirement age, or useful life. Quick
description of the project in general. For CalTrain Electrification, we are electrifying the corridor from San
Francisco to just south of Tamien. We are, as part of the electrification project, the infrastructure is the
installation of concrete foundations, poles on top of those foundations, and then, wires which will connect
to the electric trains. We are also building 10 traction power facilities throughout the corridor, one of
which is in Palo Alto, and I'll talk about later. We are procuring 96 electric vehicles, which will convert 75
percent of our fleet to electric service. We do have funding to convert additional from the state, as well.
This project will not increase the speed of the trains. It will remain at 79 miles per hour. But, it will allow
them to start and stop more efficiently, and it will allow us to increase service to an additional train per
hour, per direction. Currently we have five trains per hour, per direction, during the peak. After this
project, we will have six trains per hour, per direction, during the peak. This project will help us restore
service both to Atherton and Broadway stations, which currently only get weekend service, and we will
continue to have our tenants operate on the railroad. UP, ACE Corridor, Capital Corridor, will all continue
to operate on CalTrain tracks. A quick look at what service benefits could be as part of this project. If you
see that we have, on a Baby Bullet, we have five to six stops, if we want to retain those stops, right now
it's 60 minutes, but with this project, it could go down to 45 minutes. Or, if we wanted to retain that 60-
minute headway, we can more than double the stops at the stations for each train. This project has a
number of key regional benefits for the region. One of those is a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
on an annual basis of over 176,000. Also, general clean air, and reduced noise, and just overall capacity
increases for the corridor, as well. In 2016, there were a lot of decisions that were made about the new
electric trains that we're procuring in terms of the layout, on the bikes, on the bike-to-seat ratio, on the
bathrooms on board. There will be one bathroom on each train, as well as upper doors not being
precluded. In 2017, that design progressed, with the exterior design, seat information, all with a lot of
public input. In 2019, we hope to have a virtual reality tour where folks throughout the public can put on
a Google Cardboard and see what the new trains will look like. Now we will talk more about the actual
construction activities for the project, and for Palo Alto in particular. As I mentioned, we do have 51 miles
of corridor that we are electrifying. That includes over 3,000 poles being installed along those 51 miles.
And we are installing 10 traction power facilities. I'll talk about those in a minute. We do have the
construction broken out into phases. Segment 1 is from San Francisco down to South Francisco/Brisbane.
Segment 2 is from South Francisco down to Menlo Park. Segment 3 is from Menlo Park to Santa Clara.
Segment 4 is from Santa Clara to San Jose. In terms of the phasing, we currently see the Segment 2
portion being done, which there is a lot of construction going on right now. Then moving down to
Segment 4, and then, moving back up the corridor to Segment 3. A quick overview of the Palo Alto work
segment. As Amy mentioned, it's over 3.8 miles, and there are two stations and one paralleling station,
which is a traction power facility, which helps regulate power to the train. In terms of actual field work
status right now, a lot of utility Geotech work has been done on the corridor and in Palo Alto, and they
are currently doing foundation potholing throughout the whole corridor, and including in Palo Alto. They
have done quite a bit of potholing already. Once they have the findings of the potholing, they will go
back and do any redesign that's necessary to make sure the conflicts are clear. Looking to the future,
they will come back and do tree pruning/removal, foundation installation, pole and wire installation, as
well as paralleling station construction. A quick overview of schedule, and this is always subject to change
as we have a design/build contract, but this is our best guess right now. For potholing, they are doing
that currently and have been doing it since the summer of 2018 in Palo Alto. They will come back and do
tree pruning later this year, so late fall for tree pruning and removal. For spring and summer, we're
looking at foundation installation, so that's the actual concrete foundations that are drilled and poured
into the ground. And in summer 2019, we're looking at the installation of the paralleling station
construction. And then, late 2019 would be the pole and wire installation. I want to talk in more detail
about each of those activities. I'll give you a general sense of what they include. You can see here for
potholing, it's just a basic big vacuum truck on the tracks that comes in, sucks out the dirt on each
foundation location. They do clear every location from utilities to make sure when they go in and drill,
they don't have to stop for any reason. They can continue to drill, and then, move down the line. For tree
pruning or replacement, we do have to remove or prune trees within 10 feet of any electrified component
of the project. You can see a quick diagram here of what that looks like. Here is a summary of the tree
pruning and replacement that will happen in Palo Alto. I won't go through these in detail, but happy to
2.d
Packet Pg. 64
City of Palo Alto Page 5
stick around and answer any questions. There will be 120 trees replaced in Palo Alto. If a tree is removed
on JPB property, it's replaced on JPB property. Same thing for city. If it's removed on city property,
replaced on city property, and for public, as well. We have worked with the City on the replacement
locations for any city trees. Here is a quick summary of the tree work in Palo Alto, just to give you a
general sense of where the bulk of the tree work is happening, and just broken up into major sections of
the city. For foundation construction, it's basically excavating, drilling, and then, filling with rebar, and
then, pouring concrete, and then, curing. You can see on the right here, that's what the rebar cages look
like. They are quite long, 10 to 20 feet, or longer. They go into the ground, so there's about three feet
that protrudes out of the ground, not this rebar cage that you see. For full installation, as I mentioned,
there are 3,000 poles installed throughout the corridor. About 196 will be installed in Palo Alto. That's at
the current design; that could change going forward. But, that's a general sense. Pole heights range
between 30 to 45 1/2 feet, depending on the type of pole. The type of pole is dictated by the utility real
estate needs and just general operation needs of the project. Here's a quick view of what the poles look
like. On the left-hand side, you can see a single-track cantilever that goes over one track only. The right-
hand side, that's one of the taller poles at 45 1/2 feet, two track cantilevers, and spans two tracks. The
center pole is on the left, and then the portal -- which there are a few of -- on the right. Here are the
station color options, for the pole colors. Apologies, we don't have the swatches now, but we're happy to
give those to the staff for your review, as well. Just a quick picture of what the pole installation looks like.
A lot of this work does happen at night because we do have 92 weekday trains that run and need to
serve our customers. But, as I mentioned, the pole are about 180 feet apart, so we hope they are not in
the back yards of any homes for too long. After the poles are installed, they come back and string the
wire, which is a pretty quick process. Our contractor has a wire train, one of the only ones in the nation,
to move along the corridor pretty quickly. And I will note that there are additional wires that will be
installed where utilities cross above our track, above the poles. Those are called shunt wires. For the
traction power facilities, there will be 10 installed throughout the corridor. Some facility components of
those facilities are transformers, gantries, which are steel A-train structures, which help hold the wires
across the tracks, and then, a control house, which basically just houses the controls. The facilities
provide electric power to the trains. There are two traction power substations, which are the larger
substations, one in San Jose and one in South San Francisco. Those actually provide the power from
PG&E to the overhead contact system. The one in Palo Alto is called a paralleling station, and that helps
just boost and regulate the power to the overall system. The power actually comes in through the lines
and then is just boosted, and helps regulate the power to the system. This is an unmanned, secured,
lighted facility. For paralleling station #5, which is the one that will be installed in Palo Alto, this location
is south of Page Mill Road and on CalTrain property. I'll show a diagram in a second. We did have
coordination with the City on the location during the EIR in 2015. Vegetation screening will be
implemented and reviewed by City staff, and the control house color is also to be selected by the City. A
quick map of what the paralleling station will look like. This is a rough estimate of what it will look like.
It's at 65 percent design right now. It could change, but this should give you a good idea of the elements
of the project and their location. You can see in the green, there is a transformer, which actually takes
the power and boosts it. There is a control house, which is a 10 by 10 house that I'll show in a second,
what that looks like. And then there are gantries, one on each side of the track. The gantry within the
facility footprint has disconnect switches. The gantry on the other side does not. It's just a basic A-train
structure that holds the wires across the track. Here is a picture of a paralleling station at the Amtrak
northeast corridor. This is a good sense of what they will look like. I'll show here on the right, you can
see the control house, the larger element there. In the middle is the transformer, and then, on the far
left is the gantries with the disconnect switches. Behind this one, you can see the other, what are called
strain gantries, which just hold the wires, which will be on the other side of the tracks. You can see,
these colors probably don't show up too well, so we will get samples to staff for these control house
options. These are general options of what the color selection the City has. For general construction
impacts, work will occur...I should say, for the traction power facility, that will be done mostly during the
day as it won't impact the rail, but there will be some work that is done at night. For all the other work, a
lot of it is done at night so we don't have impacts to our regular customers on CalTrain, but we do move
along the corridor pretty quickly for foundations, which are spaced, again, 200 feet apart. They can get
five to eight foundations done in a night, so they can move a couple hundred or even 1,000 feet down
2.d
Packet Pg. 65
City of Palo Alto Page 6
the line. We do have a dedicated hotline for construction, which I'll leave up after this. Not specifically
related to Palo Alto, but we do have some work that is happening...
Chair Furth: (inaudible)
Mr. Tietjen: Sure. Yeah. I would encourage folks to go to calmod.org to learn more about the project.
There is a tab on the top right-hand side called "Get Involved." If you sign up and you enter your city
Palo Alto, we send out regular notices about construction activities particular to Palo Alto, as well as
weekly construction notices for the project overall. We do physical notices to about a fourth a mile of the
tracks on any new phase of work and on meetings, and we do door hangers for more discreet impacts.
I'll leave this up here as we answer any questions, how to get in touch with us. We encourage folks to
call us to learn more about the project, or if you're experiencing anything on the railroad that you'd like
to learn more about, please let us know. I'm happy to answer any questions, and Stacy Cocke with our
team is also here.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Are there any questions of the applicant...? Not the applicant, the rail project,
before we hear from the public? Or should we just hear from the public? Okay. Vice Chair Baltay.
Vice Chair Baltay: Good morning. Thank you. I'm trying to understand what the poles are going to look
like. I'm reading the package of drawings I was given. I'm looking at, for example, the poles in by the
train station, or where Palo Alto is the big tree. And as I read the chart here very carefully, I can sort of
make out, it says, "Pole type WF4A," for example. What does that look like? There's no drawing in the
package. I've been given nothing.
Mr. Tietjen: Sure.
Vice Chair Baltay: And then, what color choices do we have? Again, I don't have any color choices in
front of me.
Mr. Tietjen: Sure. For color choices, for things outside of the station areas, those will be either marine
green or galvanized steel. For within the station area, we will have color samples. We will bring those to
staff for your selection and your...
Vice Chair Baltay: To be clear, the samples are not here right now...
Mr. Tietjen: Correct.
Vice Chair Baltay: ...at the public hearing. Thank you.
Chair Furth: All right.
Vice Chair Baltay: I'm sorry, but what is the pole going to look like? What's the design?
Mr. Tietjen: These are our general sense of what the poles will look like. We're happy to share actual
design drawings, which I think Amy kind of flashed earlier as part of her presentation.
Vice Chair Baltay: So then, some of the poles that are labeled TT for a tapered pole, presumably it's a
different design style pole.
Mr. Tietjen: Correct. There are...
Vice Chair Baltay: These drawings represent a pole, but what...? I mean, is there any more detail than
that here?
Mr. Tietjen: There are details in the plan. I'm not sure if we shared those with...?
2.d
Packet Pg. 66
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Board Member Gooyer: They emailed them to us yesterday. They emailed them to us yesterday.
Vice Chair Baltay: It's not in the drawings.
Chair Furth: And are there copies of them over there for the public?
Vice Chair Baltay: Were they made available?
Ms. French: We only had...These were the only drawings that were printed out, that staff printed out. We
didn't get a packet of drawings. We printed these out, but we emailed the other set that looks just like
this, only it has pictures of poles. That was an email.
Chair Furth: Can you put those up on the screen, so the public can see them? And us?
Ms. French: Okay. I don't know how to do that.
Chair Furth: Well, while you're thinking, why don't...
Vice Chair Baltay: I have no other questions. Thank you.
Chair Furth: Why don't we hear from the public? We have some speaker cards? Let's see, these are
for...? Does anybody care to speak on this project? Going once...? Okay, hearing no public comment, I'll
bring it back to the Board.
Board Member Thompson: I have a couple more questions...
Chair Furth: Yes?
Board Member Thompson: ...of the applicant.
Chair Furth: Board Member Thompson.
Board Member Thompson: Thanks. In terms of what will be painted, just looking at what we're looking at
right now, are we considering just the pole to be painted, or is it the pole plus the stuff that's
cantilevering over?
Mr. Tietjen: It is just the vertical pole.
Board Member Thompson: And the stuff that's cantilevering over will be what we're looking at, just a
metal...?
Mr. Tietjen: Correct.
Board Member Thompson: Okay, great. And the wires, I'm assuming will be black?
Mr. Tietjen: They will be steel color.
Board Member Thompson: Okay. Because I know in San Francisco, those overhead cables look like they
are kind of dark in color. Are we assuming something along that line?
Mr. Tietjen: Yeah, I don't know if you'll be able to determine the color. You can see there are wires on
the two-track cantilever here. It's a basic gray color, not black.
Chair Furth: Do we have a representative of the HRB here today? Would you care to address us?
2.d
Packet Pg. 67
City of Palo Alto Page 8
David Bower: Good morning, David Bower, current chair of the HRB. As you may have seen in Amy's
email that she sent to you and to our HRB members, we had a few questions that had been answered.
The primary concerns the HRB had were what the attachments were going to be on the bridge that
crosses San Francisco Creek, the protection of El Palo Alto, the color and the compatibility of the poles in
front of the main University Avenue station, and then, in general...Well, in the location of the
supplementary power station, which we did not want to be located near Greenmeadow/Eichler
neighborhood or near the train station. The current siting solves that, or satisfies it.
Chair Furth: You're supportive of their current proposal. Proposed location.
Mr. Bower: Right. We didn't see that when we had our meeting, but we just wanted it in the middle part
of the city, so that satisfies that. And then, one other Board member had a question about whether an all
battery-operated train system had been considered. Basically...
Chair Furth: Not, I think, within our jurisdiction here.
Mr. Bower: No, right, not in our jurisdiction. I think the last issue is that we wanted to have the poles all
painted the same color throughout the right-of-way, with the exception of the University Avenue station.
We thought that would be more consistent, and it would also be less noticeable than having steel some
places, painted, especially two different colors of paint, one at the California Avenue station, one at the
North University section. I think that's...That's what we reviewed. Did I forget anything, Amy? I don't
think so.
Chair Furth: Thank you very much for coming this morning.
Mr. Bower: If I could say one other thing. I went out yesterday to look at El Palo Alto, to actually see it
again, and it's not likely that any damage to this tree could be done by construction equipment because
it's actually adjacent to the bridge. Since all the work will be done on track, you couldn't actually reach it
without damaging the bridge structure. That was reassuring to me, and I'm sure it would be to you, as
well.
Chair Furth: Thank you. I should ask, did anybody do field inspections on this project? Alex, Peter. Osma,
no. Robert, no. My field inspection primarily consists of living in the area and seeing it frequently.
Ms. French: May I speak? We do have on the screen now the plans that were sent out on Tuesday to the
Board. The other thing I wanted to mention is we do have Walter Passmore in the audience, our Urban
Forester, if anyone had questions about the El Palo Alto and our negotiations on that.
Chair Furth: Thank you, to you and Mr. Passmore. Okay. I had a question of the train folks. Back in 2014
when we were writing a comment letter on the EIR, it talked about measure AES -- I can give you the file
number on the report if you want -- requiring aesthetic treatment for project for years when selecting
pole design, no unpainted metal surfaces, color-matched paint, and paint tones darker than the
surrounding visual area. That was the proposal from the rail folks. And our comment letter from the City
asked that you consider different metal finishes in addition to different paint tones and pole sizes. For
example, with galvanized steel, or weathered steel finish, better fade into the background and reduce the
visual impact and reduce maintenance costs. The letter recognizes the effort to find the most
aesthetically-pleasing OCS poles -- that's overhead (inaudible). But notes that these measures would not
mitigate for the addition of cantilevers or wires themselves to be visible, and there's a concern about
long-term maintenance if they are painted. Could you comment on the alternatives considered and the
durability of the coloring you're proposing?
Mr. Tietjen: I cannot. I'm going to look to Stacy Cocke from our team, as well. She has a lot of history
with this project, particularly around the EIR and alternatives considered.
Chair Furth: Thank you.
2.d
Packet Pg. 68
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Stacy Cocke: Good morning. I'm an 11 veteran of the electrification project.
Chair Furth: If you could spell your name for our transcriber.
Ms. Cocke: Sure. First name is Stacy [spells first name], last name is Cocke [spells last name]. Good
morning. I'm deputy director for the project on the program management and environmental compliance
side. I think I understood your question to be considerations on the different pole types and colors
relative to painted and galvanized.
Chair Furth: Pole materials, basically.
Ms. Cocke: Sure. We were trying to balance aesthetic impacts, cost of the project, so where we landed
was, we wanted to do the tapered poles in the station areas, and then, those would be color-selected by
the cities. And then, kind of the next tier would be poles adjacent to digitally-sensitive receptors, so,
residents, parks, and things like that. Those would be that marine green color. When we've got areas
that are industrial or commercial or not particularly visually-sensitive, that's where we were looking at the
galvanized steel, so there wouldn't be maintenance required for those poles. From what we understand,
they've got about a 10-year repainting cycle. It’s not an insignificant cost when we're looking at this and
the number of poles, so it really was a balancing act of trying to minimize visual impacts, but consider
what the long-term maintenance budget would be associated with these. That was our thought process
and where we landed.
Chair Furth: And so, in Palo Alto, where are you proposing galvanized unpainted steel?
Ms. Cocke: That's a good question. I actually don't have that, but I can certainly provide it.
Chair Furth: You do understand that we think the entire city is visually sensitive.
Ms. Cocke: I certainly do understand that perspective. But, yeah, we can provide that. We actually have a
breakdown by mile post, so we can provide that.
Chair Furth: Any other questions?
Board Member Thompson: Yeah, I have some.
Chair Furth: Osma?
Board Member Thompson: What was the thinking behind having a center, a center platform pole versus
double poles? I noticed, at least in the plans, some of the pole are going through the middle of the
station platform for some of the stations, like California Avenue. I'm just thinking about, why wouldn't
that be something center-mounted?
Ms. Cocke: I think what...Brent mentioned a little bit, but just kind of the general considerations, and
then I'll get to your question, is we're looking at if there are any underground utilities that we need to
avoid, or minimizing right-of-way costs. Probably the biggest driver of what is the preferred configuration,
the two outside poles, which in the case of the station would be, yes, the poles would be mounted, you
know, on or at the edge of the station platforms. It gives us the most flexibility in terms of operations
and maintenance, so, if you have something that happens with the wires, or some of the poles are
impacted, you still can have electrified revenue service on the opposite track. You can do what we call
single-tracking, and it allows for that flexibility. The center pole, which does minimize visual impacts, we
acknowledge that, does put us in a compromise operations and maintenance situation. That's why, in
each case, there may be center poles in... For historic stations, we wanted to make that commitment,
even though that was a trade-off from the operations side. But generally, the preferred, kind of more
robust configuration would be the two outside poles.
2.d
Packet Pg. 69
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Chair Furth: Board Member Lew.
Board Member Lew: I have a question about the fencing. We have some new fencing that has been
installed this year. I was wondering, is that going to happen on both sides of the right-of-way
everywhere in town? The ones that I'm thinking of that are really most noticeable to people is, like, sort
of like, in back of Town & Country shopping center and Palo Alto High School, we have a multiuse
pedestrian/bike path right along there. It seems like changing it to a tall fence with barbed wire on the
top would have a big visual impact. I was wondering what your thinking is on the fencing.
Ms. Cocke: Sure. The fencing that we have as part of the CalTrain program is actually not included as
part of this project, but we do continue to work with jurisdictions to provide fencing. Our ultimate goal is
to have a completely-fenced corridor for, just kind of security purposes. We want to minimize folks
trespassing, and being in the right-of-way where they shouldn't be. The only fencing that would be
included as part of this project would be if there are, you know, we have small slivers of property that we
need to acquire, and if we need to kind of move that fence. But there's not any scope of budget included
with the corridor-wide fencing program. That's part of just our regular capital program.
Board Member Lew: Thank you.
Chair Furth: Any other questions? Just to confirm. We worked long and hard, I think, with you all to get
the fencing we do have along that bike path. You have no plans to change that design or that fencing?
Ms. Cocke: I'm not specifically aware of that effort. I can follow up with Robert Scarpino, who is our
liaison for that. I'm not informed enough to speak to that.
Chair Furth: When we finally negotiated the pedestrian underpass, there was a lot of fencing installed...
Ms. Cocke: Okay.
Chair Furth: ...to reassure the International Brotherhood of Railroad Engineers.
Ms. Cocke: Okay.
Chair Furth: One other question.
Board Member Lew: I have one last question. Are you aware of any projects to change the lighting at
either University Avenue station or the California Avenue station? I ask because they have very different
fixtures. I was just wondering if there are any plans. I do know a lot of cities are changing to LED light
fixtures, which look completely different.
Ms. Cocke: I don't. As part of this project, there's not. I don't know, Brent, if you know any...
Mr. Tietjen: Yeah, in general, we are looking to convert to LED, just in terms of more sustainable. I can
check about those particular stations. I know San Carlos (inaudible) originally got LED lights. I'll check on
these two, as well.
Board Member Lew: Okay. And I ask because my thinking is that that could have an impact on how I
think about the colors of the poles, of this project. Thank you.
Chair Furth: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you very much.
Ms. Cocke: Thank you.
Chair Furth: Okay. Staff? Amy? Could you remind us of the timeline on this project? The next steps in
terms of the City?
2.d
Packet Pg. 70
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Ms. French: There is an agreement going to the City Council on November 26th.
Chair Furth: Right.
Ms. French: And the project team had reported out on the actual construction that's happening. But the
next stage will be 100 percent drawings, is my understanding.
Mr. Tietjen: Yeah, this is a design-build contract, so each phase or each section of the work is being done
in phases. Currently, we are at 65 percent for the OCS poles and 65 percent for PS5, paralleling station
#5. Those have...
Chair Furth: Thank you.
Mr. Tietjen: ...OCS poles have been shared with the City, and we'll come and share the PS5 with...
Chair Furth: Thank you. And the reason I'm asking, Amy, is because we don't have any actual samples of
the colors. We do not have, have not had good drawings of the poles. Ordinarily, if somebody was going
to be putting up structures of this height, which are going to dominate our view for a large section of the
town, we would have, you know, photographic, we'd have computer-generated illustrations of what it's
going to look like. We don't have any of that at this point, which may make our recommendations less
useful than they might be.
Ms. French: Yes, and I apologize because I had thought the packets would be printed in color. But
because there are color samples that were, you know, not real, but you can see them on the internet.
Chair Furth: Right, but I don't think we like to make decisions about colors based on electronic images.
Basically, we need to have our recommendations and thoughts to the City Council for this next meeting,
or is there some room?
Ms. French: Well, you're not providing a recommendation to City Council because they are not
considering the colors or anything else. They're just looking at other items. It's a timeline that is flexible,
I think, before they paint the colors.
Mr. Tietjen: Sooner than that, but we do have time.
Chair Furth: Okay. And this is another question. I guess you answered it. There's about a 10-year
repainting schedule...
Mr. Tietjen: Yeah.
Chair Furth: ...if these are painted. Thank you. Who would like to start? Vice Chair Baltay.
Vice Chair Baltay: I would like to echo Chair Furth's comments, perhaps stronger. In the joint
comprehensive agreement with the City, the JPB, I guess, the agency we're working with, has agreed to
provide the following information regarding a project to the City ARB for review. It says right here: Pole
design, color, location and configuration. I'm sorry, but that information hasn't been provided. You're
assembling the public, you're assembling the Board, asking us to give feedback, and you're not telling us
what we're supposed to give feedback on. You're making a great presentation of the public outreach, and
we support your project, but I'm sorry, I can't make comments. I just want you to hear the position I feel
that I’m in.
Mr. Tietjen: Yeah, I hear you, and we're happy to come back. It sounds like there's a lot more
information you would like. We're happy to work with staff to make sure we have the right information
for you.
2.d
Packet Pg. 71
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Chair Furth: This is probably the..."most impactful" is not a phrase, is it? This is probably the biggest
aesthetic change we're going to see in the city for some years. I think we're probably all very thrilled
about electrified trains and better train service, and raise some very interesting issues about level
crossings. But that's not before us today. But, I too don't feel that I have a very good idea of what I
would be looking at. I keep thinking, maybe it should be Golden Gate orange. I mean, if it's going to be
that visual, maybe we should call it an art statement and get on with it. But, let's hear from everybody
else.
Board Member Lew: Thank you for your presentation. I did bicycle down Alma and Park and I looked at
the whole thing, of the right-of-way yesterday. To me, it was very useful in sort of informing me about
how to think about the project. I didn't really get very much from the set of drawings. I guess I have a
couple...I think my observations are that the California Avenue station, I think my recommendation would
be to do, like, a grayish color. All the existing handicap railings, light existing, like, bell-shaped light
fixtures, I think they're all in that, kind of a fairly neutral color. I'm thinking that the poles maybe should
just blend in with all of that other stuff. I think I can understand, I think, the HRB's recommendation to
match the building color. I think I get that. But I'm thinking that all the pole stuff in the middle of the
tracks should probably all coordinate with each other. I think the single, having the single-poles there will
help minimize the impacts, visual impacts at that location. At the Cal Avenue station, all of the light
fixtures...There are, I guess you call it, like, a bus shelter, a little glass enclosure. There's a metal picket
rail, all the newspaper racks. Everything there is a dark brown/bronze color. My thought was there is just
to match that. I think that that color is not in our options list.
Chair Furth: Your first comments were on which...?
Board Member Lew: University. University Avenue station.
Chair Furth: Ah. I got it backwards.
Board Member Lew: And the second was the California Avenue station. My thought is just to match all of
that. If the light fixtures aren't, if they're not changing, I would just try to match that. The Embarcadero
station, right? Just, like, the stadium station. My main concern is actually the fencing. That seemed to me
to have the most impact from the Alma side. The new fencing is really unattractive with the barbed wire.
It really stands out. My thought was maybe to try to paint that new metal fence black or something, to
help make it disappear. It's very noticeable from Alma. And then, on the pathway side, on the west side,
I was worried about having that same, the new fence on that side. But if that's not changing, I think I'm
okay with that. There is some green railings over there on the bridge between Paly and Town & Country,
so that might be an option to consider, is to match that color. There are a lot of, in downtown north,
there is not a lot of shrubs at all along Alma, and I'm thinking maybe in the City's right-of-way, that we
add shrubs. There are also a lot of dying redwood trees, and maybe we need to reconsider the street
planting there. In Old Palo Alto, it seems like there's been a lot of tree trimming there, and it seems to
me maybe shrubs would help fill in the gaps there. And then, down in Fairmeadow/Greenmeadow, it
seems like there are large gaps in the landscape screen there, and it seems to me the gaps are new. I
did see some gates there in the new fencing, and I do understand there are some creeks that cross
through there, so maybe that explains some of the gaps. It seems to me...I'd like to fill in the
landscaping there in the City right-of-way. And then, I think my last comment is on, in the Ventura
neighborhood. I was looking through some of the people's yards, and I was looking at some of the aerial
photos, and it seems like the houses that back up onto the tracks don't really have very much
landscaping at all. It's hard to generalize for everybody, but it seems to me like a lot of those houses
have rear garages, so they don't have a lot of opportunities to minimize the impact. I'm thinking that
they are going to have the most, the biggest...Potentially, it would have the biggest visual impact. I didn't
look at it carefully, but I would...If I had more time, I would look at pole placement with regards to
people's back yards. And if they're not able to landscape it in their own backyard just because of their
layout, then maybe there's a way of doing it in the right-of-way, in the CalTrain right-of-way, if there is
space. That being said, we need the actual color samples. I did look at all the pole drawings that came by
email. I did look at that, and I did review the HRB minutes. That's all I have.
2.d
Packet Pg. 72
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Chair Furth: Thank you. Robert?
Board Member Gooyer: Yeah. I didn't go into it as much as far as figuring out exactly the planting off,
along the way as you did, mainly because of the fact I'm looking at this as more of a...I think the whole
process of electrification is a big step in the right direction, and the realty of it is, these are just a
necessity when you electrify a train system. I guess having spent a lot of time in Europe, you just get
used to these things. They are all over the place. I mean, almost all the trains in northern Europe are
electrified. As far as the...I find it interesting that you mentioned, you know, you showed variations of the
types. I prefer the typical, or I should say, the center unit, and I noticed that your comment was we
prefer using the double pole because of single-tracking. But the reality of it is, if you've got a batch of
center poles in the middle, you can't single-track anyway, because if you have a problem there... That's
like saying, you know, I've got 1,000 feet of double poles, and then, 300 feet of single poles. You can't
very well use it anyway. I'd rather see the single pole used almost exclusively, than if you had to do the
double pole for a curve or something like that, where you change the modification. I'd be happier with
that. As far as the color, you know, this is one of these things where...I hear all these discussions about
color, mainly because it's as though, if we paint it a certain color, it's going to disappear. Well, it's not.
And especially considering maintenance on any public facility. I'd rather just see these things gray
because that's the reality of what they are. Then, if you don't paint it after 10 years, nobody's really
going to know the difference, because the patina you get on the metal is really, people just get used to
that. I mean, it's one of these things. I'd rather see a natural patina like that, than after 10 years, the top
of the pole is gray because the paint has come off and the bottom of it is green, or whatever the color is.
And it's just one of these things that, as with so many things like this, people may be upset initially, but
it's the kind of thing that...I mean, I hate to say it, people just get used to it. That's the reality of what's
there. I think from a maintenance standpoint, I'd prefer just to go with the gray, probably. I mean, I'd
love to see actually colors, but any time you paint something to try and artificially hide it...That's like
HVAC units on the roof. They paint them light blue to match the sky. It's like, come on. I mean, it doesn't
work. And, I think the pole should be in the center.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Osma.
Board Member Thompson: Hi. I Just wanted to start by saying I really appreciate Board Member Lew's
research on the track. That's really great. And a lot of stuff gets noticed, like foliage that we would not
otherwise think of. Thank you for that. In terms of, I'll start with the pole color. I think you might get a
grab bag of responses here because I actually feel a bit differently. I'm sort of more of the opinion of
they are here, let's paint them bright...something. You know, like Golden Gate red, or something that's
interesting, that is a benefit to...I don't know. I'm less about hiding and more about, this is transit, this is
what we're doing, this is going to be great. Let's make these things beautiful if we can. For that reason,
yes, color samples. But then, also, it seems like there are two different types. One is tapered, one is not
tapered. Maybe next time you guys come back to us, sounds like you have a laundry list of things to
bring, but one of those things could just be, like, what is...You know, when you paint a pole, stuff comes
in front, stuff goes to the back. I would be nice to see some ideas of how this thing could be great, or
how are we making a statement here that is kind of this icon for transit in the city. I think it's going to
transform the city anyway, you know, like everyone is saying, it's going to change regardless of whether
you paint it, so let's make it really beautiful. For that reason -- and I’m open to hear the Board's opinions
on this -- but the paralleling station, the images that you showed us look pretty terrifying in terms of
aesthetics. I understand you can't do much in the way of foliage because it's dangerous, but even the
colors for the control room look pretty bleak and sad. I'm more of the opinion, like, is there an art
program? Can we make something that makes that building interesting? You know, like, let people graffiti
on it, or something. But, like, good graffiti. Something really pretty. There's a lot of opportunity here that
I’m not seeing being taken advantage of. And I understand maybe this is...I'd like to hear my Board
members' opinions on this. I'd appreciate next time you come around, to see some ideas about that. I
think this Board is all about what will benefit aesthetically the city. And I haven't seen anything in the
way of doing that. That's the long and short of my response.
Chair Furth: Peter.
2.d
Packet Pg. 73
City of Palo Alto Page 14
Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. I fairly well echo the comments of my colleagues on the Board. I'll be very
clear that I think that...This is based on not really having much of a design, but I think the center-
mounted poles are by far the better option as far as an aesthetic choice goes, up and down the tracks.
To the greatest extent possible, I would recommend they be center-mounted poles. As Board Member
Gooyer pointed out, it's nice to paint these poles, but I doubt you're going to paint them every 10 years.
The difficulty of doing that in the middle of an ongoing railroad track is challenging. I think if you take the
approach that they're not likely to be maintained, what is the best finish on them? And something that is
a naturally-weathering metal finish like galvanized steel is probably the best choice. The reality is that
they exist, and we want them to be there. We want the train to be electrified. We don't want to look at
poles that are half-painted, that are corroded, that make us think the railroad is operating on a
shoestring and can't afford to pain the equipment. I'd recommend strongly that you find a finish that will
weather into the background and not need to be painted, ever. Save the money, buy better trains
instead. Lastly, as Board Member Thompson was pointing out, you really are just not trying to design this
from an aesthetic point of view. It's strictly an engineering operation so far, and it could be more than
that. Whether the poles are tapered or (inaudible) in sections, really, just the slight effort to, what does it
look like? These paralleling stations, what she said is true. What you're showing there is just the worst
PG&E transformer station in the world, without any effort to think that there's...how many? Twenty
thousand people a day, riding by? An hour, probably? Why not hire an architect and just make one effort
to do something to make it look better? Why not consider painting in a bright color? Just do anything,
something, to just try to design it a little bit from an aesthetic point of view. These are visible, not only
from outside of the right-of-way, but also people on the train, who go by these things. Try a little bit to
design it. That's the extent of what I think. Thank you.
Chair Furth: Thank you, and thank you for your presentation. I share my colleagues' feelings, that we are
so glad that this project is happening. But I don't think that it's ready for prime time here, the aspects of
which we're being asked to comment on. I mean, this is not something to be ashamed of. This is
something to be proud of. And at the same time, for people who are going to be living very close to all
this, our local aesthetic says that where we can plant plants, you know, lower plants, higher plants, to
soften the interface between residences and parks and schools and a transit facility -- anything, really --
we should do that. I also think of all the possible looks, peeling paint is the worst. It's just depressing.
And I, too, have been fortunate to travel on newly-built and beautifully-designed roadways, and trains,
and what-not, and seen beautiful, you know, blue, metal finishes, on guardrails. I think the main things
that I think are that we need closer, more detailed and coordinated between the City and the JPB,
landscaping. When you think about planting, we've had to chance a lot of our standard plant palates
because of climate change, so we can't plant the same kinds of oak trees that we used to, for example.
And we need to know that the plants you're thinking about take that into consideration. We need to know
the actual colors proposed. And, I very much appreciate Alex's taking his life in his hands, if you're
bicycling on Alma...
Board Member Lew: Sidewalk.
Chair Furth: Sidewalk, good. Smart. And his detailed thoughts, which I think is the kind of work that you
all need to be doing, as well. And I agree that in terms of thinking about what's the appropriate material
for these structures, it's better to think about the stations. It's better to think about, what are the
accessories? What do the other poles, rails, metal pieces, what kind of finishes are they? Rather than,
what's the color of the building? Because that's not going to actually match. Sort of like in a house, if
you've got, you know, if you've got antique bronze door handles, you're not going to switch suddenly to
stainless steel around the color. So, in terms of aesthetics, you'd be looking at the...You'd be following
Alex's approach. Again, if there was some...I think this is a project to be celebrated. If you came back
and told me there's a really durable, baked-on color that will last for 40 years, that's some wonderful,
celebratory color, I'd say that would be fine. My choice. I share Osma's feelings on that. I also think that
a project that can't be, what I think of as the transformer, but I realize is more than a transformer, again,
that should look like it's intended to be there. That should look like we know it's there. That should look,
in some industrial way, gorgeous. I mean, I have a bunch of photographs taken by a relative back in the
2.d
Packet Pg. 74
City of Palo Alto Page 15
30's, celebrating all these industrial structures, and I think we all like well-done industrial design. I look
forward to seeing you again. Staff, do you need more from us?
Ms. French: I don't think we need anything. It's all just a relationship with the project team, so...
Mr. Tietjen: Yeah, I would just like to say, thank you for your time this morning. We'll talk with staff.
There were a lot of comments here. We wrote down lots of notes, both Amy and I, and I know Stacy, as
well. Appreciate all the comments. We'll take them into consideration and work with staff.
Chair Furth: Well, we appreciate all your work. Osma, do you have another comment?
Board Member Thompson: I did. I had a question for some of my board member here, in terms of the
color for the pole. Galvanized steel can look really terrible, so, I wonder, for fear of peeling paint, why
would we choose a bad option as an alternative? I mean, it seems like the JPB is committed to
maintaining the paint. Why wouldn't we want to argue for something that looks better?
Vice Chair Baltay: Well, I think there's other weathering metal finishes that could look acceptable, and I
hate to see that much money spent on painting electric poles up and down the corridor. Every 10 years,
for a long time, just means more expensive train tickets. Why not pick something that will be durable
industrially for a long time?
Board Member Thompson: And you think galvanized steel is the answer for that?
Vice Chair Baltay: I don't know. I think there are other finishes on metal industrial pieces that are
available. It probably does have a gray look, though, yeah.
Chair Furth: And we don't have any actual data on your costs, so, when you come back with alternatives,
that would be good to hear. Anything else? Thanks so much for coming. Thank you for all your work on a
complicated project. It's exciting to think we're actually going to get electric trains. We're going to take a
five-minute break before our next item. We'll be back at quarter to.
2.d
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment E
PCEP OCS Pole Colors
Note to ARB and HRB members:
Staff received painted metal samples of the powder-coat paint colors. These samples will be available at
the January 10th meeting.
The attached paper submittal reflecting color options (yellow, brown, light grey) for the Palo Alto Station
shows a bright yellow on the table (second page); whereas, the larger yellow image (page 4) is closer to
the color on the actual sample received, and the light gray is also similar to the actual sample.
Because the green, black and brown color options for the California Avenue Station and Stanford
‘Station’ did not show well on the paper submittal, staff did not duplicate that portion of the submittal
for board members.
2.e
Packet Pg. 76
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
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: Welcome to the November 15, 2018, meeting of the Architectural Review Board for the city of Palo Alto. Would the staff call the roll, please?
[Roll Call]
Chair Furth: Thank you. Everybody is here.
Oral Communications
Chair Furth: Now is the time for oral communications, for people to speak on a matter that is not on our
agenda but is within our purview. Do we have any speaker cards for oral communications? We have
none. Does anybody else want to speak on matters not on the agenda? All right.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Chair Furth: Are there any agenda changes, additions or deletions?
Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: None.
Chair Furth: Thank you.
City Official Reports
1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative
Future Agenda items. Not addressed.
Action Items
Chair Furth: Okay. We have two public hearings today, one on the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project, and one on a hotel proposal at 4256 El Camino Real. And then we're going to have three subcommittee items. Let's begin with item number 2.
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Architectural Review Board Input on Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) Overhead Contact System Foundation & Pole Layouts Design for Installation Within Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) Right of Way in Palo Alto. Environmental Assessment: The JPB Certified the Final
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
DRAFT MINUTES: November 15, 2018
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 AM
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Plan (MMRP) in January 2015, Following Publication of the Draft EIR in
February 2014 for Public Comment. For More Information Contact the Chief Planning
Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org
Chair Furth: That takes us to item number 2 on our agenda, which is a public hearing. The Architectural
Review Board is being asked for comment on the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project, overheard
contact system, foundation and pole layouts design for installation on the CalTrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board right-of-way. And EIR was certified for this project in 2015, in January 2015, and numerous statements of overriding considerations were made at that time, acknowledging that there will be adverse environmental effects from the project, but they are worth it on balance. May we have the staff report? Oh, I should also mention that we are not being asked to make a recommendation to the
City because the City does not have approval rights here. It's consultation rights. Thank you.
Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Good morning. Amy French, Chief Planning Official, and ARB liaison
of the day.
Chair Furth: Every week a new one. Thank you. Nice to have you back.
Ms. French: Thank you. Today, we have the CalTrain Electrification OCS design project. I have a
PowerPoint, and so does the applicant. We have from CalTrain JPB two members, Stacy and Brent. The
PCEP -- as it's known in acronym form -- is going to convert diesel train to electrically-powered trains.
They will tell you more about that, from the CalTrain staff. We have 3.8 miles in Palo Alto, and we will be
seeing these appurtenances and poles and wires and one paralleling station in the city of Palo Alto. As
Chair Furth mentioned, we do not have any permitting authority outside the JPB right-of-way, but we do have some input on requested items per a mitigation measure of the Environmental Impact Report. And, we also have some permitting authority over trees to be pruned and removed within the City right-of-way that's outside of the JPB corridor. I apologize for the slide issues here. The PCEP Final EIR was ap proved in January of 2015, and there are mitigation measures. Those were contained in your staff report. We are
seeing 65 percent plans today and commenting on those. The City Council will be looking at an
agreement between the City and CalTrain on November 26th. We do have a schedule coming up. The
applicant will tell you...I'm sorry, the project team will tell you more about that. Tree work has begun to
some limited degree, but it will proceed very shortly, and about 25 percent of that tree work in the Palo
Alto segment has been complete. Here is the tree work, and again, the project team will tell you more,
but you can see within these segments of Palo Alto, there are quite a few tree removals and trimmings,
and just listing here the ones in the right-of-way, there are about 296 trees to be pruned in the right-of-
way of CalTrain, and 52 trees to be removed and replaced at a 1-to-1 ratio. The paralleling station, there
were three options in the Environmental Impact Report. Option 2 is the one that's preferred and being
studied further at this time. There are some aspects that are contained in the area. It's not a 40 by 80 foot building as reported prior staff report. It is a fenced area within which there are several items I'll show will, as will the project team. Here is the Park Plaza site, showing the landscaping of that project. The paralleling station will be adjacent to this landscaping, but not on top of the landscaping. That landscaping will remain, to the best of the City's understanding. We will be seeing the paralleling station
items in 2019, but we are requesting comments on the location. And then, also, there is opportunity to
weigh in on color, for the painting of the control house. You can see here, this is a different site, but this
is roughly what the transformer would look like here. The control house would be a shed, and then,
there's something called gantries that, I don't know what they are, but I’m sure the project team does.
The ARB [sic] had asked some question last week at their public hearing, and these are answers to some
of the questions. We sent those onto the HRB so they are aware of the answers. Let's se. I'll come back
to that if anyone is curious. The HRB did make comments last Thursday, as well, so the concern was
about the San Francisquito Creek bridge, concern about, you know, was it going to be affected. There
were some answers there, regarding how close the wire and all of that would come to the bridge. The
urban forester was requested to be called out as an observer for any work around Palo Alto. We have our urban forester, Water Passmore, here today for questions on that. The HRB thought that the poles should be contextually appropriate with the Palo Alto depot, which is an historic resource. And, they selected a
City of Palo Alto Page 3
tan color, they recommended that color, but then, they suggested that everywhere else, the green color
would be just fine. That's it. Let's see. The JPB had considerations for pole configuration. I believe I was
able to get those into the staff report. Here they are if you want to come back to them. We had
overriding considerations in the EIR statement, and there were a number of them. Those are also in the
report. Just for laughs, a couple of images, although the project team will provide more detailed images.
We have the single and the cantilever and, you know, double pole. We have the long reach cantilever,
and a portal, which is, there are about four of those in Palo Alto, according to the plans. The colors. Three stations, three colors to be painted, on metal poles, not concrete. And, let's see. This was the report given to the HRB, so, also in the staff report, there are a number of historic resources within the JPB right-of-way, and there are mitigations about those. These are kind of fund images, so I'll just show them to you, as well. We have our bridge. These are the treatments and the Finding of Effect from back in September of 2015. A lot of information here. The El Palo Alto, when it was two stems, and now it's
just one. There were mitigations and Findings of Effect that were prepared. The Palo Alto Depot, here is
an image of the depot. Streamline (inaudible). And this is one location where the center poles are
proposed. They are actually center poled with cantilevers so as to minimize the impacts of the visuals.
We have a few old images of the underpasses, which are also historic, at University and Embarcadero.
The project team...Yeah?
??: (inaudible)
Ms. French: Oh, did you want to actually read stuff? Okay. It's kind of hard to read because it's cut off on
this side. Yeah, we have a few underpasses. If anyone wants me to go back to any slides...
Chair Furth: Thank you.
Ms. French: ...I'm happy to do that, as well. I'm not expecting everyone to speed reed. The center pole feasibility was something that CalTrain was looking at. You know, CalTrain prefers the double poles because they minimize the risk of failure in the event of a knock-down. And then, of course, Palo Alto, aesthetically speaking, we would prefer the single poles, let poles, but there are considerations there.
Also, in the right-of-way, there are stringing wire, and there's this tree replacement, which has mitigation
measures. So, the point of the trees is to try to screen the residents and park users from the right-of-
way. And I apologize for so many words. This was a late-breaking commitment on my standpoint, too. I
learn about the project and try to regurgitate for everybody. But, the great thing is we have our project
team here, we have aesthetic mitigation measures here, and they can elaborate on those, or not. We
have a comprehensive agreement, which is coming forward. There are some timelines there that relate to
this work, this agreement between Palo Alto and CalTrain. That's what I've got. I'm going to escape and
let them present.
Chair Furth: Are there any questions of staff? I have one question, Amy. Do we have color swatches, or
samples, or anything, other than that slide?
Ms. French: No.
Chair Furth: Thank you.
Board Member Gooyer: I do have one comment that I thought was rather humorous, that Palo Alto is 91,000 years old.
Ms. French: Oh, did I have a typo on the screen? Yeah. Apologize. A thousand. Yeah, that would be quite
something. It is quite something at a thousand, as well. Let's see...Let's see if this is it. No. Trying to find
the CalTrain presentation.
Male??: (inaudible)
Ms. French: Is this it? Okay. My eyes are not what they used to be. How do I get to the big...?
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Male??: (inaudible)
Ms. French: I'm trying to find the bottom thing that tells me how to pan in.
[Locating presentation.]
Chair Furth: Good morning. If you could introduce yourself and spell your name for our transcriber.
Brent Tietjen: Oh, sure. Good morning. Brent Tietjen, Government and Community Relations Officer for
CalTrain. [spells name]
Chair Furth: Thank you.
Mr. Tietjen: Thank you. I'm here today to give you an update on the CalTrain Electrification Project. Thanks, Amy, for that introduction, and for a lot of detail on that. I'll try to go through these slides pretty quickly, but we're here to answer any questions that you have and talk in more detail on anything you'd
like to. First, I'll give a...
Chair Furth: You have 10 minutes automatically, but do not rush.
Mr. Tietjen: Sure. I'll give a quick overview of the CalTrain system, which I'm sure you're familiar with. I'll
talk about the project in general. Talk about the electric trains, which we are procuring. And then, go into
more detail about what's actually going to happen here in Palo Alto, the project elements, construction
impacts, etc. As I mentioned, I'll talk about the CalTrain system. We run 92 trains on an average
weekday from San Francisco down to San Jose. We also operate down to Gilroy. It's important to note
that we only own the tracks from San Francisco to Tamien station, or just south of Tamien station. We do
not own the tracks south of Tamien to Gilroy. Those are owned by UP, but we do operate on those. We
have a number of at-grade crossings, viaducts and bridges that have to be maintained in the city, good
repair. And we have one of the most robust on-board bike commuter programs, with over 5,000 bikes on board every day. Since the introduction of the Baby Bullet in 2004, we've seen our ridership grow exponentially, and continue to see that growth. In 2018, we had over 65,000 average weekday riders in our count. As you can see on these trains, on a Giants day, or on just any regular peak commute hour, it's packed. We are at or above seat capacity. Some of our trains are above 130 percent capacity.
Carrying those 65,000 riders is an aging fleet. Our older cars, the gallery cars and locomotives, were built
in 1985, some of them, and they are at or past their useful retirement age, or useful life. Quick
description of the project in general. For CalTrain Electrification, we are electrifying the corridor from San
Francisco to just south of Tamien. We are, as part of the electrification project, the infrastructure is the
installation of concrete foundations, poles on top of those foundations, and then, wires which will connect
to the electric trains. We are also building 10 traction power facilities throughout the corridor, one of
which is in Palo Alto, and I'll talk about later. We are procuring 96 electric vehicles, which will convert 75
percent of our fleet to electric service. We do have funding to convert additional from the state, as well.
This project will not increase the speed of the trains. It will remain at 79 miles per hour. But, it will allow
them to start and stop more efficiently, and it will allow us to increase service to an additional train per hour, per direction. Currently we have five trains per hour, per direction, during the peak. After this project, we will have six trains per hour, per direction, during the peak. This project will help us restore service both to Atherton and Broadway stations, which currently only get weekend service, and we will continue to have our tenants operate on the railroad. UP, ACE Corridor, Capital Corridor, will all continue
to operate on CalTrain tracks. A quick look at what service benefits could be as part of this project. If you
see that we have, on a Baby Bullet, we have five to six stops, if we want to retain those stops, right now
it's 60 minutes, but with this project, it could go down to 45 minutes. Or, if we wanted to retain that 60-
minute headway, we can more than double the stops at the stations for each train. This project has a
number of key regional benefits for the region. One of those is a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
on an annual basis of over 176,000. Also, general clean air, and reduced noise, and just overall capacity
increases for the corridor, as well. In 2016, there were a lot of decisions that were made about the new
electric trains that we're procuring in terms of the layout, on the bikes, on the bike-to-seat ratio, on the
City of Palo Alto Page 5
bathrooms on board. There will be one bathroom on each train, as well as upper doors not being
precluded. In 2017, that design progressed, with the exterior design, seat information, all with a lot of
public input. In 2019, we hope to have a virtual reality tour where folks throughout the public can put on
a Google Cardboard and see what the new trains will look like. Now we will talk more about the actual
construction activities for the project, and for Palo Alto in particular. As I mentioned, we do have 51 miles
of corridor that we are electrifying. That includes over 3,000 poles being installed along those 51 miles.
And we are installing 10 traction power facilities. I'll talk about those in a minute. We do have the construction broken out into phases. Segment 1 is from San Francisco down to South Francisco/Brisbane. Segment 2 is from South Francisco down to Menlo Park. Segment 3 is from Menlo Park to Santa Clara. Segment 4 is from Santa Clara to San Jose. In terms of the phasing, we currently see the Segment 2 portion being done, which there is a lot of construction going on right now. Then moving down to Segment 4, and then, moving back up the corridor to Segment 3. A quick overview of the Palo Alto work
segment. As Amy mentioned, it's over 3.8 miles, and there are two stations and one paralleling station,
which is a traction power facility, which helps regulate power to the train. In terms of actual field work
status right now, a lot of utility Geotech work has been done on the corridor and in Palo Alto, and they
are currently doing foundation potholing throughout the whole corridor, and including in Palo Alto. They
have done quite a bit of potholing already. Once they have the findings of the potholing, they will go
back and do any redesign that's necessary to make sure the conflicts are clear. Looking to the future,
they will come back and do tree pruning/removal, foundation installation, pole and wire installation, as
well as paralleling station construction. A quick overview of schedule, and this is always subject to change
as we have a design/build contract, but this is our best guess right now. For potholing, they are doing that currently and have been doing it since the summer of 2018 in Palo Alto. They will come back and do tree pruning later this year, so late fall for tree pruning and removal. For spring and summer, we're looking at foundation installation, so that's the actual concrete foundations that are drilled and poured into the ground. And in summer 2019, we're looking at the installation of the paralleling station
construction. And then, late 2019 would be the pole and wire installation. I want to talk in more detail
about each of those activities. I'll give you a general sense of what they include. You can see here for
potholing, it's just a basic big vacuum truck on the tracks that comes in, sucks out the dirt on each
foundation location. They do clear every location from utilities to make sure when they go in and drill,
they don't have to stop for any reason. They can continue to drill, and then, move down the line. For tree
pruning or replacement, we do have to remove or prune trees within 10 feet of any electrified component
of the project. You can see a quick diagram here of what that looks like. Here is a summary of the tree
pruning and replacement that will happen in Palo Alto. I won't go through these in detail, but happy to
stick around and answer any questions. There will be 120 trees replaced in Palo Alto. If a tree is removed
on JPB property, it's replaced on JPB property. Same thing for city. If it's removed on city property, replaced on city property, and for public, as well. We have worked with the City on the replacement locations for any city trees. Here is a quick summary of the tree work in Palo Alto, just to give you a general sense of where the bulk of the tree work is happening, and just broken up into major sections of the city. For foundation construction, it's basically excavating, drilling, and then, filling with rebar, and
then, pouring concrete, and then, curing. You can see on the right here, that's what the rebar cages look
like. They are quite long, 10 to 20 feet, or longer. They go into the ground, so there's about three feet
that protrudes out of the ground, not this rebar cage that you see. For full installation, as I mentioned,
there are 3,000 poles installed throughout the corridor. About 196 will be installed in Palo Alto. That's at
the current design; that could change going forward. But, that's a general sense. Pole heights range
between 30 to 45 1/2 feet, depending on the type of pole. The type of pole is dictated by the utility real
estate needs and just general operation needs of the project. Here's a quick view of what the poles look
like. On the left-hand side, you can see a single-track cantilever that goes over one track only. The right-
hand side, that's one of the taller poles at 45 1/2 feet, two track cantilevers, and spans two tracks. The
center pole is on the left, and then the portal -- which there are a few of -- on the right. Here are the
station color options, for the pole colors. Apologies, we don't have the swatches now, but we're happy to give those to the staff for your review, as well. Just a quick picture of what the pole installation looks like. A lot of this work does happen at night because we do have 92 weekday trains that run and need to serve our customers. But, as I mentioned, the pole are about 180 feet apart, so we hope they are not in
the back yards of any homes for too long. After the poles are installed, they come back and string the
wire, which is a pretty quick process. Our contractor has a wire train, one of the only ones in the nation,
City of Palo Alto Page 6
to move along the corridor pretty quickly. And I will note that there are additional wires that will be
installed where utilities cross above our track, above the poles. Those are called shunt wires. For the
traction power facilities, there will be 10 installed throughout the corridor. Some facility components of
those facilities are transformers, gantries, which are steel A-train structures, which help hold the wires
across the tracks, and then, a control house, which basically just houses the controls. The facilities
provide electric power to the trains. There are two traction power substations, which are the larger
substations, one in San Jose and one in South San Francisco. Those actually provide the power from PG&E to the overhead contact system. The one in Palo Alto is called a paralleling station, and that helps just boost and regulate the power to the overall system. The power actually comes in through the lines and then is just boosted, and helps regulate the power to the system. This is an unmanned, secured, lighted facility. For paralleling station #5, which is the one that will be installed in Palo Alto, this location is south of Page Mill Road and on CalTrain property. I'll show a diagram in a second. We did have
coordination with the City on the location during the EIR in 2015. Vegetation screening will be
implemented and reviewed by City staff, and the control house color is also to be selected by the City. A
quick map of what the paralleling station will look like. This is a rough estimate of what it will look like.
It's at 65 percent design right now. It could change, but this should give you a good idea of the elements
of the project and their location. You can see in the green, there is a transformer, which actually takes
the power and boosts it. There is a control house, which is a 10 by 10 house that I'll show in a second,
what that looks like. And then there are gantries, one on each side of the track. The gantry within the
facility footprint has disconnect switches. The gantry on the other side does not. It's just a basic A-train
structure that holds the wires across the track. Here is a picture of a paralleling station at the Amtrak northeast corridor. This is a good sense of what they will look like. I'll show here on the right, you can see the control house, the larger element there. In the middle is the transformer, and then, on the far left is the gantries with the disconnect switches. Behind this one, you can see the other, what are called strain gantries, which just hold the wires, which will be on the other side of the tracks. You can see,
these colors probably don't show up too well, so we will get samples to staff for these control house
options. These are general options of what the color selection the City has. For general construction
impacts, work will occur...I should say, for the traction power facility, that will be done mostly during the
day as it won't impact the rail, but there will be some work that is done at night. For all the other work, a
lot of it is done at night so we don't have impacts to our regular customers on CalTrain, but we do move
along the corridor pretty quickly for foundations, which are spaced, again, 200 feet apart. They can get
five to eight foundations done in a night, so they can move a couple hundred or even 1,000 feet down
the line. We do have a dedicated hotline for construction, which I'll leave up after this. Not specifically
related to Palo Alto, but we do have some work that is happening...
Chair Furth: (inaudible)
Mr. Tietjen: Sure. Yeah. I would encourage folks to go to calmod.org to learn more about the project. There is a tab on the top right-hand side called "Get Involved." If you sign up and you enter your city Palo Alto, we send out regular notices about construction activities particular to Palo Alto, as well as weekly construction notices for the project overall. We do physical notices to about a fourth a mile of the
tracks on any new phase of work and on meetings, and we do door hangers for more discreet impacts.
I'll leave this up here as we answer any questions, how to get in touch with us. We encourage folks to
call us to learn more about the project, or if you're experiencing anything on the railroad that you'd like
to learn more about, please let us know. I'm happy to answer any questions, and Stacy Cocke with our
team is also here.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Are there any questions of the applicant...? Not the applicant, the rail project,
before we hear from the public? Or should we just hear from the public? Okay. Vice Chair Baltay.
Vice Chair Baltay: Good morning. Thank you. I'm trying to understand what the poles are going to look
like. I'm reading the package of drawings I was given. I'm looking at, for example, the poles in by the
train station, or where Palo Alto is the big tree. And as I read the chart here very carefully, I can sort of make out, it says, "Pole type WF4A," for example. What does that look like? There's no drawing in the package. I've been given nothing.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Mr. Tietjen: Sure.
Vice Chair Baltay: And then, what color choices do we have? Again, I don't have any color choices in
front of me.
Mr. Tietjen: Sure. For color choices, for things outside of the station areas, those will be either marine
green or galvanized steel. For within the station area, we will have color samples. We will bring those to
staff for your selection and your...
Vice Chair Baltay: To be clear, the samples are not here right now...
Mr. Tietjen: Correct.
Vice Chair Baltay: ...at the public hearing. Thank you.
Chair Furth: All right.
Vice Chair Baltay: I'm sorry, but what is the pole going to look like? What's the design?
Mr. Tietjen: These are our general sense of what the poles will look like. We're happy to share actual
design drawings, which I think Amy kind of flashed earlier as part of her presentation.
Vice Chair Baltay: So then, some of the poles that are labeled TT for a tapered pole, presumably it's a
different design style pole.
Mr. Tietjen: Correct. There are...
Vice Chair Baltay: These drawings represent a pole, but what...? I mean, is there any more detail than
that here?
Mr. Tietjen: There are details in the plan. I'm not sure if we shared those with...?
Board Member Gooyer: They emailed them to us yesterday. They emailed them to us yesterday.
Vice Chair Baltay: It's not in the drawings.
Chair Furth: And are there copies of them over there for the public?
Vice Chair Baltay: Were they made available?
Ms. French: We only had...These were the only drawings that were printed out, that staff printed out. We
didn't get a packet of drawings. We printed these out, but we emailed the other set that looks just like
this, only it has pictures of poles. That was an email.
Chair Furth: Can you put those up on the screen, so the public can see them? And us?
Ms. French: Okay. I don't know how to do that.
Chair Furth: Well, while you're thinking, why don't...
Vice Chair Baltay: I have no other questions. Thank you.
Chair Furth: Why don't we hear from the public? We have some speaker cards? Let's see, these are
for...? Does anybody care to speak on this project? Going once...? Okay, hearing no public comment, I'll
bring it back to the Board.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Board Member Thompson: I have a couple more questions...
Chair Furth: Yes?
Board Member Thompson: ...of the applicant.
Chair Furth: Board Member Thompson.
Board Member Thompson: Thanks. In terms of what will be painted, just looking at what we're looking at
right now, are we considering just the pole to be painted, or is it the pole plus the stuff that's
cantilevering over?
Mr. Tietjen: It is just the vertical pole.
Board Member Thompson: And the stuff that's cantilevering over will be what we're looking at, just a metal...?
Mr. Tietjen: Correct.
Board Member Thompson: Okay, great. And the wires, I'm assuming will be black?
Mr. Tietjen: They will be steel color.
Board Member Thompson: Okay. Because I know in San Francisco, those overhead cables look like they
are kind of dark in color. Are we assuming something along that line?
Mr. Tietjen: Yeah, I don't know if you'll be able to determine the color. You can see there are wires on
the two-track cantilever here. It's a basic gray color, not black.
Chair Furth: Do we have a representative of the HRB here today? Would you care to address us?
David Bower: Good morning, David Bower, current chair of the HRB. As you may have seen in Amy's
email that she sent to you and to our HRB members, we had a few questions that had been answered.
The primary concerns the HRB had were what the attachments were going to be on the bridge that crosses San Francisco Creek, the protection of El Palo Alto, the color and the compatibility of the poles in front of the main University Avenue station, and then, in general...Well, in the location of the supplementary power station, which we did not want to be located near Greenmeadow/Eichler
neighborhood or near the train station. The current siting solves that, or satisfies it.
Chair Furth: You're supportive of their current proposal. Proposed location.
Mr. Bower: Right. We didn't see that when we had our meeting, but we just wanted it in the middle part
of the city, so that satisfies that. And then, one other Board member had a question about whether an all
battery-operated train system had been considered. Basically...
Chair Furth: Not, I think, within our jurisdiction here.
Mr. Bower: No, right, not in our jurisdiction. I think the last issue is that we wanted to have the poles all
painted the same color throughout the right-of-way, with the exception of the University Avenue station.
We thought that would be more consistent, and it would also be less noticeable than having steel some
places, painted, especially two different colors of paint, one at the California Avenue station, one at the
North University section. I think that's...That's what we reviewed. Did I forget anything, Amy? I don't think so.
Chair Furth: Thank you very much for coming this morning.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Mr. Bower: If I could say one other thing. I went out yesterday to look at El Palo Alto, to actually see it
again, and it's not likely that any damage to this tree could be done by construction equipment because
it's actually adjacent to the bridge. Since all the work will be done on track, you couldn't actually reach it
without damaging the bridge structure. That was reassuring to me, and I'm sure it would be to you, as
well.
Chair Furth: Thank you. I should ask, did anybody do field inspections on this project? Alex, Peter. Osma,
no. Robert, no. My field inspection primarily consists of living in the area and seeing it frequently.
Ms. French: May I speak? We do have on the screen now the plans that were sent out on Tuesday to the Board. The other thing I wanted to mention is we do have Walter Passmore in the audience, our urban forester, if anyone had questions about the El Palo Alto and our negotiations on that.
Chair Furth: Thank you, to you and Mr. Passmore. Okay. I had a question of the train folks. Back in 2014
when we were writing a comment letter on the EIR, it talked about measure AES -- I can give you the file
number on the report if you want -- requiring aesthetic treatment for project for years when selecting
pole design, no unpainted metal surfaces, color-matched paint, and paint tones darker than the
surrounding visual area. That was the proposal from the rail folks. And our comment letter from the City
asked that you consider different metal finishes in addition to different paint tones and pole sizes. For
example, with galvanized steel, or weathered steel finish, better fade into the background and reduce the
visual impact and reduce maintenance costs. The letter recognizes the effort to find the most
aesthetically-pleasing OCS poles -- that's overhead (inaudible). But notes that these measures would not
mitigate for the addition of cantilevers or wires themselves to be visible, and there's a concern about
long-term maintenance if they are painted. Could you comment on the alternatives considered and the durability of the coloring you're proposing?
Mr. Tietjen: I cannot. I'm going to look to Stacy Cocke from our team, as well. She has a lot of history with this project, particularly around the EIR and alternatives considered.
Chair Furth: Thank you.
Stacy Cocke: Good morning. I'm an 11 veteran of the electrification project.
Chair Furth: If you could spell your name for our transcriber.
Ms. Cocke: Sure. First name is Stacy [spells first name], last name is Cocke [spells last name]. Good
morning. I'm deputy director for the project on the program management and environmental compliance
side. I think I understood your question to be considerations on the different pole types and colors
relative to painted and galvanized.
Chair Furth: Pole materials, basically.
Ms. Cocke: Sure. We were trying to balance aesthetic impacts, cost of the project, so where we landed
was, we wanted to do the tapered poles in the station areas, and then, those would be color-selected by
the cities. And then, kind of the next tier would be poles adjacent to digitally-sensitive receptors, so, residents, parks, and things like that. Those would be that marine green color. When we've got areas that are industrial or commercial or not particularly visually-sensitive, that's where we were looking at the galvanized steel, so there wouldn't be maintenance required for those poles. From what we understand, they've got about a 10-year repainting cycle. It’s not an insignificant cost when we're looking at this and
the number of poles, so it really was a balancing act of trying to minimize visual impacts, but consider
what the long-term maintenance budget would be associated with these. That was our thought process
and where we landed.
Chair Furth: And so, in Palo Alto, where are you proposing galvanized unpainted steel?
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Ms. Cocke: That's a good question. I actually don't have that, but I can certainly provide it.
Chair Furth: You do understand that we think the entire city is visually sensitive.
Ms. Cocke: I certainly do understand that perspective. But, yeah, we can provide that. We actually have a
breakdown by mile post, so we can provide that.
Chair Furth: Any other questions?
Board Member Thompson: Yeah, I have some.
Chair Furth: Osma?
Board Member Thompson: What was the thinking behind having a center, a center platform pole versus double poles? I noticed, at least in the plans, some of the pole are going through the middle of the station platform for some of the stations, like California Avenue. I'm just thinking about, why wouldn't
that be something center-mounted?
Ms. Cocke: I think what...Brent mentioned a little bit, but just kind of the general considerations, and
then I'll get to your question, is we're looking at if there are any underground utilities that we need to
avoid, or minimizing right-of-way costs. Probably the biggest driver of what is the preferred configuration,
the two outside poles, which in the case of the station would be, yes, the poles would be mounted, you
know, on or at the edge of the station platforms. It gives us the most flexibility in terms of operations
and maintenance, so, if you have something that happens with the wires, or some of the poles are
impacted, you still can have electrified revenue service on the opposite track. You can do what we call
single-tracking, and it allows for that flexibility. The center pole, which does minimize visual impacts, we
acknowledge that, does put us in a compromise operations and maintenance situation. That's why, in
each case, there may be center poles in... For historic stations, we wanted to make that commitment, even though that was a trade-off from the operations side. But generally, the preferred, kind of more robust configuration would be the two outside poles.
Chair Furth: Board Member Lew.
Board Member Lew: I have a question about the fencing. We have some new fencing that has been
installed this year. I was wondering, is that going to happen on both sides of the right-of-way
everywhere in town? The ones that I'm thinking of that are really most noticeable to people is, like, sort
of like, in back of Town & Country shopping center and Palo Alto High School, we have a multiuse
pedestrian/bike path right along there. It seems like changing it to a tall fence with barbed wire on the
top would have a big visual impact. I was wondering what your thinking is on the fencing.
Ms. Cocke: Sure. The fencing that we have as part of the CalTrain program is actually not included as
part of this project, but we do continue to work with jurisdictions to provide fencing. Our ultimate goal is
to have a completely-fenced corridor for, just kind of security purposes. We want to minimize folks
trespassing, and being in the right-of-way where they shouldn't be. The only fencing that would be
included as part of this project would be if there are, you know, we have small slivers of property that we need to acquire, and if we need to kind of move that fence. But there's not any scope of budget included with the corridor-wide fencing program. That's part of just our regular capital program.
Board Member Lew: Thank you.
Chair Furth: Any other questions? Just to confirm. We worked long and hard, I think, with you all to get
the fencing we do have along that bike path. You have no plans to change that design or that fencing?
Ms. Cocke: I'm not specifically aware of that effort. I can follow up with Rob Scarpino, who is our liaison
for that. I'm not informed enough to speak to that.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
Chair Furth: When we finally negotiated the pedestrian underpass, there was a lot of fencing installed...
Ms. Cocke: Okay.
Chair Furth: ...to reassure the International Brotherhood of Railroad Engineers.
Ms. Cocke: Okay.
Chair Furth: One other question.
Board Member Lew: I have one last question. Are you aware of any projects to change the lighting at
either University Avenue station or the California Avenue station? I ask because they have very different fixtures. I was just wondering if there are any plans. I do know a lot of cities are changing to LED light fixtures, which look completely different.
Ms. Cocke: I don't. As part of this project, there's not. I don't know, Brent, if you know any...
Mr. Tietjen: Yeah, in general, we are looking to convert to LED, just in terms of more sustainable. I can
check about those particular stations. I know San Carlos (inaudible) originally got LED lights. I'll check on
these two, as well.
Board Member Lew: Okay. And I ask because my thinking is that that could have an impact on how I
think about the colors of the poles, of this project. Thank you.
Chair Furth: Okay. Any other questions? Thank you very much.
Ms. Cocke: Thank you.
Chair Furth: Okay. Staff? Amy? Could you remind us of the timeline on this project? The next steps in
terms of the City?
Ms. French: There is an agreement going to the City Council on November 26th.
Chair Furth: Right.
Ms. French: And the project team had reported out on the actual construction that's happening. But the next stage will be 100 percent drawings, is my understanding.
Mr. Tietjen: Yeah, this is a design-build contract, so each phase or each section of the work is being done
in phases. Currently, we are at 65 percent for the OCS poles and 65 percent for PS5, paralleling station
#5. Those have...
Chair Furth: Thank you.
Mr. Tietjen: ...OCS poles have been shared with the City, and we'll come and share the PS5 with...
Chair Furth: Thank you. And the reason I'm asking, Amy, is because we don't have any actual samples of
the colors. We do not have, have not had good drawings of the poles. Ordinarily, if somebody was going
to be putting up structures of this height, which are going to dominate our view for a large section of the
town, we would have, you know, photographic, we'd have computer-generated illustrations of what it's
going to look like. We don't have any of that at this point, which may make our recommendations less
useful than they might be.
Ms. French: Yes, and I apologize because I had thought the packets would be printed in color. But because there are color samples that were, you know, not real, but you can see them on the internet.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Chair Furth: Right, but I don't think we like to make decisions about colors based on electronic images.
Basically, we need to have our recommendations and thoughts to the City Council for this next meeting,
or is there some room?
Ms. French: Well, you're not providing a recommendation to City Council because they are not
considering the colors or anything else. They're just looking at other items. It's a timeline that is flexible,
I think, before they paint the colors.
Mr. Tietjen: Sooner than that, but we do have time.
Chair Furth: Okay. And this is another question. I guess you answered it. There's about a 10-year repainting schedule...
Mr. Tietjen: Yeah.
Chair Furth: ...if these are painted. Thank you. Who would like to start? Vice Chair Baltay.
Vice Chair Baltay: I would like to echo Chair Furth's comments, perhaps stronger. In the joint
comprehensive agreement with the City, the JPB, I guess, the agency we're working with, has agreed to
provide the following information regarding a project to the City ARB for review. It says right here: Pole
design, color, location and configuration. I'm sorry, but that information hasn't been provided. You're
assembling the public, you're assembling the Board, asking us to give feedback, and you're not telling us
what we're supposed to give feedback on. You're making a great presentation of the public outreach, and
we support your project, but I'm sorry, I can't make comments. I just want you to hear the position I feel
that I’m in.
Mr. Tietjen: Yeah, I hear you, and we're happy to come back. It sounds like there's a lot more
information you would like. We're happy to work with staff to make sure we have the right information for you.
Chair Furth: This is probably the..."most impactful" is not a phrase, is it? This is probably the biggest aesthetic change we're going to see in the city for some years. I think we're probably all very thrilled about electrified trains and better train service, and raise some very interesting issues about level
crossings. But that's not before us today. But, I too don't feel that I have a very good idea of what I
would be looking at. I keep thinking, maybe it should be Golden Gate orange. I mean, if it's going to be
that visual, maybe we should call it an art statement and get on with it. But, let's hear from everybody
else.
Board Member Lew: Thank you for your presentation. I did bicycle down Alma and Park and I looked at
the whole thing, of the right-of-way yesterday. To me, it was very useful in sort of informing me about
how to think about the project. I didn't really get very much from the set of drawings. I guess I have a
couple...I think my observations are that the California Avenue station, I think my recommendation would
be to do, like, a grayish color. All the existing handicap railings, light existing, like, bell-shaped light
fixtures, I think they're all in that, kind of a fairly neutral color. I'm thinking that the poles maybe should just blend in with all of that other stuff. I think I can understand, I think, the HRB's recommendation to match the building color. I think I get that. But I'm thinking that all the pole stuff in the middle of the tracks should probably all coordinate with each other. I think the single, having the single-poles there will help minimize the impacts, visual impacts at that location. At the Cal Avenue station, all of the light
fixtures...There are, I guess you call it, like, a bus shelter, a little glass enclosure. There's a metal picket
rail, all the newspaper racks. Everything there is a dark brown/bronze color. My thought was there is just
to match that. I think that that color is not in our options list.
Chair Furth: Your first comments were on which...?
Board Member Lew: University. University Avenue station.
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Chair Furth: Ah. I got it backwards.
Board Member Lew: And the second was the California Avenue station. My thought is just to match all of
that. If the light fixtures aren't, if they're not changing, I would just try to match that. The Embarcadero
station, right? Just, like, the stadium station. My main concern is actually the fencing. That seemed to me
to have the most impact from the Alma side. The new fencing is really unattractive with the barbed wire.
It really stands out. My thought was maybe to try to paint that new metal fence black or something, to
help make it disappear. It's very noticeable from Alma. And then, on the pathway side, on the west side, I was worried about having that same, the new fence on that side. But if that's not changing, I think I'm okay with that. There is some green railings over there on the bridge between Pally and Town & Country, so that might be an option to consider, is to match that color. There are a lot of, in downtown north, there is not a lot of shrubs at all along Alma, and I'm thinking maybe in the City's right-of-way, that we
add shrubs. There are also a lot of dying redwood trees, and maybe we need to reconsider the street
planting there. In Old Palo Alto, it seems like there's been a lot of tree trimming there, and it seems to
me maybe shrubs would help fill in the gaps there. And then, down in Fairmeadow/Greenmeadow, it
seems like there are large gaps in the landscape screen there, and it seems to me the gaps are new. I
did see some gates there in the new fencing, and I do understand there are some creeks that cross
through there, so maybe that explains some of the gaps. It seems to me...I'd like to fill in the
landscaping there in the City right-of-way. And then, I think my last comment is on, in the Ventura
neighborhood. I was looking through some of the people's yards, and I was looking at some of the aerial
photos, and it seems like the houses that back up onto the tracks don't really have very much
landscaping at all. It's hard to generalize for everybody, but it seems to me like a lot of those houses have rear garages, so they don't have a lot of opportunities to minimize the impact. I'm thinking that they are going to have the most, the biggest...Potentially, it would have the biggest visual impact. I didn't look at it carefully, but I would...If I had more time, I would look at pole placement with regards to people's back yards. And if they're not able to landscape it in their own backyard just because of their
layout, then maybe there's a way of doing it in the right-of-way, in the CalTrain right-of-way, if there is
space. That being said, we need the actual color samples. I did look at all the pole drawings that came by
email. I did look at that, and I did review the HRB minutes. That's all I have.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Robert?
Board Member Gooyer: Yeah. I didn't go into it as much as far as figuring out exactly the planting off,
along the way as you did, mainly because of the fact I'm looking at this as more of a...I think the whole
process of electrification is a big step in the right direction, and the realty of it is, these are just a
necessity when you electrify a train system. I guess having spent a lot of time in Europe, you just get
used to these things. They are all over the place. I mean, almost all the trains in northern Europe are
electrified. As far as the...I find it interesting that you mentioned, you know, you showed variations of the types. I prefer the typical, or I should say, the center unit, and I noticed that your comment was we prefer using the double pole because of single-tracking. But the reality of it is, if you've got a batch of center poles in the middle, you can't single-track anyway, because if you have a problem there... That's like saying, you know, I've got 1,000 feet of double poles, and then, 300 feet of single poles. You can't
very well use it anyway. I'd rather see the single pole used almost exclusively, than if you had to do the
double pole for a curve or something like that, where you change the modification. I'd be happier with
that. As far as the color, you know, this is one of these things where...I hear all these discussions about
color, mainly because it's as though, if we paint it a certain color, it's going to disappear. Well, it's not.
And especially considering maintenance on any public facility. I'd rather just see these things gray
because that's the reality of what they are. Then, if you don't paint it after 10 years, nobody's really
going to know the difference, because the patina you get on the metal is really, people just get used to
that. I mean, it's one of these things. I'd rather see a natural patina like that, than after 10 years, the top
of the pole is gray because the paint has come off and the bottom of it is green, or whatever the color is.
And it's just one of these things that, as with so many things like this, people may be upset initially, but
it's the kind of thing that...I mean, I hate to say it, people just get used to it. That's the reality of what's there. I think from a maintenance standpoint, I'd prefer just to go with the gray, probably. I mean, I'd love to see actually colors, but any time you paint something to try and artificially hide it...That's like
City of Palo Alto Page 14
HVAC units on the roof. They paint them light blue to match the sky. It's like, come on. I mean, it doesn't
work. And, I think the pole should be in the center.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Osma.
Board Member Thompson: Hi. I Just wanted to start by saying I really appreciate Board Member Lew's
research on the track. That's really great. And a lot of stuff gets noticed, like foliage that we would not
otherwise think of. Thank you for that. In terms of, I'll start with the pole color. I think you might get a
grab bag of responses here because I actually feel a bit differently. I'm sort of more of the opinion of they are here, let's paint them bright...something. You know, like Golden Gate red, or something that's interesting, that is a benefit to...I don't know. I'm less about hiding and more about, this is transit, this is what we're doing, this is going to be great. Let's make these things beautiful if we can. For that reason,
yes, color samples. But then, also, it seems like there are two different types. One is tapered, one is not
tapered. Maybe next time you guys come back to us, sounds like you have a laundry list of things to
bring, but one of those things could just be, like, what is...You know, when you paint a pole, stuff comes
in front, stuff goes to the back. I would be nice to see some ideas of how this thing could be great, or
how are we making a statement here that is kind of this icon for transit in the city. I think it's going to
transform the city anyway, you know, like everyone is saying, it's going to change regardless of whether
you paint it, so let's make it really beautiful. For that reason -- and I’m open to hear the Board's opinions
on this -- but the paralleling station, the images that you showed us look pretty terrifying in terms of
aesthetics. I understand you can't do much in the way of foliage because it's dangerous, but even the
colors for the control room look pretty bleak and sad. I'm more of the opinion, like, is there an art
program? Can we make something that makes that building interesting? You know, like, let people graffiti on it, or something. But, like, good graffiti. Something really pretty. There's a lot of opportunity here that I’m not seeing being taken advantage of. And I understand maybe this is...I'd like to hear my Board members' opinions on this. I'd appreciate next time you come around, to see some ideas about that. I think this Board is all about what will benefit aesthetically the city. And I haven't seen anything in the
way of doing that. That's the long and short of my response.
Chair Furth: Peter.
Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. I fairly well echo the comments of my colleagues on the Board. I'll be very
clear that I think that...This is based on not really having much of a design, but I think the center-
mounted poles are by far the better option as far as an aesthetic choice goes, up and down the tracks.
To the greatest extent possible, I would recommend they be center-mounted poles. As Board Member
Gooyer pointed out, it's nice to paint these poles, but I doubt you're going to paint them every 10 years.
The difficulty of doing that in the middle of an ongoing railroad track is challenging. I think if you take the
approach that they're not likely to be maintained, what is the best finish on them? And something that is
a naturally-weathering metal finish like galvanized steel is probably the best choice. The reality is that they exist, and we want them to be there. We want the train to be electrified. We don't want to look at poles that are half-painted, that are corroded, that make us think the railroad is operating on a shoestring and can't afford to pain the equipment. I'd recommend strongly that you find a finish that will weather into the background and not need to be painted, ever. Save the money, buy better trains
instead. Lastly, as Board Member Thompson was pointing out, you really are just not trying to design this
from an aesthetic point of view. It's strictly an engineering operation so far, and it could be more than
that. Whether the poles are tapered or (inaudible) in sections, really, just the slight effort to, what does it
look like? These paralleling stations, what she said is true. What you're showing there is just the worst
PG&E transformer station in the world, without any effort to think that there's...how many? Twenty
thousand people a day, riding by? An hour, probably? Why not hire an architect and just make one effort
to do something to make it look better? Why not consider painting in a bright color? Just do anything,
something, to just try to design it a little bit from an aesthetic point of view. These are visible, not only
from outside of the right-of-way, but also people on the train, who go by these things. Try a little bit to
design it. That's the extent of what I think. Thank you.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Chair Furth: Thank you, and thank you for your presentation. I share my colleagues' feelings, that we are
so glad that this project is happening. But I don't think that it's ready for prime time here, the aspects of
which we're being asked to comment on. I mean, this is not something to be ashamed of. This is
something to be proud of. And at the same time, for people who are going to be living very close to all
this, our local aesthetic says that where we can plant plants, you know, lower plants, higher plants, to
soften the interface between residences and parks and schools and a transit facility -- anything, really --
we should do that. I also think of all the possible looks, peeling paint is the worst. It's just depressing. And I, too, have been fortunate to travel on newly-built and beautifully-designed roadways, and trains, and what-not, and seen beautiful, you know, blue, metal finishes, on guardrails. I think the main things that I think are that we need closer, more detailed and coordinated between the City and the JPB, landscaping. When you think about planting, we've had to chance a lot of our standard plant palates because of climate change, so we can't plant the same kinds of oak trees that we used to, for example.
And we need to know that the plants you're thinking about take that into consideration. We need to know
the actual colors proposed. And, I very much appreciate Alex's taking his life in his hands, if you're
bicycling on Alma...
Board Member Lew: Sidewalk.
Chair Furth: Sidewalk, good. Smart. And his detailed thoughts, which I think is the kind of work that you
all need to be doing, as well. And I agree that in terms of thinking about what's the appropriate material
for these structures, it's better to think about the stations. It's better to think about, what are the
accessories? What do the other poles, rails, metal pieces, what kind of finishes are they? Rather than,
what's the color of the building? Because that's not going to actually match. Sort of like in a house, if you've got, you know, if you've got antique bronze door handles, you're not going to switch suddenly to stainless steel around the color. So, in terms of aesthetics, you'd be looking at the...You'd be following Alex's approach. Again, if there was some...I think this is a project to be celebrated. If you came back and told me there's a really durable, baked-on color that will last for 40 years, that's some wonderful,
celebratory color, I'd say that would be fine. My choice. I share Osma's feelings on that. I also think that
a project that can't be, what I think of as the transformer, but I realize is more than a transformer, again,
that should look like it's intended to be there. That should look like we know it's there. That should look,
in some industrial way, gorgeous. I mean, I have a bunch of photographs taken by a relative back in the
30's, celebrating all these industrial structures, and I think we all like well-done industrial design. I look
forward to seeing you again. Staff, do you need more from us?
Ms. French: I don't think we need anything. It's all just a relationship with the project team, so...
Mr. Tietjen: Yeah, I would just like to say, thank you for your time this morning. We'll talk with staff.
There were a lot of comments here. We wrote down lots of notes, both Amy and I, and I know Stacy, as
well. Appreciate all the comments. We'll take them into consideration and work with staff.
Chair Furth: Well, we appreciate all your work. Osma, do you have another comment?
Board Member Thompson: I did. I had a question for some of my board member here, in terms of the color for the pole. Galvanized steel can look really terrible, so, I wonder, for fear of peeling paint, why would we choose a bad option as an alternative? I mean, it seems like the JPB is committed to
maintaining the paint. Why wouldn't we want to argue for something that looks better?
Vice Chair Baltay: Well, I think there's other weathering metal finishes that could look acceptable, and I
hate to see that much money spent on painting electric poles up and down the corridor. Every 10 years,
for a long time, just means more expensive train tickets. Why not pick something that will be durable
industrially for a long time?
Board Member Thompson: And you think galvanized steel is the answer for that?
City of Palo Alto Page 16
Vice Chair Baltay: I don't know. I think there are other finishes on metal industrial pieces that are
available. It probably does have a gray look, though, yeah.
Chair Furth: And we don't have any actual data on your costs, so, when you come back with alternatives,
that would be good to hear. Anything else? Thanks so much for coming. Thank you for all your work on a
complicated project. It's exciting to think we're actually going to get electric trains. We're going to take a
five-minute break before our next item. We'll be back at quarter to.
[The Board took a short break.]
Chair Furth: Thank you for waiting. I think you'll get better thinking from us after a break.
3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4256 El Camino Real (18PLN-00096): Consideration of a Major Architectural Review for a new 51,300 Square Foot FiveStory Hotel Including 100 Guest Rooms and Below-Grade Parking. Director's Adjustment Requested for a Reduction in Required On-site Parking (15%) and Loading Space Dimensions. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zone District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org
Chair Furth: Our next item is a public hearing on a proposal to build a hotel at 4256 El Camino Real. This
is a major architectural review for a new 51,300 square foot five-story hotel with 100 guest rooms and
below-grade parking. A request has been made to the Community Development Director to reduce the
required on-site parking by 15 percent, and to alter the code dimensions for a loading space. The
architectural...Sorry. The environmental documents are not yet completed, so we will not be making any
final recommendations today because we don't have complete information. Just a second while I grab my plan packet. The architect is Studio T Square. Landscape architect is MPA Designs -- Is that right? And the...yes. And the applicant is HXH Property, LLC. May we hear from staff? First of all, does anybody have any...? Although this project has been before us on a preliminary basis, this is our first formal hearing. Does anybody have any communications to report about this project, other than the ones that
we had before, before the first project? That you have not previously disclosed, is what I'm trying to say.
Board Member Lew: I do. I will disclose that visited the site, and then, also, I had a phone conversation
on November 13th with Randy Popp, who is working on the project. We were really just only talking
about the presentation format and time limits and not about the project itself.
Chair Furth: Thank you. I should disclose that in addition to my previous visit to the site and visits to Palo
Alto Redwoods, I revisited the site again yesterday.
Vice Chair Baltay: I did visit the site myself and have had previous conversations with the tenants at The
Redwoods apartment complex, but it's been over a year since I spoke to them, I believe.
Chair Furth: Anybody else?
Board Member Thompson: I haven't visited the site in a long time. Probably since the last time.
Chair Furth: Okay. All right. We will clean up our spilled coffee up here and get...Staff?
Samuel Gutierrez, Project Planner: Good morning.
Chair Furth: Oh, excuse me, one other thing I should say, is we did receive a supplemental set of drawings today. Is that correct? Okay, thanks.
Mr. Gutierrez: Good morning, Board members. My name is Samuel Gutierrez. I'm the project planner for
this project. I've been the project planner when you previously saw this, during the preliminary process,
City of Palo Alto Page 17
as well. Jumping to the presentation here, you can see an image of the current iteration of this project
right there on the screen. Just a project overview. This, of course, is a major ARB application for a new
five-story hotel with 100 guess rooms, totally 51,300 square feet of floor area, with 85 parking spaces
and 100 guest rooms. The FAR is approximately 2.0 to 1.0. The height varies from five stories along El
Camino down to two-story mass towards the rear of the development. It has a contemporary
architectural style that utilizes wood siding and stucco mixture, with finished metal beams and transoms
around the windows. The driveway is designed in a manner to allow two-vehicle access at the same time. I'll go deeper into that as we move along the presentation. The parking is totally provided underground. The parking is not visible from El Camino at all. And, they will utilize some mechanical lift systems in the parking structure. Again, I'll discuss that as we move along. The project, as Chair Furth pointed out, does have a request for director's adjustment. This is for a 15 percent reduction in the required parking, and the reduction in size for the required loading area, from the code. This reduction would be to
accommodate an SU-30 size vehicle. That's a 10 x 30 loading space rather than the larger code-required
space. The project has been reviewed thoroughly by staff in regards to zoning. We have found it to be
zoning compliant. However, there are some minor outstanding issues with a few departments, such as
Building and Public Works' Zero Waste that are still outstanding, but can be readily addressed. This
involves minor things like EVSE location, labeling, and a trash compactor in the trash room, and trash
shoots. Things of that nature. All internal to the building. They do not affect the site plan, the FAR, the
articulation of massing. We felt it's appropriate to bring it before you for comment. As Chair Furth pointed
out, the environmental document is still pending. That had a different timeline before, I should point out.
The application was going to come before you a little sooner, but there were some changes made by the applicant late in the review process, which changed the timeline for the environmental document. That's why it's not ready now. When we will return for another hearing, that document will be fully complete and would have been out for public comment as required, and we would have addressed said comments. All that information will be provided to you, of course. Just to go to the site, this is the existing condition.
Of course, this is the location of the existing Su Hong restaurant. It's a single-story restaurant that has
been in the community for several years, and it's still currently in operation. This was a bit of the project
history I feel like we should just cover because it's gone before you a few times. This was the first
iteration during the preliminary ARB review of the project. There was a lot of feedback provided from the
Board and the community. Then, the project came before you again approximately a month later, and
this was the redesign. Again, this was during the preliminary application process. This design also
received a lot of feedback from the community and the Board, and this, of course, is the current design
today, with the formal major review of the application. Taking all that information from the two first go-
arounds from the prelim process and coming up with this more-refined design before you today. The site
plan here shows the existing conditions. You can see the single-story building there, the restaurant, and then, the parking lot configuration. It's, of course, mostly a parking lot when visible from the neighboring apartment complex. Here, you can see the site plan of the proposed development. This one is including a bit of new landscaping and the outdoor plaza area of the hotel that's proposed. You can also see the carport cochere there in the front towards El Camino, and some of the ground-floor amenities, and then,
of course, the ramp heading down to the underground garage. And because this site plan is a bit chaotic
with all this information on here, this is a bit more cleaned up here for you to see. You can see the details
of the building footprint and the carport cochere. Again, they enter into the carport cochere from one
location. It's two lanes to allow for vehicle loading. Again, that would be the SU-30 vehicles that would
service this building. And, it would still allow for vehicles to pass by that vehicle, should they have, you
know, some type of loading going on with deliveries or pick-ups, you know, linens, or what-have-you, for
the hotel service. Vehicles entering into the site could still enter, pick up people who are staying there,
drop them off, or, head down to the garage and be serviced by the valet service that's going to be
provided on site. The parking lot, as we go down to the first level -- it is a two-level garage -- is pretty
standard spaces here. They are 90-degree spaces. They just go in perpendicular to the two aisle ways.
There is a valet parking spot in case they have some back-up or someone needs additional time as they are unloading or loading their vehicle. And then, the valet service could park that vehicle accordingly. The guests could enter in through the elevators located towards the lower center of this site plan here. The second garage level is being shown in this slide, and you can see that this is mainly just parking. There
are some office amenities and parking lifts located here. The previous iterations of this design had a lot
more parking lifts. They changed the design and they added another level of parking so they could
City of Palo Alto Page 18
actually provide more standard parking stalls and less mechanical lifts. They are not relying on that lift
system. In previous iterations, you would have seen a tandem system where you had to drive through
one system to get to the other parking facility. That was eliminated by adding another level. There's also
some locations called out here in boxes along the aisleways because they did request a TDM....Or, excuse
me, an adjustment for parking. And, of course, that came with a TDM program. That's under the
director's purview, and a part of that is the suggestion of parking in the aisleways because they do have
valet service. That actually would function as overflow parking. Moving to the next slide here, you can see that this is the garage layout, and what you see is the tree preservation. A lot of the concerns for this project were the neighboring redwoods that surround it. They are very mature. I mean, anyone who heads to the site, that's the thing that you see actually over the restaurant. You can see this row of redwood trees that just total border all of the property. Or most of the property, I should say. This shows the tree protection zones in red around the trees, both on site and adjacent. We accounted for the area
of shoring beyond the basement footprints because, of course, when they are digging this basement,
they're going to dig a little more to actually provide the shoring before they start pouring the concrete for
the actual basement. That means additional cutting into the root zone, so we wanted to be sure to take
that into account because that would be the full impact to the trees. These areas are indicated in the red
zones here where they interact with that basement footprint. A detailed, very detailed, arborist report
was prepared, and a tree preservation plan resulted from that. There was root scans performed in that
arborist report, and then, that resulted in suggested protection measures for the anticipated impacts to
the trees that are adjacent to the site. We do expect that the anticipated impacts to those adjacent trees
would be less than significant and would allow the trees to recover quickly, based on the suggestions in that tree protection and preservation section of the report. And this actually has been, throughout the process, been reviewed and overseen by the City urban forester, Walter Passmore, who is here should you have comments about that report and its technical aspects. He was visiting the site, I believe during the first prelim, the second prelim, and then, of course, during the formal application, so he has been
involved in reviewing this. The project has, throughout the time, you know, as I said earlier, received a
number of comments from the public. These range from the height in relation to the multifamily
apartment complex that's adjacent, known as the Palo Alto Redwoods. That was included in the staff
report as an attachment. The open space and the shadows cast by the building, of this new five-story
hotel building, that was a concern still with the neighbors to the site. The overall design and compatibility
of this development and this current design with the surrounding neighborhood and the adjacent
apartment complex was also a concern. And then, there's also concerns about traffic noise and impacts
to the adjacent Redwoods. Again, we've taken that and we did perform the arborist report, as I said
earlier, so, I believe we addressed the concerns of the trees and how they would be impacted by the
development in that report. The other aspects regarding traffic and noise, that will be presented when the environmental is complete, the environmental documents, so you will see that during another hearing. There was a community meeting conducted on site at the existing Su Hong restaurant. It was attended by the neighbors, a few members of the public that don't live in the general area, I believe, and, of course, the applicant team, myself, and the current planning manager, Jodie Gerhardt, was also
in attendance at this meeting. It took place on October 22nd, and the planning staff that was there,
we...only function to listen to the concerns of the residents and the applicant's presentation of their
design. We did answer a few questions regarding process, entitlements, how that works, of course, as
city representatives. What you have before you today is, of course, we can't make a decision. The
environmental documents will be complete, as I said. But I would like to say that the Board should
consider the aesthetics of the development, the contextual design of it in relation to the area, the El
Camino design guidelines, how this interacts with those guidelines, and the existing landscaping that
includes the existing trees, how you feel about the impacts to the trees, any comments for us. And, the
access on the site, circulation, of course, and the materials that are suggested for this project. There are
glass samples that, it looked like most of the Board members were circulating. There is another sample
board right next to Board Member Gooyer that has more samples and paint and siding that you may be able to see. The recommendation is, of course, to provide feedback on the project, of the design, to staff and the applicant, and to continue to a date uncertain. No formal action is necessary at this time due to the adjustment of the timeline for the environmental documents for the project. Thank you.
City of Palo Alto Page 19
Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions of staff before we open the public hearing? All right. I have about,
maybe 10 cards. I will not reduce your speaking time...
Vice Chair Baltay: Applicant presentation first?
Chair Furth: Oh, (inaudible). I forgot the applicant presentation. Because we've seen this twice before, I
completely omitted it. Let me say in terms of timing that Board Member Thompson has to leave at 10:30,
so, after the applicant's presentation, we will give her time to ask questions before we go on to the public
hearing. Thank you. May we hear from the applicant?
[Applicant setting up presentation.]
Chair Furth: You have 10 minutes.
Randy Popp: All right, thank you. I'll move quickly. Good morning, Chair Furth, Vice Chair Baltay and
members of the Board. My name is Randy Popp. I'm serving in the capacity of entitlement and approval
support.
Chair Furth: Could you spell your name for our transcriber?
Mr. Popp: Sure. [spells name]
Chair Furth: Thank you.
Mr. Popp: Thank you to staff for the very thorough and detailed report. Out of respect for your time, I'll
try not to repeat what Sam has already shared with you. We're excited to be here to discuss this project.
It's a smart use of an underdeveloped property, which has many benefits, but comes with some serious
challenges that we want to acknowledge. Here is our hopeful agenda. We have much to cover, so I'll
move quickly. Our team is here and available to go into greater detail on any items you might ask of us.
It's been a while since we last shared this project with you, so I'll recap some of the prior comments. I'd like to tell you a bit about our recent neighborhood meeting. We had more than 25 people in attendance and felt it was informative and productive. We'd like to show you how the design has evolved, and our landscape team is here to show you some of their amazing work, and to ask for your feedback on that aspect. A meeting with the neighbors occurred in the period since we submitted our drawings, and we've
made some improvements that we want to go through with you. And, based on the specific requests
from some of the neighbors at that meeting, we expanded the range of shadow studies to some sort of
extreme hours of the day. Lastly, I was invited into two of the neighbors' homes, which gave us an
opportunity to visualize what we expect they will see, and I'd like you to understand that, as well. I think
this is a good time to point to out the major themes that came up from the commissioner. Shadow
impacts at the pool; we've reconfigured the courtyard. Insufficient loading, surface parking, drop-off
zones; we've relocated the entry and changed the dimensions. The courtyard was described as being too
narrow, and we've made that much more generous. There was a lack of pedestrian-friendly element, and
I think you'll see that that has been made much more efficient, and there's a seating area along El
Camino that's very welcoming. The lack of at-grade parking has been addressed. There was a concern with the bamboo, and that has all been replaced. The façade was considered to be too complex, and I think we've simplified that and really made it a lot more elegant. There was a concern about the redwoods. Sam mentioned that, and we will go through that in quite a big of detail, but the the design really respects the TPZ for those trees. And, the mechanical parking has been addressed by adding a
second layer of parking and reconfiguring that space. I'll also just very briefly mention that some of the
major themes that came out of the neighborhood meeting included massing and scale, privacy, tree
health, traffic and safety, and in particular, kids biking to school and buses standing on the curb; noise
and light in both the early morning and late evening hours; and, cut-off views of the sky and access to
natural light. Let's start with what was in your initial packet. We made a pretty major shift from the last
version. We had a broken-up plan and a leaky courtyard. The vehicular ingress and egress was found to
be in conflict with the general consensus. Here are some of the highlights of our new layout. It's a much
City of Palo Alto Page 20
more organized partee, where the first element you encounter is pedestrian- and amenity-focused.
Adjacent to the street, we are projecting a sense of being welcoming and interesting. We've shifted the
drive and enlarged it to allow for multiple lanes and vehicle types, including taxi or on-call car service,
shuttles and delivery vehicles. Sam mentioned briefly that there was enough room for everything to sort
of work around each other, but I'll just refine that a bit by saying we have a very clear intention of
scheduling deliveries at off-peak hours, so there really shouldn't be the kind of conflict that might occur if
that's not being managed. We've reconfigured and reoriented the court to mirror the Palo Alto Redwoods open space, and that limits very much the impact on that active area. We've made some significant effort to sculpt the rear of the building, terracing the floors to limit visual and other impacts, with oriented windows to enhance privacy even if the significant difference were separated. I want to more clearly articulate just how far we are from the neighboring building. It's a range of somewhere between 45 and 70 feet of distance between the two. And I just pulled out my little laser measure here a moment ago,
and I'll just share with you that from where the Board is sitting now, it's 55 feet to that back wall. That's
the kind of dimension that we're talking about. As you can see, that's significantly more than 6 to 8 feet
setbacks we see in our single-family neighborhoods, and significantly more than is required for this zone.
We worked hard to press the massing forward to El Camino Real, and I've adopted a non-traditional and
fairly inefficient design specifically to respond to concerns we've heard. Must of what is so special about
this site is the grove of trees which filter light and views into the Palo Alto Redwood homes. The mature
evergreen foliage creates a dramatic effect and a buffer for the residents. As staff mentioned, much
study has occurred. This includes a fairly unique route mapping exercise. As a result, we've adjusted the
shape and concept for the parking. We are now two levels with a mix of mechanical and standard at a 15 percent reduction, with the balance of valet stalls that ultimately will allow us to be 100 percent parked. You heard me talk about this before, but this amount of parking is much than is needed for a hotel. A quick look at the lower level, and I'll remind you that our impact has been evaluated to be approximately four percent or less to the root structure, with no impact to roots greater than four inches anticipated.
Visually, the changes are dramatically improved from what we've showed you previously. Materials that
are much warmer and drawing contextually from the buildings we're surrounded by. We have subtle
differentiation at base, middle and top, with the upper level terraces pushed back, allowing us to create
deep roof overhangs with dramatic shadow lines. We organized and created a pattern to the glazing,
adding scale and rhythm. Again, I'll point out how the redesign allows the first visual access to be
pedestrian-focused, with the driveway a bit further down the road, allowing you to find it as you
understand the building, before you pass it by. From the opposite vantage point, again, more varied, but
at the same time, more organized. Layered materials enhance horizontal elements to bring down the
scale. The only thing we held onto was the subtle differentiation between the two wings, which we
thought was successful in further breaking down the massing. I don't normally show you views like this, but it's the best way to explain the rear, since the trees are so dense and the massing is so complex. This is an efficient hotel design with stacked units and regular bars. The three multi-level units, which were independent from the main building, were nestled at the bottom. It's not what we wanted. One more thing. This was an 89-room design. While we've not made any decision about private or brand
association, our experts told us we needed to be at 100 rooms. Without changing the FAR, the design
you see in your packet gets us to 100 rooms, and at the same time, makes an attempt to address the
major concerns voiced by neighbors in 2017. We'll come back to this in a bit, but for now, let's go on to
some detail about the components. We really worked to enhance the connection to the street, but
recognize the limited desirability of setting out on El Camino Real. Buffering guests and the public with
the building and some beautiful materials at the pedestrian level where it can be best experienced serves
to create active outdoor space along the street. Lots of glass and doors have been included to enhance
the indoor-outdoor connection, and this translates through the lobby and out to the courtyard. Generous
and beautiful open spaces are welcoming and inviting. The landscape team is here to give you more
detail on this in just a moment. We've developed a restrained palette of high-quality materials, colors and
textures which create interest and tie to the building and to the context. We hope you'll see the natural and earthy tones that help and integrate the design into the site. Taking it a step further, let me introduce David from MPA Design, to come talk about the landscape for just a moment or two.
David Nelson: Hello. I'm David Nelson with MPA Design, landscape architects. Let me just say that the
original designer that you talked to previously was Gerald Kawamoto, who retired last year, so I'm taking
City of Palo Alto Page 21
over on the project. Let's start with the idea of the redwood forest. We're picking up some interesting
themes to bring into the garden. The pictures you see are the stream beds going through redwoods.
They traditionally grown in valleys with these conditions, and we wanted to pick up some of that design
into the plaza itself, leading to the redwoods. In these images, you can see use of different paving
materials and the waving and curving of the pattern as it moves through the courtyard, which gives you
the image of Redwood Creek. All of the lines tend to not be parallel. This is kind of keeping with the
Chinese garden style that we're bringing to the project. The plant material palette, based on earlier comments, we picked up more native plants, and we have adaptive plants, as well. These are compatible with themes from the redwood trees. And also, for bioretention, there's quite a bit of plant material and bioretention, and that's how selections were made. If you have any questions later about species, we can talk about that. In the overall design, you can see that the courtyard is much larger than in the earlier plan, which is a nice improvement for the users of the site. You can pick up on the pattern. Moving from
El Camino Real, where there is a small outdoor seating area that the public has access to, then there's
the creek that flows through the courtyard, which is all over structure, and out to the rear, and it actually
visually leads right to the large redwood trees in the corner of the site. On the northwest edge is
bioretention that has water guns in it, which are compatible with wet roots in the winter and dry in the
summer. On the south edge, that's also a bioretention, and I believe those are Catalina cherries. And
then, on the west side are plant materials compatible with growing redwood trees.
Chair Furth: Thank you. You can have another minute as sort of wind-up.
Mr. Nelson: Okay, okay. Thank you.
Chair Furth: And we may have further questions.
Mr. Popp: I might need two minutes, if that's okay. I've got some pretty important images I want to share with you really quickly. I want to really help you understand this diagram. We showed the newly-terraced building to the neighbors on October 22nd, with high hopes. It was a...
Chair Furth: You can have two and a half minutes and speak a little less rapidly.
Mr. Popp: There you go. It was a two-, three- and four-step building, with a fifth level more than 50 feet
away from the closest resident home. On October 25th, I was invited to meet with Julie and had the
opportunity to walk through the whole complex with her and visit her second floor unit here...I can't see
my pointer...Right approximately in this area. And to walk through the level that's directly above on the
fourth floor. I listened to her concerns and experienced the impact I could visualize. I took this back to
the team and we decided we needed to shift more units and further lower the massing. This is the result,
but it's a big tough to distinguish here, but easier to understand in this image. We dropped the third
level, a portion of the building, to just two, and a fourth level to just three, shifting the stair to be more
internal, and raising the fourth story element to be five, but farther back within the courtyard area. I'll
shift you around a little bit to the right so you can see it from another angle. And again, to the left a little bit more. We've removed all the foliage to make this really clear, but you can see that the perception of height really changes, depending on where you stand. Our goal was to push the massing as far away, as much as possible. I'm going to skip through these shadow studies at this point, but just very quickly explain graphically, what's gray is existing structures and foliage, and anything that we're adding to the
site is shown in blue. Those were in your packet, so, hopefully you've had a chance to review those. We
can address any questions you have about that, if you like. But this is what I really wanted to close with,
are some composite images. These are the pictures that I took from that second-floor unit late in
October, around 9:00 a.m. on an overcast day. And this is with the building inserted that was the initial
submittal to your packet, and the subtly-altered design where we dropped a couple units from the back.
Side by side, you can see how those compare. It's really difficult to see it through the trees in this way,
particularly in a static 2D image. But the change is dramatic. It really does push the massing farther
away. These great filtered views through the trees are super helpful. We went through the same exercise
at the pool deck. You see that, I think we've been pretty successful in maintaining solar access. The building will be visible, of course, but the impact is well controlled with alignment of spaces at both sides.
City of Palo Alto Page 22
And then, moving back up to the fourth level -- I'll go through this quickly -- that's the initial design, the
altered design, and then, side-by-side, you can see the impact there. If I was going more slowly, you'd
be able to see where the current tree canopy height is as you look out into the distance, and the
buildings are essentially at the same height as that. In my opinion, there is no significant change to the
height of the sky, but there is definitely an impact to the foreground. Undoubtedly, it's tough to see here,
but the changes we made still create a really valuable improvement. That's it for my presentation. My
team and I are...
[crosstalk]
Chair Furth: Thank you, and you'll have more time to respond after the public hearing.
Mr. Popp: Yeah, and my team are happy to take any questions and go into greater detail for any
direction you have.
Chair Furth: All right, so, before you step down, Osma, do you have any questions of the applicant or
staff before you leave?
Board Member Thompson: I have a question on the façade colors. The image that we're looking at right
now implies that the façade has, sort of has some varied wood colors, and in the material board, there's
only one color shown here. I wanted to ask some clarification, if it is going to be one color, or if we're
going to get what this image is implying, that there is a variation of tones in the Trespa.
Chris Lee: I think that particular...
Mr. Popp: Introduce yourself.
Mr. Lee: I'm Chris Lee, of Studio T Square. I'm the architect of the project. The material we're using is a
rainscreen Trespa series, is a purer series. And the panel itself has some, has a pattern of the wood, the real wood pattern on a panel. I think the material board should show some variation of the wood grain in there, so, from panel to panel, they are not so unified. They would be wood grain and then a different color shade on the panel.
Mr. Popp: I'll suggest we can get you, maybe more samples, or a larger sample of this material, so that
you can see the variation. This Trespa material that we're planning to use really does have, I wouldn't
call it a significant variation, but it's subtlety like what we're seeing on the screen here. I think this is a
pretty accurate representation.
Board Member Thompson: Okay, yeah, it would be good to see that.
Mr. Popp: Sure.
Chair Furth: Anything else?
Board Member Thompson: No questions.
Chair Furth: Do you have a comment you want to make?
Board Member Thompson: Should I make...?
Chair Furth: You can some short comments so that the neighborhood and the applicant know something of your thinking. And, of course, we won't be making any decisions until next time, and you can review the minutes of the rest of the hearing. Or the tape.
City of Palo Alto Page 23
Board Member Thompson: All right, I appreciate, thank you for letting me speak because I have to run
for something else. I have seen a bunch of correspondence from the public, so I'm...I'm a little sad to be
missing this. Initial comments that I had were that this does seem like an improvement, a big
improvement from what we saw last time, so I appreciate that. Thank you. The change in façade
between the Trespa and the Hardie board, in the renders looks pretty dramatic. When I see it here, it
looks less dramatic, which makes me confused. What is really happening? Which is why I was asking
about the colors. I the render it seems like the color of the Hardie board doesn't seem at all related to the Trespa, but here, I see that there is a really close relationship to the color, which is what I was hoping there would be. I think that's important to maintain, in general. In that sense, if the two materials on your elevation do have a strong relationship, then I’m all for it. In the renders, it looks like it's completely distinct, and in a lot of ways, looks like a completely different red color. That was what was concerning. The two masses that you're showing, that come up front in this image that we're looking at,
have two different qualities. They kind of had relationship to each other, and I'm kind of wondering if
there could be more, like, more similarities between the two. It seems kind of bulky on one side, and sort
of thin on the other side. There's more detailing on the left side and less detailing on the right side. I
would encourage maybe a little more cross-pollination between the two sides so that there is
cohesiveness in the design. A lot of the precedent imagery that you showed had a lot of screen elements,
lot of striated screen elements. I feel like that's a really nice precedent, and I don't see it as much here,
and it would be really nice to see it here. I think that would add an extra dimension to the façade that
would make it feel less flat, and it would also add a bit more to your partee. And in terms of your design,
I think that screen element would sort of help bolster and enrich the façade a whole lot more. And it could look a lot nicer. A lot of images are at night, too, so it would be really nice to see a night render of how things thing kind of comes alive. If you would include some of that striation element, that could sort of bring that alive. I would request that for the next thing, to have a night image with a, just sort of to see what this thing looks like at night. And the smoke color, this gray color, it seems to kind of
chameleon out in all these different images. Sometimes it looks really dark. This image, it looks really
light. Looking at the board, I'm not a huge fan of the smoke color. It doesn't seem to have really great
relationship with the wood. I think maybe something lighter might be a better way to go. Overall, I think
it's headed in the right direction. It definitely seems to be a bit of an improvement, much more warmer
than what we saw last time. And I will leave it at that. Thank you for letting me share.
Chair Furth: Thank you, Board Member Thompson.
[Board Member Thompson left the meeting]
Chair Furth: Let's see, are we on the public hearing now? Okay. The first speaker -- and you are all
entitled to three minutes. Yes, Ms. Carlson.
Sharlene Carlson: May I clarify something? Palo Alto Redwoods homeowner's association has two speakers that are going to kind of generally address all of our concerns, and there may be a couple other people. Peter Mills and myself, Sharlene Carlson, are going to give overall comments, and Amy Wong and Judy Baumgardner have signed up, and they are ceding their time to us. We believe we have maybe eight or nine minutes in comments, but we're asking that we be able to, that Peter and I be able to make
those comments with those cedes in time.
Chair Furth: Okay. Just a second.
Ms. Carlson: And we also...
Chair Furth: Can you get five people to raise their hands as being part, surrendering their time to you? I
know there...
Ms. Carlson: Who is surrendering time? Amy Wong, and Judy Baumgardner.
Chair Furth: Okay, and one more?
City of Palo Alto Page 24
Ms. Carlson: Josephine Shuster...
Chair Furth: Fine.
Ms. Carlson: If needed.
Chair Furth: Then you two.
Ms. Carlson: Which is Peter Mills and Sharlene Carlson.
Chair Furth: Right. Then, according to our rules, you'll be allowed up to 15 minutes, at my discretion, so,
don't talk too fast.
Ms. Carlson: Okay. We also do have...
Chair Furth: Do stay within those limits, please.
Ms. Carlson: Since we weren't, we didn't have written comments this time, we have some copies of what
we're saying that we would like to hand out to you, if that's possible.
Chair Furth: Thank you. If you would give them to the staff.
Ms. Carlson: I'll give them to Sam. Thank you. Okay.
Chair Furth: And as always, could you state your name and spell it for our transcriber.
Ms. Carlson: My name is Sharlene Carlson [spells name]. I am president of Palo Alto Redwoods
homeowner's association, which, by the way, is a condominium association. We've heard references to
apartments. It's not apartments, it's condominium homes. And I’m joined by board member Peter Mills,
and together we will make comments on behalf of our community of 265 residents who live right next to
the proposed development of the Su Hong property. The Redwoods neighborhood community is
composed of a wide range of residents who may otherwise not afford to live in Palo Alto, including older
people on fixed incomes and young families with children that walk and/or bike to neighboring schools. We ask the City to strongly consider that the expansions along El Camino Real have a real and significant impact on these residents. I'm going to ask everyone in the audience who is here on behalf of Palo Alto Redwoods to please stand. Thank you. Affected residents and businesses did not receive adequate notice of this hearing. Mailed notices only arrived seven days ago and were not sent the required 14 days in
advance. In addition, it's unclear whether today's hearing is essentially another study session, or
something formal. We know it's the first formal ARB meeting, but feels much more like a study session.
The Redwoods had inadequate time to review the latest plans, so we chose to have our previous written
comments included in your meeting packet, and are providing only oral public comments at the hearing
today. There have been numerous submissions of revised, incomplete applications, which have been a
waste of time for all of us, and we will not spend our limited time and resources on new written
comments until we have a final plan, comments from all the City departments, and an environmental
impact report. We'd like to relate the plans to design guidelines for South El Camino Real, and contacts-
based design requirements as we previously did in preliminary ARB meetings. And we will do so when
there is a firm set of plans and complete City feedback to review. We are very unhappy about the way this process has unfolded. We were told by the City planners that nothing would be decided at this hearing, and all that would be asked of the ARB was conceptual design input. Yet, the City is asking for approval of director's adjustments, allowing both a reduction in the required on-site parking and a reduction in acquired loading space dimensions. We strongly oppose both proposed adjustments. The
applicant has not accounted for required parking spaces for staff, outside visitors to the conference
rooms, or outside visitors to the restaurant or bar. Given the many issues with traffic congestion and
blocked access due to service and delivery vehicles, and not just service and delivery vehicles within their
control, of who's going to deliver the linens when, but when is FedEx going to show up, when are all
City of Palo Alto Page 25
these other delivery vehicles going to show up. The Uber and Lyft vehicles and buses, huge buses
running up and down El Camino, and the uncertainty of parking restrictions that Caltrans will place on El
Camino Real in the near future -- and that's being discussed now -- it's preposterous to propose a loading
zone reduction. We are not opposed to development of the Su Hong site generally, but we are strongly
opposed to the massiveness of the proposed project. Over the years, we have had very good and
mutually-respectful relationships with our neighbors to the south -- Su Hong -- and their predecessor --
Denny's -- and our neighbor to the north, the Palo Alto Inn. We have been able to quickly address and resolve any issues that arose. We do not have the same confidence in a workable relationship with the current developer. We have been involved with reviewing all previous versions of the application and have provided written comments and oral public comments expressing our specific concerns. To date, our concerns have not been adequately addressed, if at all. And, in fact, the revised project is even larger and more intensive than before. Rooms have increased from 89 to 100 and garages now two levels,
necessitating deeper excavation and more dewatering. We want to highlight some of our concerns, and
Peter is going to do this.
Peter Mills: Good morning. My name is Peter Mills [spells name], and I'm on the board of the Palo Alto
Redwoods homeowners' association. I have six items we'd like to bring up that reflect the concerns of the
residents at the Redwoods. First is the affect of shadows and light. The bulk of the proposed building
would cast shadows on our homes and pool area. The developer's shadow study overlooks the blocked
morning daylight, and we requested that the developer revise these studies for early-morning light, but
sadly, those plans have not materialized. The direct sunlight streams year round through the redwood
grove and into our units behind Su Hong, starting as early as 6:30 a.m. during the summer. And yet, the developer's study only takes snapshots starting at 10 a.m. But it's morning daylight that people enjoy when they're getting up in the morning, getting ready to go to work. It also obscures the fact that a five-story structure will block several hours of precious direct sunlight every single morning, regardless of season, and this needs to be accounted for with a comprehensive study that accurately reflects all hours
of daylight. We're also very concerned that the artificial evening light from the tower hotel will disrupt the
natural circadian rhythms of our residents, and worse, it will create a permanent, giant, illuminated cruise
ship outside our windows that we can do nothing about. In addition, all the 12 BRM units in our complex
face the redwood grove in our area B behind Su Hong, and they will be disproportionately negatively
impacted by the lack of sunlight and the artificial light at night. The next item is that the massing of the
building is completely out of character with the entrepreneur. The building mass of the proposed 62-foot
structure towers over much of the lower neighboring buildings and is out of character with our homes,
and will ruin privacy of our residents. The proposed development does not have a context-based design
that provides harmonious transitions and scale mass in character to the adjacent land uses, nor does it
enhance living conditions in adjacent residential areas, which is required Finding #2. And, we're a little bit suspicious of some of the images that you've been shown with the Photo Shop. We find it hard to believe that a six-story building next door to us is not going to block more of the view that we see, so we'd like the City to require that the developer put up story poles so we can get realistic assessment of how much the building is going to block the sunlight and our views of the sky. Third item is item. Of course, during
construction, there will be a tremendous amount of noise and disruption, but afterwards, we will have
continuous noise from the HVAC and from outdoor activities, which are going to impact the quiet
enjoyment of our residents. This is a major and significant quality of life issue. Fourth, the risk to the
redwoods. We're extremely concerned that excavation and grading will kill the redwood trees at the
property line, and that blocking light will cause the trees to decline and die. We will provide additional
comments about our environmental concerns once the mitigated negative declaration is made available
to the public. Palo Alto Redwoods is an architecturally award-winning complex, and one of the reasons
for that is that the architects went out of their way to preserve the redwoods on the site. If you turn
around behind you, you'll see a symbol of the city of Palo Alto, which has a giant redwood tree on it. And
earlier today, one of the members here talked about the damage to the redwoods in relation to the
CalTrain power poles. We think preserving the redwoods is critical for the city and for the character of the neighborhood and for the residences, and we collectively -- the City, the developer, and the Redwoods complex -- should collaborate to make this project an award-winning project, rather than a giant tree-killing monolith, which is what it is today. Next item is the risk to property and building damage. The
deep excavation for underground parking will impact the foundations and infrastructure at The
City of Palo Alto Page 26
Redwoods, and we intend to fully document our existing conditions and hold the City and the applicant
responsible for any and all damage. This is not a trivial issue. You're all familiar with the Millennium
building in San Francisco. It's sinking, it's damaging its neighborhood foundations, and we don't want
that same problem with our complex. The last item is traffic and safety. This project will create intensive
traffic at the site, which will create safety and noise issues, and it will be exacerbated by inadequate
parking for service and delivery vehicles at grade. Buses, Uber and Lyft drivers park on the streets
already, they block access already, and visibility from entering and exiting our property will be affected. And this is not hypothetical. We have a stack of photographs of buses and Lyft and Uber cars idling illegally in the right-hand lane outside the Hilton Hotel just up the street from the proposed project, so we know this is the result of having a hotel in the neighborhood, and we think that the City should insist on adequate parking and space off the street for any vehicles, buses, delivery trucks and on-call cars. These issues have not been addressed at all, and we feel a director's adjustment allowing a smaller
loading zone will only exacerbate these problems. With that, I'll turn it back over to Charlene.
Ms. Carlson: Okay. In closing, on behalf of Palo Alto Redwoods, I want to urge the ARB to reject the
project outright, or require that it be scaled back to something more reasonable that does not harm
neighbors. We also urge you not to approve the proposed director's adjustments for parking and loading
zone dimensions. I'm going to finish by repeating what I've said multiple times before, and that is this:
There is no such thing as an absolute right to ordinance maximums. Every proposal must be tempered by
reasonableness, given the location and the situation. And in our opinion, this proposal is not reasonable.
Thank you.
Chair Furth: Thank you, both. Let's see. Is Judy Baumgardner still speaking, or did Judy...?
Ms. Carlson: (inaudible)
Chair Furth: Surrendered her time. Stephanie Tramz?
Stephanie Tramz: Good morning. My name is Stephanie Tramz [spells name.] I am an owner and a resident at Palo Alto Redwoods condominiums. My unit number is D-130. I want to adopt all of the
comments made by our president and board member, Peter Mills and Charlene Carlson. I also want to
adopt the comments put into writing by one of other residents named Marshal Blanchard], a copy of
which I picked off the table there as I entered. He lives in unit B-215. I don't have anything new to
present, but I want to present a different emphasis. First of all, the description shown here of the
proposed structure does not show the surrounding buildings, and I think it should. Because if it did, it
would show how looming and out of proportion this proposed construction is, which actually amounts to
five stories plus equipment on top, so, six stories. Palo Alto Redwoods, which, as Mr. Mills said, was an
award-winning architectural design at the time it was constructed, is predominantly three stories. There
are two small penthouses on one of the buildings, but as you look at it visually from the street, that's
very set back and very surrounded by our beautiful redwood trees. The visual impact of this looming, much-taller structure in comparison with our condominiums, and also in comparison with the other surrounding buildings, is going to be very startling. For example, the Elks Lodge across the street, which was just built a couple years ago, has two stories. Hyatt Rickey's was replaced by condominiums that have three stories. The Marriott Hotel down the street is three stories. The Cabana Hotel, which is close
by, as well -- we have many hotels already built in our area -- is very backed up from El Camino Real and
hidden by parking lot and trees. I do want to emphasize that that's a huge concern for us. Second
concern is, I did attend the October 22 meeting, where Mr. Randy Popp presented a slide show
purporting to demonstrate the shadowing effect, the sunlight blockading effect, of the proposed structure
on our property. And I think that the slide show is distorting, misleading, because it shows solid black-out
created by our redwood trees. And, of course, our redwood trees allow light through. So, the additional
black-out that would be provided by this massive structure is not adequately described in that slide show.
And as we go forward, I have every intention that we will present the actual light coming through the
trees now, to show that the slide show is inaccurate. I think the traffic danger can't be overemphasized. With 100 guests...Actually, the notice of this meeting said the hotel would have 89 rooms. I now understand it's going to have 100 rooms. But the impact upon traffic is going to be very dramatic.
City of Palo Alto Page 27
Chair Furth: Ms. Tramz?
Ms. Tramz: I'm sorry?
Chair Furth: You've gone over your time. Could you wind up in about 30 seconds?
Ms. Tramz: Yes. Those are my two chief concerns for now, but I certainly will appear at, if there is a
further hearing, with additional concerns. Thank you very much.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Our next speaker is Josephine Shuster, to be followed by...Did Amy Wong
surrender her time?
[no audible response]
Chair Furth: James Wong? Did you surrender your time, or did you wish to speak?
[no audible response]
Chair Furth: All right. You will speak after Miss Shuster. Thank you.
Josephine Shuster: I'm Josephine Shuster [spells name]. I'm 88 years old, and I'm very, very crabby
about this project because, not only will I be living in the dark all the time, and I'm wondering who is
going to take care of replacing my antique crystal, antique Chinese porcelains, during the construction
era? I'm very disappointed that the City of Palo Alto has protected Eichler homes from taller buildings,
but is not protecting 200-plus people who pay handsome taxes every single year. I know they like the
hotel tax, I understand that, but I pay more taxes in my little condominium than I did in my house in San
Jose. And that's what I would like to say. We are contributing to Palo Alto, and we are not being
protected by the City of Palo Alto. And I hope you look forward to protecting us to a greater extent.
Thank you.
Chair Furth: Thank you, Ms. Shuster. Mr. Wang? To be followed by Jeff Levinsky.
James Wang: Dear council, my name is James Wang [spells name]. This is my wife, Amy Wang. She's just with me. I think the (inaudible) of HOA already presented a lot of the concern against, as the individual. Unfortunately, my unit on the first floor, this is a misleading figure for that. You see, I'm just living here. It's most close for the absolute distance. (inaudible) I'm most close for this object. I agree
with previous speak. This, or the presentation about the develop are misleading. They did not show the
back. I'm the owner there. I know most about what's the impact to our lives. It's still (inaudible) your
home. (inaudible) big wall (inaudible) home. It blocks the lights. Put our whole home in the darkness.
You just can't imagine about that. It's too high. The highest...and also from this figure, so you can see,
the most part is on the (inaudible) side, from our building (inaudible).... I think they had the co-called
consideration redesign. The most close to this (inaudible) building (inaudible) most close to building level.
It's not two level. It's three levels, out here. So, I really hope you can consider the humans. We already
(inaudible) out of trees. It's important for our cities, but the humans most important. I have to
(inaudible) here. I'm already 60 years old. I (inaudible) spend my rest time in this unit. I will live in the
darkness. I think that's really harmful. And I live there. I know the view. You can go to the location. It's not like they select some pictures (inaudible) show no impact to neighbors. It's really, really, impact on neighbor. I hope you think about our living (inaudible) owner into this building. Thank you.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Could you tell me what your unit is, your address? Your unit address?
Mr. Wang: It's B-114.
Chair Furth: Thank you.
City of Palo Alto Page 28
Mr. Wang. It's first floor. And also for our privacy. And every people can look into. Now, it's... We have
(inaudible) already not bright, but (inaudible) lights from the tree. It's a blue sky. Now I cannot
(inaudible). Such beauty. All I see is a wall. (inaudible)....
Chair Furth: Thank you very much.
Mr. Wang: Thank you.
Jeff Levinsky: Good morning, Board members. My name is Jeff Levinsky [spells name], and I am not a
resident of The Redwoods, but I'm speaking as part of PAN neighborhood, Palo Alto Neighborhood Group, because our zoning committee has looked at this project, and we're very concerned about it, as well. Let me point out on the parking that the code specifies that there shall be one space per guest room, plus the applicable requirements for eating and drinking, banquet assembly, commercial, or other
use required for such uses. The staff report and such shows 100 spaces is normally required, meaning
they didn't add anything for the eating and drinking spaces and the conference rooms that are part of the
plans. Unless staff has decided this part of the code doesn't mean anything, I think they've under-
calculated the parking requirements. As far as the 15 percent reduction for the TDM, let me read you
again the code on that. It says, where effective alternatives to automobile access are provided, parking
requirements may be reduced to an extent commensurate with the permanence, effectiveness, and the
demonstrated reduction of off-street parking demand, effectuated by such alternative programs. The
staff didn't even provide us with a TDM. I don't know how many of you have ever read a TDM in Palo
Alto, but I've had that misfortune. There's a company that you go to, and they put in your address and
such and press "print," and out comes a TDM. It includes lists of nearby restaurants, and that there shall
be a coordinator, and so forth. But no TDM in Palo Alto has ever been demonstrated to be effective. So, I think we should go back to basics here and reject the notion that we have proven the effectiveness. We have yet to prove the effectiveness, and thus, the TDM reduction is not to be allowed. Finally, I'd like to point out in your staff report, you will be asked to make a finding - Finding #2 e. - and its words include the following: That the project enhances living conditions in adjacent residential areas. After you hear all
these residents speak, and you look at the shadow studies, and the affect on light, and so forth, that this
project will create, I don't see how this project could ever claim, as its currently configured, that it will
enhance the nearby, the adjacent resident areas. I think that serious help for this project would be good
to provide. Thank you.
Chair Furth: Thank you, Mr. Levinsky. Mr. Murphy? To be followed by Mr. Hutar.
Neil Murphy: Good morning. My name is Neil Murphy. I'm a Redwoods resident. [spells name] I have
three points. Point #1: No accommodation in the plans has been made for the inevitable tour buses. The
applicant naively claimed in our community meeting that buses wouldn't be an issue because this hotel
just wouldn't attract them. That position is patently ridiculous and doesn't match the reality of operating
a hotel of this size in Palo Alto. It seems negligent at best, and disingenuous at worst. At that meeting, when I presented 35 casually-collected photos of tour buses and ride shares illegally parked and blocking traffic in front of nearby hotels, despite available carports, the applicant assured me that this would be addressed in the design, and I'm not seeing that. Buses block visibility for traffic both exiting and passing the site at speed, and make the sidewalk less safe for pedestrians. They block circulation and hinder our
ability to exit our complex. This reality has to be addressed. Point 2: The excessive height at the front of
the building means that some of our homes will be plunged into darkness. For example, three of the four
hours of direct sunlight I get to my own home through the redwood trees every day will vanish, as the
sun rises exactly where the fourth and fifth stories of this project will block it. Outside of greed, I see no
real reason for this hotel to be five stories. It doesn't match the character of either of the surrounding
buildings on El Camino or our homes, and it doesn't meet ARB Finding #2, to provide harmony and scale
mass and character to adjacent land and enhance living conditions in adjacent residential areas. Mrs.
Furth, you earlier stated that the ARB thinks the entire city is visually sensitive, and I appreciate that, and
agree with that. I believe that should also include our views from behind the hotel, in addition to the views from street level. Point 3: Beyond the ARB's purview, but this need to be stated. In order to fund exploding employee pensions, the City has become addicted to hotel taxes and hasn't really taken major
City of Palo Alto Page 29
steps to correct this addiction. They are still participating in CalPERS, and even increased the monthly
payout percentage in 2007. Thus, the City has created a perverse financial incentive to continue pumping
hotels disproportionately into our community, and it hasn't really taken significant steps to wean itself
from this dependency. This looks like a significant conflict of interest, and it calls into question whether
the City will ultimately make an impartial and objective decision in this matter. It's immoral to make our
residents permanently responsible for the negative consequences of a problem that we didn't cause, and
which the City hasn't yet shut off at the source. Thank you for the time.
Chair Furth: Thank you, Mr. Murphy. Mr. Hutar.
John Hutar: Good morning, I'm John Hutar [spells name]. General manager of Dinah's Garden Hotel, 4261 El Camino, directly across from the subject property. Dinah's has the most to gain to support this
project. If we were to translate this density onto our five acres of parcels, we would have a 1,200 room
hotel. I managed a 1,200 room Westin St. Francis. I managed a million square foot casino for MGM
Mirage, so, knowing how to do that, not a problem. That said, we remain opposed. We've been invited
continuously for the last 15 months to provide input. Very kind words are said, flashy presentations are
made, input disregarded. As it relates to the specific agenda item today, I encourage you to oppose the
requested director's adjustment for 15 percent reduction in parking, and the reduction in load space
dimensions. The applicant's saying they are going to schedule deliveries is laughable. Good luck
scheduling Uber Eats, Door Dash, Lyft, Uber, UPS, FedEx. Now we get to the shopping services that
make regular visits: PostMates, TechLicious, InstaCart, Thumbtack. Good luck telling your guests, "Well,
you're not going to get your delivery because it didn't come at the scheduled time." As it relates to the
workforce, profound change. A few years ago, they came as far as Livermore, then Tracy. Now, it's Modesto. So, two years from now, should the hotel be built, they're going to come from even farther. And it's just laughable to think that parking would be reduced, laughable to think you're going to attract employees from the Palo Alto market that are going to take local transportation. Instead of the City continuing its love affair with more transient occupancy tax, those taxed with making decisions that affect
the lives of Palo Alto residents and visitors need to start enforcing existing codes, and need to take the
courage to do the right thing. Stop changing the rules to justify the project. Let the project be defined by
existing code and laws. Thank you.
Chair Furth: Thank you. I don't have any other cards. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak? The
applicant has 10 minutes to respond.
Mr. Popp: Thank you. I'll make this brief, but I'm going to also call up a couple members of my team to
address some specific items. I think the thing that I want to say the most is that the suggestion that
we've been misleading or inaccurate in our representation of this project is entirely unfair. We have been
factual. We have been accurate. We have provided detailed and precise drawings to represent what we
intend. I'm going to take you back quickly to these shadow studies because I glossed over them quickly, and it was clearly something that the residents were anxious to understand, and to be more clear about. Specifically, they asked us for studies that started at 6:00 or 6:30 in the morning. In my career, over 30 years, I've never been asked to evaluate a shadow study at 6:30 in the morning because the light is at its extreme at that time of day. Even a fence casts an enormous shadow at that time of day. So, I'd as you
to just temper your evaluation of this with the understanding that that's not a very typical request. But,
we did factually provide that information. You can see clearly in these examples the impact of the
structures that we are building and how that falls across the adjoining properties. I think that in almost
all cases, the impact is much less severe than is being described, and we have the studies to prove it.
Words like "changing the rules" or "input disregarded" are troublesome for me. This is a completely
conforming project. There is nothing here that we are asking for that is out of the ordinary, and the type
of parking reduction that is being suggested by staff is completely consistent with our current thinking
about how to control encouraging vehicular traffic. The TDM is accurate. It has been studied carefully.
Staff has evaluated it. I'm confident in its ability to be achievable. The only other thing that I wanted to
just quickly address is a request for story poles, which I would consider to be a very unusual and extreme measure to be taken on a project that is conforming in this way. This is not a brutalist block building that we're describing here. This is a very thoughtfully sculpted, very carefully crafted mass that is pushed as
City of Palo Alto Page 30
far forward toward El Camino and as far away from the residents as it can be. And I think in the
description we've shown you, that the dimensions that we're talking about, these 50 feet dimensions
between us and the neighbors, are much, much greater than you would typically see in a normal
multifamily development, where you're putting buildings right next to each other. I think the intention
that we've had is to be very respectful and to listen carefully, and to hear what the neighbors have said,
and to respond to those in a thoughtful way. I'd like to ask Olivier to come forward. He is going to be
able to speak for you a little bit about the business operations and address some of these questions about operations and philosophy in regard to deliveries, etc.
Olivier Severin: Hi, good morning. My name is Olivier Severin [spells name]. I am the hospitality consultant for this project. Currently, the hotel is built to be a four-plus-star boutique hotel. We are in conversations with several of the major flags to see about their operation requirements as well, but the
intention of this hotel is for a, more of a luxury, business executive hotel. We have very small business
facilities, meeting rooms. We have two meetings rooms, so it's not saying that we have massive
ballrooms. We're not catering to massive events. The outside courtyard is purely just for leisure and
relaxation. We don't have this large generating capacity of bringing in large events and tending to large
events because we just don't have the space. With regard to deliveries, the intent is to bring as many
deliveries as we can to the lower level. In the dual elevators we have, one of the elevators is
actually...One of the elevators -- sorry -- will be a dual-access elevator, so the idea is that we can bring
down linen deliveries, they can access through the lower level and go directly into the housekeeping
storage facility. From there, the linens would be distributed through the service elevator up to the
additional floors, to where all the stuff is. That's why we're trying to mitigate as much of the loading bay in the porte-cochere as possible, to bring as much deliveries down to the lower level. With regard to food and service like that, the restaurant is a light tapas kind of meal restaurant. It's not a massive, multi-menu deal. The food services that we have will be fairly limited compared to the larger restaurant scales. And with regard to staff parking, we're obviously encouraging our staff to take public transit. We have a
shuttle bus that will be on site. We'll be offering services within a three-mile radius to both our guests
and staff, to where we can pick them up from train stations, bus depots, and all these areas. We're trying
to be as encouraging as we can, to not use their own vehicles in these areas. We understand some will
be coming. We're going to be trying to get as many staff as we can in this local area, but if there are
some that are coming from farther away, we'll be providing transport for them from those public transit
areas to the site itself. We're doing everything we can. On top of that, we're also doing a bike share
system, bike parking, and, for example, if our entire staff of, at the time...Each time is about 27 percent.
Now you're saying there's about a 73 percent parking stall requirement then for our guests, which would
mean that every single guest in a hotel would be renting a car and coming here, which is just impossible.
When coming in as a one-day or two-day traveler, you're taking an Uber, or you're taking a taxi, or you're being picked up by some service and brought to the hotel the majority of the time. A car service is just, the percentages don't make sense. Thank you.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Does staff have any comments before we start deliberating up here? Or commenting, I should say.
Mr. Gutierrez: Yes, just a few comments. There was comments regarding, you know, the director's
adjustment as if it were up right now for approval. You have to remember, that's under the director's
purview per the code, and again, in the staff report, it has been identified several times that we're not
making a decision on this project today. That's not happening. I said that several times during my
presentation. Or no decision. These are recommendations and reviews by the Board and they are taking
public comment, and then, see how that applies to the project.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Is the City arborist here?
Mr. Gutierrez: Yes. Walter Passmore is here.
Chair Furth: Could you comment on the comments on the trees and their preservation and good health?
City of Palo Alto Page 31
Walter Passmore: Walter Passmore, I'm the urban forester for the City.
Chair Furth: You, too have to spell your name for our transcriber.
Mr. Passmore: Of course.
Chair Furth: Otherwise, we have to correct the minutes.
Mr. Passmore: [spells name].
Chair Furth: Thank you.
Mr. Passmore: There has been several arborist assessments of the project, which I have reviewed at each new iteration, and we feel like the impacts with the proposed construction are going to be less than significant for all of the retained trees. You saw the map with the intrusions into tree protection zones. We typically find that any more than 25 percent intrusion into a tree protection zone would constitute a
significant impact and could be considered a removal as defined by municipal code. I think the most
extensive impact into a tree protection zone on a retained tree for this project is around four percent, so,
I don't want to say that that's a zero impact, but it is an impact that should not result in any noticeable
change in health to the tree. And there are going to be treatments that are required during the project,
such as supplemental irrigation, to make sure that the tree responds appropriately and recovers from
these impacts from the construction. I do want to comment on the depth of excavation because that's a
concern of some of the residents. Really, tree roots are concentrated in the top 18 inches of soil. There
are some structural roots that go deeper. However, it's very unlikely that there are going to be very many
roots below the top three to six feet of soil, and if you're talking the difference between a 10-foot
excavation or a 20-foot excavation for one or two levels of parking, you're very unlikely to find many
roots below that 10-foot depth. The difference is really insignificant for the tree health.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Any other questions of Mr. Passmore?
Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. Arborist Passmore, could you explain to me the process during construction by which you ensure that these arborist reports are followed?
Mr. Passmore: Of course. We do require tree protection fencing to be installed as part of the project.
That's inspected by City staff. Additionally, this project is required to have a project arborist that performs
inspections on a monthly basis and/or at milestone events where there are sensitive things happening,
such as any construction activity inside a tree protection zone would require the project arborist to be on
site, supervise that activity, and if actual conditions vary or if there is some level of concern, the project
arborist could direct the developer or construction team to modify their practices or defer that activity
until an adjustment in those construction practices is made.
Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you.
Chair Furth: Yes?
Board Member Lew: I have a follow up question to that, to Board Member Baltay's question. Typically,
our tree protection requirements are for the trees that are on the subject property, on the site. What happens to the trees on the Palo Alto Redwoods' properties? Do those get the same considerations that the ones on the property receive?
Mr. Passmore: We do have several layers of protection described in Title 8 of Palo Alto Municipal Code. One is for trees on the subject property that may be impacted by development. Another is for protected
status trees. Redwoods over 18 inches in diameter are protected by Title 8 of Municipal Code and have
very similar protections to those trees on the subject property during development. The trees of greatest
City of Palo Alto Page 32
concern are, of course, the redwoods that are close to the property line, and those are protected status
trees.
Board Member Lew: Okay, thank you very much.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Helpful. Yes, Board Member Lew has a question for staff.
Board Member Lew: Sam, so, Sharlene Carlson had raised an issue about notification. I was wondering if
we are in violation of the Brown Act, if notification wasn't properly made.
Mr. Gutierrez: The notification dates are in the staff report. The mailer went out according to our certified mailing on...Give me one moment. It's not at the top of my head. It was mailed out on November 5th. That's the postcard mailings, which is 11 days in advance of the meeting. However, the public notice in the Daily Post -- that's the periodical that the City uses, as well -- was posted on November 2nd, that's
Friday, November 2nd. And that's 14 days in advance of the meeting. There was also a note that a
community member made about the project description being different, about the room number. That is
an error on the notification card. However, they were specifically notified per the legal requirement that
the project was being heard. Also, of course, that had information about how to access the plans and the
staff report, so they could have easily seen that number adjusted. There was still notification of a public
hearing. I'm not sure what happened after it left the post office. Perhaps there was some delay in that
because of the Veterans Day holiday. I'm not too sure.
Board Member Lew: Thank you very much.
Chair Furth: Board Member Baltay.
Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, I have three questions for...
Chair Furth: Vice Chair Baltay.
Vice Chair Baltay: ...staff, please. I believe we have a noise ordinance in the city. How would that affect the hotel operations, especially in their common outdoor courtyard, vise-e-vie how much that could affect the neighbors? What is the current statute about that?
Mr. Gutierrez: The noise ordinance falls under Title 9 of the municipal code. It sets limits of ambient
sound that any property may project. The municipal code only allows nine decibels of local ambient. The
ambient sound is taken from noise track studies that are presented in the Comprehensive Plan. We get
that information from the comp plan, and then, apply the municipal code information from Title 9. In this
particular area, because El Camino is El Camino and it does have traffic, vehicular noise, it is a bit louder
per those noise tracts, per the comp plan. However, there are other language in the comp plan that takes
into effect, like, if you're adjacent to some sensitive perceptors such as, like, housing. In this case, that
would be the adjacent Palo Alto Redwoods. As staff, what we have the ability to do is condition the
outside activity and have that closed down. Not to be utilized after a certain amount of hours, just like
any other business would have limitations on their hours of operation. For extended hours of
operation...And some businesses actually can have that, but they require a conditional use permit, which is, of course, discretionary and not guaranteed to be approved because we do take into account the surrounding uses. So, there are ways to address that. It wouldn't be something that just could be, you know, a private party could then be had on this commercial site in the late hours. So, we would take that into account. And then, as far as noise emitting from mechanical equipment, we, again, look at the
specifications of that mechanical equipment, see what kind of noise ratings it has from the manufacturer,
and then, take into account distance and height. And then, they do have a mechanical screening, which
is required for the architectural requirements to screen that equipment. We make an analysis and
determination if that equipment is sufficiently buffered for the sound that is generated, or not. If it is not,
then we require to select a different type of equipment. A lot of times you'll see conditions about noise,
City of Palo Alto Page 33
and must adhere to the noise ordinance in the total number of conditions that we have for projects. That
would be a condition that would be applied to this project.
Vice Chair Baltay: Following up on the noise. What recourse would residents of the condominium behind
them have? Say there's a wedding hosted and the band plays a little bit too late on a Saturday night. It's
a violation of the noise ordinance, but what happens? It's out of your purview, but what do they do if it's
too loud.
Mr. Gutierrez: The noise ordinance is actually enforced by the police department, so that would be calling the police department at that time. In particular, since you bring up a wedding, that actually might be subject to a temporary use permit. I don't believe that they would just, by right, be able to have a wedding reception in the outside like that. Because it would generate more people, potentially, and other
things that the Planning Department would have to review and approve first. Because there are other
sites that have similar events around the city. Some are concert series, and what-not. Those require
temporary use permits, as well.
Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Several times I've heard mentions about tour buses dropping off large
numbers of guests, residents and stuff. That can't be just a problem for this hotel. What is the City's
position or experience regarding that kind of large vehicle for these buildings?
Mr. Gutierrez: That's actually a concern that was brought up during the community meeting, as the
neighbors mentioned in their comments. It is a corridor-wide problem, and that is something that I
actually expressed at that meeting, as well. It's not going to be a problem that's focused only at this site.
It's an El Camino problem, which stretches across the whole city. We have been working with other city
departments to address this issue. The municipal code doesn't speak to anything about tour buses. It's not something that's in our code. And then, having them idle in the public right-of-way of El Camino, again, it's not something that's on the private property. We have no conditions that we can apply to this project that would say how can the applicant basically control this. We are looking at working with the police department, public works, transportation and planning to address this problem, because it is a
much larger problem citywide. We're working on that. That would include possibly adding signage,
because then people clearly notice that they wouldn't be able to idle with tour buses, not blocking
driveways, red zones. And then, having PD step up enforcement would be another angle to approach this
problem.
Vice Chair Baltay: Thanks. Lastly, I think we've covered this in the past, but my understanding is that
there is a 35-foot height limit imposed on this type of project next to residential areas, uses. I think there
was a reason we didn't apply that to this, but could you just refresh my memory for that, please?
Mr. Gutierrez: Yes. That was actually brought up during the first preliminary review. We thoroughly
looked into that, and the code actually describes the zoning and the uses if you're within that radius. The
thing is that this development that's next door is actually more like into an RM40, which is the most dense housing you can have in the city, and it doesn't have that trigger to limit the height because of that. That's for RM15, I believe is the cut-off point, and single-family residential. Because of the density at the neighboring site, which is actually, depending on how you calculate it because it's actually a conglomerate of, I believe five parcels, if my memory serves correct. It's over 40 units per acre, so it
would be falling under the RM40 regulations because it's currently zoned CS. And that's because at the
time of development in the 80's, the CS zone permitted multifamily developments. The code has since
change, so they are not technically conforming with the current zoning as they exist today.
Vice Chair Baltay: Great, thank you.
Board Member Lew: Sam, I think the step-down height applies to, up to RM30. I think that's correct.
Mr. Gutierrez: That may be correct.
City of Palo Alto Page 34
Board Member Lew: Yeah, or up to there. And then, but not RM 40. That's my recollection. Because it
comes up on a lot of...
Ms. French: I'll weigh in. That's my recollection with the Hilton Garden Inn. They had that same question.
Chair Furth: Sam, so, what's the Comprehensive Plan designation of the Palo Alto Redwoods site?
Residential or commercial?
Mr. Gutierrez: Off the top of my head, I'm not too sure. I'd have to research that.
Chair Furth: I'd appreciate it. I find it very perplexing when we have a pro-housing policy to have, if this isn't designated for housing and doesn't get the kind of protection that housing is generally accorded. But I think what you're telling me is that even if it were zoned for a residential zone, it would be, not be subject to the kind of protective height standards because of the intensity of the development. Is that
right?
Mr. Gutierrez: Correct.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Let's see, that was questions, we have comments yet. All right. I just want to say
that we apologize for any glitches in notices. I hope that we can send emails to the appropriate people as
soon as the staff report is ready to go or something is tentatively scheduled, so that at least they have
the earliest possible notice and we have a record of that. It's not really the Brown Act that controls the
notice here. It's the fact that it's a planning project. Brown Act notices are actually quite short. Also, as
staff said, we are not making any recommendations today. We don't have full environmental
documentation, so we don't have all the facts we need in order to make those decisions. Or
recommendations, rather. And I will say that I look forward to seeing the Transportation Demand
Management Program with the next packet. And then, I will save the rest of my comments for when I'm commenting. Who would like to go first? Robert?
Board Member Gooyer: Okay. Well, based on the initial, sort of design along El Camino, I think the project has improved greatly. The problem I have is that the basic concept of it, to me, I still have some difficulty with. The parking reduction, as I said, or as I indicated the first go-around, I can understand
the, you know, allowing a reduction nowadays, as I said, with Uber and all the various other things,
especially that it's going to be a business hotel. I don't have a problem with it. But, there's not a single
accommodation made for staff. And I agree with the gentleman from the hotel across the street, is that a
lot of the staff, I don't think the average staff member is going to be living in the Peninsula and take
CalTrain; they're going to be driving here. And I just don't know if this is just not too much of an
overreach. Also, with the whole concept of, that the loading dock is basically the porte-cochere. I'm
sorry, but no matter how you work it, you're not going to stop UPS from delivering whenever UPS wants
to deliver. If you start telling them you can only deliver between 6:00 and 7:00 in the morning, or
whatever the case is, they're going to say, "Well, come pick it up at our warehouse." I mean, I just don't
see that happening. And the biggest problem, you know, I can understand that the neighbors don't like a five-story hotel next to them. I can understand that, but having been on boards like this for quite a few years, it's always the idea that someone buys a piece of property, or whatever, 35 years ago, or 30 years ago, or 20 years ago, expects it to be, the conditions to stay exactly the way they are forever. And then, all of a sudden, they realize that a five-story building comes in next door. And I can see their concern.
Looking at it from the other way, I was under the assumption based on this that it was probably a
business hotel, and that was affirmed today. The gentleman indicated that it's a business executive hotel.
My question is, I find that the whole concept seems wrong, in that, if you look at the site plan, only about
half of the site is, has a footprint on it, or has a building on it. Because of that, you have to go up five
stories just to make the square footage work. If this is basically a business hotel that's designed for
executives who go to work in the morning, spend all day at wherever office they're at, and then, in the
evening, come by, and it's only basically Monday through Friday, why do you need this massive -- as you
put it here -- tranquil landscaped courtyard? If I've been working all day, I'm really not going to care
about the tranquil landscaped courtyard. I'm going to worry about a nice bed and a, as it's put here, a
City of Palo Alto Page 35
high-end café. Those are the things that I'm going to be more interested in. I think more of a balance...I
think the neighbors would be happier if you took some of the square footage of the site and actually put
some more building on it. In other words, you make a bigger footprint. The bigger the footprint, the
lower the building is allowed to be, if you're going to be right at the cap. I think it's very difficult for the
neighbors to complain about a three-story building next to them when they are in a three-story building.
I can understand the five-story building, especially depending on the way some of the angles work for
the sun. Like I said, when I initially saw it, the overall design of it, I think is a big improvement. I just have a problem, and I have had since the first time we saw this, is that the concept behind it I don't think is fulfilling what the initial intent was. Again, you're trying to put as much square footage on the property. In other words, if you're allowed 100 rooms, you're going to try and get 100 rooms. And I don't have a problem if you can make that work. But, in something like this where everything else around it is three stories, it's...I think an effort needs to be made to bring it down to that level. Going back to
the...I'm switching back and forth a little bit, but I’m just trying to cover most of the things. With the
design, going just for the design itself, this hotel looks like it was designed by two different design firms,
one that did the El Camino side and one that did the, you might say the residential side, and then, you
butted them together. The hotel in front has flat roofs, or maybe slight angles on them. All of a sudden in
the back, there are sloped roofs, it's residential. You go from a very sophisticated siding to the basic
Hardie plank siding that you see on every other house that's built these days, it seems like, where
somebody doesn't want to use wood. The two just don't look...It looks very strange when you look at the
side elevations, that they literally butted two buildings together, and they don't fit. I understand that you
want to try and save some money so you put the nicest elevation in front, but I think the whole building, you know, the building has four sides. I think they all need to relate to each other, not two sides that face, or one side that faces El Camino, and the other three that don’t. This building has, I think is trying to be too optimistic based on the size of the property. And that's probably enough for now.
Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Lew.
Board Member Lew: Thank you, Randy, for your presentation, and thank you for the supplemental
packet. It was actually very useful to look at this morning. I'm generally in support of the project. The
massing, I think, to me, makes a lot of sense. It seems like they...To follow up on your point, I think the
massing has shifted away from the Palo Alto Redwoods pool, so they're trying to minimize the shading
impacts of that, and it has made the other building taller. But, I think that's the reason why they did it.
My recollection is, too, that you had originally proposed a swimming pool and deleted that for noise
issues, and have made it more of a Chinese/Japanese courtyard. I do support that because it's a quieter
use, it seems to me. I think, on the parking issue, I think is a director's decision. It's not an ARB decision.
I have some comments, though, on it for the staff to consider. One is the occupancy rate at Palo Alto
hotels. My understanding, that I've heard anecdotally, but also when I look on line to see if rooms are available, is that they are full. Just for this week, there are 27 hotels listed, and 23 of them are full. No rooms available at all. And if you want a room, you're looking at $800 a night, $1,000 a night. I think that should be a factor in the director's decision, that they are full. My recollection is that we have had parking reductions like at the Hilton Garden Inn, and I think that also has a two-level garage. It seems to me,
what I've heard from parking experts is that if we have the TDM plan, I think, like...So-called parking
experts, they actually like to see the garages. A lot of times the parking consultants will use aerial photos
to count the number of cars and come up with, like a utilization of the parking, but they don't really have
any data for garages. It seems to me it may be useful for the public, is if we actually know what's
happening in the garages. Say, like at the Hilton Garden Inn, or the Homewood Suites across the street.
On the building design, I'm supportive of the building frontage on El Camino. I think I agree with Robert
about the front and back. Changes in material, I think is undesirable. I think the colors...The color board
looks better than the renderings with regard to the differences in the materials. Again, back to the
massing, it seems that you have really squished the floors. You only have a nine-foot floor-to-floor to get
in the five stories, so it seems like you've tried to minimize massing by squishing in the height for that.
But, you did allow a two-story lobby, so I think that actually works pretty well. I would recommend including more of the context in some of the drawings for street elevations. I did look at the site yesterday and I did sort of eyeball everything in there to get a sense of how much taller the building is compared to the neighbors. With regard to the El Camino Design Guidelines, I think it's meeting the
City of Palo Alto Page 36
guidelines' intent of a boulevard building, with a prominent entrance to the street. There are lots of
recesses and uses that provide visual activity to the street, and I think this project does it better than,
like, the Homewood Suites. It's probably comparable, or I would say maybe even a little better than the
Hilton Garden Inn. With regard to the bar area, I do have a minor concern, is that normally if you're
serving alcohol, you have to fence in a seating area. It can't be open. I do have a concern that you're
maybe closing off part of it, but it's not really...It's not really contained. I don't know all the details about
that, but if you could follow up with that. On the landscaping...Actually, let me back up for a second. Around the bar area, you have, like a transformer gate, and I think you also have a side gate to the trash area. I would like to see that designed and come back to the Board. I don't want, like, some really ugly, utilitarian service type of gate there. I think that should actually be something very attractive. I do like all of the landscape imagery that the landscape architect shared. I think that's all very desirable. I do have some questions on the lighting. I did look at the lighting plans, but I don't completely understand them.
Maybe the next time, if you could explain how the lighting may impact the Palo Alto Redwoods. I do see
light fixtures. It looks like they're pole, some sort of lights in the courtyard, and lights in the trees, or
somewhere along the back of the property line. But I don't really see the fixture. I don't really quite
understand what's going on there, so if that could follow up, if you could follow-up with us on the next
presentation. That's where I am on this one. I am generally in support of the project. I think the massing
steps down in the back. I think that works. I think you tried to minimize the sun impacts to the residents.
I do believe the sun study. I do think that trying to do a sun study at 7:00 a.m. is asking a lot. Our
standard in the code is just to minimize. It doesn't really give us...It doesn't say anything more specific
about that. It doesn't say no impacts on the neighbors. It just says to minimize it. And at least from what I've seen, you have made an effort to do that. I'm curious to see what my other board members have to say on this one.
Chair Furth: Thank you, Alex. Well, you can hear now from Vice Chair Baltay.
Vice Chair Baltay: Good morning. Thank you. I find myself in general agreement with my colleague, Alex
Lew, on his opinion on this, and I think I will be able to be supportive of the project with a few continual
adjustments. I do think that the building has evolved sufficiently to bring the massing towards El Camino
and minimize its impact on Palo Alto Redwoods condominium. I hope it might be able to be changed a
little bit more, but I find it impressive that they've been able to pull the building away, that they've clearly
done a lot of thoughtful study to reduce the height of the building, the mass, the functionality of the
hotel, so as to minimize its impact. It's not zero impact, but I think when you put a large hotel like this,
there will be some impact. That's what the City is allowing and seems to desire. I'm also impressed by
their putting the courtyard on the side next to the neighbor's pool area. It just seems to make sense to
have those functions next to each other, to mitigate or offset those uses. So many comments and pieces
here. On the site planning, I think it really works pretty well. Having the drive-through porte-cochere being 25 feet wide will be better than most hotels we see on El Camino, and that there is room for, my guess, six different taxis, Ubers, checking in people, at the same time. No, it can't handle a tour bus, but it can handle guests and guest vehicles, taxis, things, fairly well, I'd say. And having a two-story basement garage is a wonderful thing to have. It lets you have a number of spots that are just regular
parking spaces, and I think the parking will work fine given what we've seen with other hotels in the
area. I like the site planning and the thought that's gone into all that. My biggest, I guess, idea on this is
that I think you could put a few more of the rooms up in the front, and perhaps remove some of the
height at the back of the hotel on the fourth and fifth floor. There is a stair tower and then some king
bedrooms that are still having a bigger impact than they perhaps need to on the fourth floor, looking
back to Palo Alto Redwoods. And if the architect could find a way to take that secondary stair tower and
move it forward in the project, it will take some messing around with the planning, but if you were to do
that, the stair tower is the single tallest element. And while it's true there's no windows and activity
looking at the Palo Alto Redwoods, it does look large. It's got to be the full height of the building, the full
five stories. And I know it could be worked out. If you were to somehow shift that two rooms forward,
say, and try to get, say, three of those back rooms or so, just instead, put them up in the front. I'm looking at the floor plans for the third, fourth and fifth floor, where you have a fitness room and some king bedrooms, and then, a curved roof area. And you've got actually a convoluted hallway. If you could just straighten out the hall, you might get two or three more rooms sort of in the middle, between the
City of Palo Alto Page 37
two wings of the buildings up on top. That wouldn't really hurt the look of the building. It might even
help to keep the massive sense on El Camino where it belongs, but it would let you further mitigate the
impact on the condominiums in the back, which I think is really your biggest challenge on this project.
You're trying to fit in next to a large number of people who have been living peacefully there for a long
time. So, the more things you can do, which you have been doing, but I think you could do it just a little
bit more without hurting...Actually, I think it would enhance the overall functionality of the floor plan.
Again, if you were to mess around with the fitness room and hallway configurations on levels 3 and 4 and 5, you probably could get a couple more rooms up front there and help bring that together some. That's just a floor planning thing, but I'd like to see you further reduce the height and mass of the building at the back near the condominiums, especially where that stair tower is. I think...Let's see, to shift gears. On the building design and materials and stuff, I'm concerned about the roof forms being too thin and lightweight. And I understand the concept ideas of these thin, sloped roofs, but to me, the design of this
building just wants a thicker, flat roof that has a little more presence to it, especially on the El Camino
side. We really don't have details of how that looks and stuff, but I continually think that this looks too
lightweight to my eye. Echoing Board Member Thompson's comments earlier, I think also the left and the
right parts of the elevation on El Camino are slightly disjointed, not in materials or vocabulary, but just
the way that you, you bring up the parapet walls on one side to sort of flank in the outdoor deck, but on
the other side, you leave it a glass railing all around. Those are refinements and details, but I think it
would help to just take one more look at that all-important El Camino elevation. I'm very supportive,
however, of the overall look on El Camino. I think it's a handsome building and will meet the El Camino
Real guidelines. I think you've done a wonderful job in livening the pedestrian experience down that grade with, just the way the porte-cochere goes through, and having the tables and the bar activity out in the front there. That's all good stuff, that's all stuff that we're asking you to do with our guidelines. That, combined with the balconies up on the top, and then, some changes to the roof, you've really got a handsome-looking building. This could join your neighbors in winning awards, I think. I would like to see
more architectural construction, details or thought put into how that porte-cochere, and then, the curved
double-story glazed wall actually works. How does the eve of that fit on top of the glass roof, and what
happens on top of that? Is there landscaping or something up there? I just couldn’t quite understand
some of these drawings. I know that's details again, but I'd like to see that. On the materials of the
building, I share the comments that the Trespa panel on the front may be handsome, but shifting to the
Hardie board at the back does leave a disjointed feeling to the building, and it's an unfortunate thing. I'd
like to see if you couldn't find a material that's consistent through the building. I understand there's
economic reasons to that, but if you really are getting 800 bucks a night for a room, you owe it to your
tenants to make it a high-quality design all around. We've said this over and over. The Hardie plank stuff
is perhaps not quite the highest quality material you could use for this type of building. But certainly, you don't want it to feel disjointed, two different architects' kind of a feeling, which I think you have. It did catch my eye that the enclosure around the stair tower that is closest to the neighbors' swimming pool area is a pretty dramatic impact. It's a large element that when you flash back and forth on your images, which were wonderful to see, that five-story element looms over their swimming pool complex. It would
be really nice to understand what that's made of and see if there's even a way to mitigate further your
material choice, to just somehow make it not look so looming. Right now, I understand it's some sort of a
metal louvre mess, but there must be, just with some more thought, a way to maybe make it feel a little
more transparent, or just appealing-looking. Because right now, I think you're in the right direction, but
not quite there. Let's see. I'm also not quite convinced that your bicycle parking is in the right locations.
As I see it, one rack of bicycle parking is right in the porte-cochere next to the front of the building, and
the other rack is all the way around in the back, off the courtyard. I would guess that some of your
employees will ride bicycles to this hotel. A small number of neighbors might ride there if they're meeting
a friend to have a beer or something. But I very much doubt your guests are going to arrive at the hotel
on bicycle. Having the bicycle parking right up front and center like that is probably not realistic. Having
the bicycle parking in the back in the courtyard is, it's kind of tough unless you want your employees dragging their bikes around there. I don't know what the answer is, but it seems to me you haven't quite got there with the bicycle parking. There's plenty of places you could do to make it work, but really ask yourself, who's going to be riding their bicycles here? How are we going to make it work? And come back
with a better answer on that. Okay. That's what I have to offer right now. The biggest single thing I think
City of Palo Alto Page 38
is if you could somehow remove a couple more of the units at the back and relocate that stair tower. You
would further mitigate the impact on the neighboring condominiums. Thank you.
Chair Furth: Thank you, and thank you to the applicant for a plan set that I thought was really, really
good in terms of explaining what you were proposing to do, having large enough type so that I could
read it, and having a number of illustrations. And, thank you to the public for their careful comments and
analysis and consideration on this project. I share the frustration of some of the members of the public
about reviewing a project without environmental documents, and I will keep an open mind about the project in light of the incomplete information. I look forward to having a chance to read and study the transportation demand management program. I have been in a number of hotels where it's pretty clear that the hotel is operating under a TDM permit, so there are various things to tick the boxes. My own experience has been, for example, that one shuttle will never, never letting me get to the nearest transit
station because it was always off doing something else. So, I think these are tricky to do, hard to
administer. But, having said that, I don't have a per se objection to variances, deviations, modifications of
parking standards. Parking standards are in our code. They are an attempt to estimate how things will
work best. They are never perfect, and in some cases, a modification is appropriate. I don’t know if this is
one of those. A bigger concern for me is curb management. I went to the Planning and Transportation
Commission meeting yesterday. They were discussing modifications to El Camino Real, removing parking,
adding parking lanes, and otherwise doing things that might implement the grand boulevard vision, which
is that over time, this would be a more pleasant place to walk, to sit, to bicycle, to be, and not simply a
thoroughfare through our city. And there's a disconnect between that vision and a vision of having ride-
sharing services picking up and dropping off people curbside in front of buildings. And we spend a lot of time up here, looking at mixed-use projects and residential projects, and people keep saying, "Oh, the loading zone will be over here," or, "Oh, they'll pick up over there." Well, they're not going to do that if there's a bike lane there. And so, this is a problem that we haven't solved. As I said to them last night, generally when we see hotel proposals, there's enough room and design to do something about that, to
at least get Uber and Lyft off the street. What concerns me, and what I'm looking forward to hearing
about, is whether there is enough room. What particularly concerns me is the idea of having vehicles
loading and unloading there. Not passenger vehicles. How does it work with shuttles, and Uber, and Door
Dash? And more than that, the whole issue of buses. When we shift from the old pattern, which is a
small building in a sea of asphalt, I have a lot of problems, there's a lot of reasons it's undesirable, but it
did give the buses and the delivery people somewhere to go that didn't cause a problem in terms of
traffic flow, or pedestrian and bicycle safety along El Camino Real. So, I look forward to hearing more
about that. I do not see hotels as being powerless to regulate the presence or absence of tour buses. I
think it's more like the situation when we deal with private schools, where they have a lot of control over
how their pupils, staff, etc., arrive, and I suspect this is also the case for hotels, but I don't know. At the moment, I don't think I have enough information about how either there would not be tour buses, or how they would be handled if there were, to make the required findings about the functionality of the operation. I am sympathetic to the request for study of early-morning sunlight because I think early-morning sunlight in one's home is one of the most precious kinds. Maybe it's because I'm older. I wake
up early because the sunlight means a lot to me in the early morning. I suppose I could take my coffee
and go over to the recreational center, but I think this is important, and I'm glad you're looking into it.
And there is a difference between filtered light and no light. A big difference. Having said that, I don't
think that we can expect to protect the neighborhood from that kind of darkness that's likely to result
from a 35-foot structure. That was always a possibility. I'm sort of interested in the marginal change. I
wanted to thank the applicant for the colored shadow studies. I find them much easier to read what I
think you're intending to convey than I usually do, and I appreciate them very much. If the neighbors are
going to do shadow studies, I look forward to seeing them, too. Noise. Generally speaking, our
ordinances...You know, decibel standards are not very helpful for dealing with people getting jovial in an
open space late at night. I live downtown. I'm very aware of people being jovial late at night as they go
back to their cars, and no decibel standard is going to help with that. I would like to hear more from staff on what existing regulations there are, and what operational regulations there might be, so that neighbors don't have to worry about late-night noise from people in good spirits -- or bad -- next door. In case you're wondering why I use a computer, it's because my handwriting is terrible and it's the only way
I can take notes while you're talking. I don't find story poles that helpful for a structure this complicated.
City of Palo Alto Page 39
They just don't provide a whole lot of information, in my experience. I have quite a bit of confidence in
our arborist and in the work they've done, and if they tell me that the work that the applicants have done
is highly unlikely to damage the redwood trees, my inclination is to believe them. I like a lot of things I
see in your landscaping plan. I'm a little perplexed as to why you would use sansevieria and kangaroo
pods in something that is inspired by a redwood forest. I've never seen either of those plants anywhere
near a redwood forest, or even anything like them, so, I look forward to thinking a little bit more about
the landscaping. In terms of neighborhood compatibility, I disagree with some of the public speakers. I do think that this new design, which I think is a big improvement, and I appreciate it, has thought a lot about compatibility. I think they thought a lot about impact on the Palo Alto Redwoods recreation center, which I think is important. I don't know if they're already there yet, but I think they made progress there. And I think they've taken note of what the sort of design environment in that part of the city is, which is woodsy. You have trees even bigger than your buildings, and it's not just you. I mean, you have Dinah's,
which has always had this kind of garden court effect. Oddly enough, even your most...Even the Cabana
Hotel has a mature, dense landscaping on its very, very big parking lot, so that the over, you know, the
overwhelming impression from the streets is practically woods. You know, the little Palo Alto...What is it
at the north? Inn? That's the same domination of wood or wood-like materials and landscaping, so I
appreciate that approach. I like...I think it's very thoughtful and clever to move your drive to the far side
of the building, from the point of view of people driving by. That looks like good design to me. I like your
café/bar opening to the sidewalk. I'm still looking for the place where I sit down if I'm walking down and
don't want a drink or coffee. Where do I take my break as I'm walking down that block, because there
aren't others. The buildings next to you don't have them. I think we all take seriously the finding that this should enhance the experience for people nearby. I think it could. It could buffer noise. It could provide a social amenity. It could provide a good thing to have in your neighborhood in terms of the café and the general improvement of that sidewalk frontage, which isn't particularly lovely now. Whether I can make that finding or not is going to depend upon being assured that the project design can accommodate the
traffic that will be around it and affected by it, and generated by it. And that the modifications of light are
the ones that reasonably have to be expected. I can understand that people were not expecting a 50-foot
building, so I'm going to be looking at the setback from their property and the effect on lights from the
lower, the bottom 35 feet of the structure, whatever you might otherwise expect. What else do I have
here? On construction damage, I would like to hear back on how we manage it and what we predict. I do
not believe...We're not building this building on top of sunken ships, so I think it's a little different than
the soil situations in the San Francisco Bay. They probably removed all the sunken ships by now. But of
course, for years, that's what that waterfront building was on top of. It was really unstable. I'm fairly
confident that we have better soil study and engineering and a much more conventional, lighter structure
here. But I do understand the anxiety about construction damage. I don't know what's going to go on in terms of pile driving, or whatever, and I would like to hear. I've been in a number of cities recently where this is a big issue. In Oslo, they allow dynamiting right in the city, and broken china is a big issue. I think that's right for people to ask about, and for us to answer the question. I apologize if I didn't, if I appear not to have considered your comments. I have, and will continue to do so. This project is built right now
at maximum floor area ratio, right? Very close to the maximum allowed square footage?
Mr. Gutierrez: Yes, very close, actually. It's, rounded up, it's actually 1.9 [crosstalk]....
Chair Furth: Okay.
Mr. Gutierrez: ...FAR, but we rounded up because it's just simpler to break that [crosstalk].
Chair Furth: And I also wanted to say one more thing about whether this building is compatible with the
frontage along El Camino. For the last 15 years or so, we've had a design directive from the City that
basically says El Camino is a big, broad boulevard, it should have fairly substantial buildings fairly close to
the street to make a space that works. And there are trade-offs. You know, you lose views to the hill, and
other things may happen, but generally, that's the direction we're moving. I'm supportive of it, and I
think it's better to have the mass closer to the street. It does not particularly bother me that it might be 50 feet tall. I particularly think that's favorable, preferable to having height towards the rear of the structure. Height alone, I don't think makes it incompatible. We have a rather tall structure across the
City of Palo Alto Page 40
street, decorative, to be true, but I think this is part of the transition of the city from border to border,
along El Camino Real, and I think that a well-designed, attractive building that minimizes its impacts on
its neighbors to the rear, because those are the most sensitive neighbors, is something we could
approve. Anything else from staff? Would you like a motion to continue this to a date uncertain?
Mr. Gutierrez: Yes, please.
MOTION
Chair Furth: Do I have a motion?
Board Member Lew: I'll make a motion that we continue this item to a date uncertain.
Board Member Gooyer: I'll second.
Chair Furth: Okay, motion by Lew, second by Robert, to continue this to a date uncertain. All those in
favor? Seeing no opposition, that passes 4-0-1. We have one absence because Board Member Thompson
has left the meeting. Which I forgot to record for the minutes, but right after she made her comments.
All right. Thank you for coming.
MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 4-0.
Study Session [not addressed]
Approval of Minutes [not addressed]
Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements
Chair Furth: We will take a five-minute break before we go on to our next items, which are...Let's see.
We have...Actually, we just have subcommittee. Are there any board member questions, comments or
announcements?
Board Member Lew: The next North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan meeting is next Wednesday at the downtown library, at 5:30.
Chair Furth: Thank you. It would probably be a good idea for us as board members, and for people who live on El Camino Real, to take a look at the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting video or
minutes of yesterday, when they're talking about re-envisioning El Camino Real with a grand boulevard
modification. I don't think they've had a lot of public feedback from you, and it's probably important. We
will now adjourn the meeting.
Adjournment
Subcommittee Items
[The following items were discussed off-camera.]
4. 744 San Antonio Road [15PLN-00314]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously
Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to
Lighting. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Section 15061(b)(3) That the
Project is not Subject to CEQA Because the Proposed Revisions Will not Have a Significant Effect on the Environment. Zoning Districts: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@mgroup.us
City of Palo Alto Page 41
**** emailed 12/21
5. 3945 El Camino Real [16PLN-00374]: Second Subcommittee Review of a Previously
Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to 1)
Designated Guest Parking Spaces, 2) Details for Several Material Choices, 3) Location
and Design of at Least two Benches, and 4) Alternative Colors/Stains for the Siding.
Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning Districts: CS/RM-30. For More Information Contact Project Planner Graham Owen at graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org
Revised plans dated November 08, 2018 were reviewed by the ARB Subcommittee. At the meeting, the Subcommittee agreed with the revisions as presented and without additional conditions of approval. The applicant shall ensure these revised plans are incorporated into the design.
6. 3223 Hanover Street: Subcommittee Review of Building 1 (16PLN-00190) and Building 2 (17PLN-00255) Landscaping and Bicycle Path Improvement Plans in
Accordance with Respective Conditions of Approval. Board Member Questions,
Comments or Announcement
Landscaping plans dated November 15, 2018 were reviewed by the ARB Subcommittee (Furth and Lew).
At the meeting, the Subcommittee agreed with the revisions presented with the following conditions
added:
1. The plans submitted for on-site permit shall incorporate the following changes to the landscaping along the eastern edge of the project site to the satisfaction of the Planning Director: a. Provide landscape and/or structural improvements that completely screen vehicle headlights at the eastern edge of the lower parking lot from view of the adjacent residences to the east.
Maximize the screening effect of the existing oaks and proposed landscaping in combination with
the proposed hedges, walls, and berms.
b. Provide densely-planted, low-profile shrubs on either side of the spur in order to reduce the
potential for loitering and to maintain adequate lines of sight at the path intersection.
c. Remove bollards from the path spur, and include a stop sign and corresponding STOP path
markings at the approach to the intersection.
The applicant shall ensure these changes/conditions are incorporated into the design.